**A delegation of Chinese engineers, including Huawei, proposed to ITU in Geneva a new internet infrastructure to replace that dominated by American technology companies. Some see it as the beginning of a bloody war for the control of the Web, others put it into perspective. State of play.** In February, nearly 180 people gathered in a room of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) located a stone's throw from Place des Nations in Geneva. Reason: listen to a team of Chinese engineers present a new IP (internet protocol) on behalf of Huawei, China Unicom, China Telecom and the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. Completely new internet infrastructure. In the past, various alternatives to the current internet, dominated by American technology companies, the Gafam, have already been presented. But this episode, recently told by the Financial Times (FT),appears to be the most serious battle ever waged to control the Web. A combat which is superimposed on the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China, on the one hand, and on the model of democratic or authoritarian society, on the other. State authority. At the ITU, the United Nations agency responsible for many standards in this area, the new Chinese IP, apparently in the development phase, was explained using a PowerPoint, but without much detail. The purpose of the demonstration was, however, to show that the current internet is no longer up to new technologies, hologram communication, autonomous cars or remote surgery. According to the FT, Russia would support the Chinese proposal. States like Iran and Saudi Arabia would also be interested in a model advocating "top down" internet management where the state enjoys full internet sovereignty. What should we think about the new Chinese IP? One of the fathers of the Swedish internet and digital advisor to the government in Stockholm, Patrik Fältström, is very critical. "One thing irritates me. The Chinese proposal says it will solve all internet problems, but we don't know which ones. ” He fears that the new Chinese IP will give the state absolute authority to say who could connect to the internet. To see how Beijing manages the internet, this prospect looks like a scarecrow. He noted: "Even if we are captive of big techs, we can always choose not to use Google." Director of the DiploFoundation in Geneva and responsible for the Geneva Internet Platform, Jovan Kurbalija believes that the Chinese proposal has several merits: “It has been well tested in academic circles. It is discussed in a regular ITU process and can be implemented quickly by Huawei and major Chinese companies. ” Jovan Kurbalija continues: “Many organizations have already worked on a new internet protocol, be it the Internet Engineering Task Force, Google with its Quick or Mozilla by its DNS via HTTP. The Chinese proposal is only a compilation of these efforts, of academic projects. ” The director of DiploFoundation adds: “For the first time, China is showing intellectual superiority on a global scale. It does not act as the sole manufacturer of products, but gives a new direction to the field of technology. ” Contacted, the Federal Office of Communication (Ofcom) is cautious: “It is still too early to give a serious assessment. Discussions on the subject of a new IP are in their infancy in ITU, where the term has not yet been clearly defined. ” Mainly political problems. Internet freedom and democracy threatened by Chinese project, as FT suggests? Researcher at the University of Amsterdam, Niels ten Oever refutes this analysis: "We do not solve political or even economic problems with technology." If we want a more horizontal internet, it would already be necessary for states and universities that entrust their messaging to Google to give it up and manage their own networks. "We must avoid going towards algorithmic governance." The researcher adds: “The new Chinese PI is old wine in a new bottle. For the time being, this is only a proposal. However, I remind you that at present, 9000 internet standards are not applied. The Internet is a cemetery of ideas. For me, the question is not whether we want an internet managed by multinationals that self-regulate or if we want it to be managed by the State. We Europeans, with our social democratic fiber, Niels ten Oever refreshes our memory: “I remind you that at the start, the internet was a public project. States took all the risks and it was only afterwards that commercial companies became interested in it and reaped all the profits. Until 1993, no commercial project was authorized on the Web. So it's up to us to know what we want. In any case, the battle for standards is not new. It has been around for a long time in organizations like ICANN and ITU. What you need to know now is how to build public infrastructure on a private network. ” Jovan Kurbalija does not see China moving forward alone. Beijing does not need a new internet protocol to control its internet. He's already in complete control. But China, a technological superpower, has the means to influence other countries. "China cannot go it alone, because if it refuses to find a compromise with the European Union, it risks losing access to the large European market as well as to other markets of developing countries. I think she will be willing to find a compromise. ” Ofcom tempers: "The current state of the discussions, which are at their very beginning, does not allow to assess whether a consensus on the new IP will be found within the ITU." Fragmentation. The Financial Times warns of the emergence of a "patchwork of national internet". Niels ten Oever doesn't believe it: “The Internet is always interconnected. It is actually the consumer who fragments it by deciding not to explore certain parts of it. ” Director of the Swiss Cybersecurity Advisory and Research Group at the University of Lausanne, Solange Ghernaouti puts it in perspective: "We have been talking about a balkanization of the internet, a national reappropriation of the Web for fifteen years." Since the 2003 World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva, there have been questions about how to get out of pure American control. This gave birth to the Internet Governance Forum in 2006. Since then, adds Solange Ghernaouti, progress has been noted with regard to the management of IP addresses and domain names, on which internet access depends. The alphanumeric alphabet is no longer the only one authorized. The Chinese initiative goes further by proposing other ways to control network accessibility. More recently, under the aegis of Unesco, there was the call from Paris by Emmanuel Macron: "For confidence and security in cyberspace". Solange Ghernaouti notes: “We are in a geopolitical war for the control of infrastructure and personal and industrial data. Beijing wants to take control of the global digital production apparatus, this is the direction of the battle around 5G and a new internet. Perhaps we will rediscover the importance of multilateralism and that taken by our digital dependence. ” Ambassador of the Netherlands for the digital economy, Lousewies van der Laan nuances in a letter from readers addressed to the FT . For her, the internet is not broken. Despite under-investment in data centers and fiber, the technical infrastructure of the internet is holding up well. If there are problems, she continues, they are above all political. In the end, the long-term solution "is no more state control over the internet, as China and Russia have proposed to the ITU". For the diplomat, states must rather ensure that cybercriminals are prosecuted, that big techs pay taxes, that data is protected, that security standards are applied and finally that the population is better trained. ITU's prominent role at the heart of international Geneva. While a Chinese delegation has just proposed a completely new architecture for the Internet, the International Telecommunication Union is playing the role of essential platform for dialogue. But the Sino-American battle could marginalize Geneva In the battle for control of the internet, what role for the International Telecommunication Union? At ITU, we have been talking about future internet governance for years. And then in February 2017, there was the call from Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, for a digital Geneva Convention. Today, there is the Chinese initiative of new IP. Bilel Jamoussi, head of the Study Groups Department in the ITU standardization sector, is convinced: “The ITU continues to play the role of hub for technological dialogue. It is all the more important as the standards used for the internet fall very largely within its remit. ” For him, it is necessary to move up a gear, to have a much wider bandwidth, enhanced connectivity and security. The new Chinese IP is not an attempt to add a layer to the existing network. “It's a paradigm shift. But a consensus is not for tomorrow. ” Discussions will continue in the ITU Technical Committee 13 chaired by the Swiss Leo Lehmann. The Chinese proposal will be debated again in India in November. The pressures on the ITU are enormous. Some deplore that the proliferation of forums leaning on the internet in Geneva creates great confusion. They wonder if the debate on the future governance of the Internet will not escape Geneva. The Federal Office of Communications contests this vision of things: “At a time when positions in the field of digital governance are hardening, a neutral place like international Geneva is becoming increasingly important. […] The strengthening of international Geneva, in particular in the digital domain,SB https://www.letemps.ch/monde/chine-exacerbe-bataille-controle-dinternet