Recommendations for Future Action

Since the first phase of WSIS many recommendations have been put forward to advance in the solution of this issue. The WSIS has stated:¹⁹

• 
  “Internet transit and interconnection costs should be oriented towards objective, transparent and non-discriminatory parameters, taking into account ongoing work on this subject.”
  
• 
  “The creation and development of regional ICT backbones and Internet exchange points, to reduce interconnection costs and broaden network access.”
  

• 
  Invite international agencies and the donor community to intensify their studies in this area, in particular to examine alternative solutions, such as the development of regional IP backbones and the establishment of local and regional access points.
  
• 
  Call on the groups studying Internet governance issues to take note of the WSIS Declaration of Principles, i.e., to be multilateral, transparent and democratic and to have the capacity to address Internet governance in a coordinated manner, based on a multi-stakeholder approach.
  
• 
  Invite relevant international organizations to report on these matters to whatever forum, body or mechanism(s) that the WSIS will create for issues related to Internet governance and global coordination.
  
• 
  Encourage donor programs and other developmental financing mechanisms to take note of the need to provide funding for initiatives that advance connectivity, IXPs and local content for developing countries.
  
• 
  Build on current international agreements, encourage interested parties to continue and intensify work in relevant international organizations on international Internet connectivity issues.
  

• 
  Promote the establishment of national and regional IXPs and hubs to provide a better utilization of international capacities by keeping local/regional traffic local/regional.²¹ This aggregation will also give smaller networks and ISPs in developing countries greater bargaining power when negotiating international interconnection arrangements. Additionally, content providers of developed countries should be encouraged to mirror their content in those regional exchanges.
  
• 
  Promote the creation of local content in developing countries that can be of interest to Internet users in developed countries. Then the indirect network benefits provided by content providers in developing countries to the backbone operators could be taken into consideration in the interconnection prices offered to developing countries ISPs.
  
• 
  Encourage national authorities to take steps to open markets to competitive entry and promote increased competition in the market place, to create an enabling environment that encourages investment and/or international infrastructure assistance.
  
• 
  Include provisions from the ITU-T Recommendation D.50 in a treaty-level instrument, for example the International Telecommunication Regulations, so as to give them binding force. It has also been suggested that there should be a binding international dispute resolution mechanism similar perhaps to what exists in the WTO, to deal with these matters.
  
• 
  Include Internet services under the WTO agreement on basic telecommunications services because it offers a suitable framework within which access to Internet backbone services would be ensured in cases where these services are supplied by dominating suppliers.
  
• 
  Encourage developing countries to associate the IIC issue with other issues that might be of interest to developed countries, such as enforcement of intellectual property rights, liberalization of services, etc. That is, much as the developed countries link implementation of the WTO TRIPs provisions to other trade provisions of interest to developing countries, developing countries could, at least in principle, link resolution of the IIC costs issue to ongoing negotiations on other trade liberalization matters.