While most of the Internet governance world’s focus is on the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) coming this December, which will renegotiate the International Telecommunications Regulation treaty, the ITU has already begun preparations for another global conference next year, the World Telecommunications Policy Forum (WTPF). WTPF will consider a broader range of issues, certainly including Internet governance and public policy, including Internet content.

The ITU Secretary General has been preparing a report that will form the basis for discussions at WTPF, in consultation with ITU Member States’ governments and independent experts. One sentence in the Third Draft, and the comments received from one Member State, give a flavour of what is at stake.

2.3.1. l) Some take the view that the Internet, as a decentralized and open system, must be allowed to enable the world’s citizens to connect freely and express themselves consistent with fundamental principles of freedom of expression, while taking into consideration national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals . — Third Draft, Secretary-General’s Report to the WTPF, page 7

This sentence prompted comments from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia about the limits of freedom of expression, and the need (as it sees it) for an international body to address uses of freedom of expression that it considers undesirable:

Freedom of expression is a recognized fundamental principle but is subject to considerations of national security, public order, public health and public morals (Art. 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -1966, and Art. 34 of the ITU Constitution). It is also recognized that national mores differ – what may be considered acceptable free speech in one country may be considered an offensive and unacceptable in another. Bearing in mind that countries cannot apply their own laws to acts in another country, there is a crying need for international collaboration to address “freedom of expression” which clearly disregards public order. An obvious example is the current anti-Islamic film on YouTube which was created with the clear intent of conveying hatred. Any reasonable person would know that this film would foment violence and, indeed, many innocent persons have died and been injured with this film as a root cause. Yet neither the authors nor the content provider are being held accountable for their responsibility to maintain public order. This behavior, along with other malicious and criminal activities such as child pornography, identity theft, spam, denial of service attacks, and malware aimed at destroying or crippling businesses, inter alia, must be addressed by states in a collaborative and cooperative environment and strongly underscores the need for enhanced cooperation.— Contribution 26, Comments by Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (emphasis added)

The use of the term “enhanced cooperation” is a reference to a compromise phrase chosen at the World Summit on the Information Society in 2005. To some, it simply means co-operation between the traditional Internet institutions and governments and other stakeholders, including commitments to openness and transparency in Internet policy institutions. To others – and Saudi Arabia would be in this camp – “enhanced cooperation” means and can only be said to be properly delivered by a formalised inter-governmental approach to Internet governance.