In today’s political climate, it is rare to
hear a unified voice from Congress, especially one pertaining to regulation. In
today’s House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology’s hearing on
“Fighting for Internet Freedom: Dubai and Beyond” one such voice was heard. The
overall consensus from member participants was a clear demand to keep the
Internet open and free. Held jointly with the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation and Trade and the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights and International Organizations. The hearing focused on
last December’s World Conference on International Telecommunications convened
by the ITU in
Dubai.
Public Knowledge’s Harold Feld testified
on behalf of civil society. As an advisory member to the US delegation to
Dubai, Harold was positioned to give a first hand account of both the successes
and difficulties of working within a multi-stakeholder approach. While Public
Knowledge considers the inclusion of civil society within the US delegation an
important step
forward, there were limitations to which civil society was able to
participate. It is also important to recognize the difficulties this approach
presents to stakeholders from developing nations that cannot participate to the
degree in which other delegations can. This creates both an opportunity and
challenge for the US, both domestically and abroad.
As revealed in the testimony, there was a
clear line drawn in the sand between the US and allies and those countries that
sought to ensure that Internet governance was included within ITR’s; regulations that are an opportunity to tackle
many other issues at the convergence of business and government. Although efforts were made by countries
such as China, Saudi Arabia and Russia to push proposals
that would drastically change the open nature of the Internet, many were successfully rebuffed.
However this very attempt, as stated by panelist
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, is proof of the incremental behavior and
commitment of the governments of countries like China to move forward with an
agenda of censorship. The active inclusion of language by member states that
attempt to expand government control over free expression caused the United
States, along with 53 other countries, to refuse to sign the
ITR’s. However, the very attempt was the cause of much concern for the
members of all committees, many of which emphasized the importance of opposing
efforts to diminish the open framework of the Internet.
Panelists and members discussed opportunities
to oppose these efforts, through supporting a resolution
maintaining US support for a global Internet free from government control and
the continuation of a multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet. Other
options lie in fostering our relationships with delegations in developing
nations. Nations that view the United States a global Internet leader, many of
which are successfully engaged by organizations such as the Internet Society.
Going
forward, it is clear that the subject of Internet governance is at the
forefront of congressional concern. Whether that concern can remain optimistic
in nature depends on how we choose to engage others and the continued inclusion
of civil society as a valued stakeholder.