[lit-ideas] UN Internet Power Grab (Technology Equivalent Of Kyoto)
- From: "M.A. Camp" <macampesq@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 09:14:29 -0500
Breaking America's grip on the net
Guardian
^<http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html>|
October 6, 2005 | Kieren McCarthy
After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish
control of the internet to a coalition of governments
You would expect an announcement that would forever change the face of the
internet to be a grand affair - a big stage, spotlights, media scrums and a
charismatic frontman working the crowd. But unless you knew where he was
sitting, all you got was David Hendon's slightly apprehensive voice through
a beige plastic earbox. The words were calm, measured and unexciting, but
their implications will be felt for generations to come.
Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business
relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European
Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month's World
Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political coup
over the running of the internet.
Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat just
feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon explained
the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral control of the
internet and put in place a new body that would now run this revolutionary
communications medium.
The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely divisive
issue, and for 11 days the world's governments traded blows. For the vast
majority of people who use the internet, the only real concern is getting on
it. But with the internet now essential to countries' basic infrastructure -
Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the question of who has
control has become critical.
And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. In the
early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and funded
expansion of the internet. And when it became global, it created a private
company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) to
run it.
But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had
always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the internet's
foundation - its "root servers", which act as the basic directory for the
whole internet. **
A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba,
Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it
refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a
bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide
public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would
be in overall charge.
Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative
hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went
against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the
internet.
But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's
governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate
control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next
month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US
government can do but acquiesce.
But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that "even
on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set
policies, UN-set policies"?
No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet
governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not
concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet.
Standards are set by the users."
Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU doesn't
want to see this change as bringing new government control over the
internet. Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only
on issues setting the top-level framework."
Human rights
But expert and author of Ruling the Root, Milton Mueller, is not so sure. An
overseeing council "could interfere with standards. What would stop it
saying 'when you're making this standard for data transfer you have to
include some kind of surveillance for law enforcement'?"
Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for filtering
content from the net within its borders. Tunisia - host of the World Summit
- has also come under attack for silencing online voices. Mueller doesn't
see a governmental overseeing council having any impact: "What human rights
groups want is for someone to be able to bring some kind of enforceable
claim to stop them violating people's rights. But how's that going to
happen? I can't see that a council is going to be able to improve the human
rights situation."
And what about business? Will a governmental body running the internet add
unnecessary bureaucracy or will it bring clarity and a coherent system?
Mueller is unsure: "The idea of the council is so vague. It's not clear to
me that governments know what to do about anything at this stage apart from
get in the way of things that other people do."
There are still dozens of unanswered questions but all the answers are
pointing the same way: international governments deciding the internet's
future. The internet will never be the same again.
--
Cheers,
M.A . Camp, Esq.
Other related posts:
