From: FierceGovernmentIT

The merits of multistakeholder governance over the  Internet received strong praise from Lawrence Strickling, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, during a June 15 speech.

“Whatever odds you give for the likelihood the [International Telecommunications Union] takes over the Internet, it is absolutely imperative  for us to keep speaking out on the need for multistakeholder processes,” he told a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce telecommunications and e-commerce committee in Washington, D.C.

Strickling was referring in large measure to the upcoming December World  Conference on International Telecommunications meeting of the ITU in Dubai–aka  the WCIT-12–to renegotiate International Telecommunication Regulations.

That meeting has been the subject  of concern–some of it clearly unwarranted–that the WCIT-12 will pave the way  for United Nations “control over the Internet.” Only yesterday, on June 21, the  House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a sense of Congress resolution (H. Con.  Res.  127) decrying proposals “in international bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly” that “would justify under international law  increased government control over the Internet and would reject the current  multistakeholder model.”

Strickling, for his part, said proposals that will be heard at the WCIT-12,  if adopted, “would undermine a critical part of the diverse, multi-layered  Internet,” citing propositions to modify the ITRs so that the costs of  international bandwidth is shared and to include anti-cyber crime measures.  (WCIT-12 documents are being posted onto  WCITLeaks.org.)

Observers, even those critical of the those WCIT-12 proposals, say that the conference nonetheless does constitute a new attempt to take over the Internet.

The connectivity cost-sharing proposal is “a continuation of long-running battles over the way the Internet has disrupted traditional telecom businesses  and markets,” said Syracuse  University Professor Milton Mueller in a June 9 blog post. That proposal  reflects a “pining for the good old days of predictable settlements” on the part  of telecommunication authorities (many of which are state-run), Mueller says,  and should not be enshrined in the ITRs. But, even if approved, it’s unclear how  a new charging arrangement could be implemented, he added.

The anti-cyber crime proposal is “typical of the vague,  impossible-to-operationalize language that often populates international  agreements,” Mueller also wrote.

For more: – read  a text of Strickling’s June 15 speech – read  Mueller’s June 9 blog post