Weblogsky: Internet power grab

« South Asian Quake Help Blog | Main | Yahoo blog search »

Internet power grab

There's a huge fuss over the idea that the United Nations (or some other international group) should assume responsibility for "Internet governance." The Internet is decentralized and the concept of "governance" doesn't quite seem applicable, but we're talking about governance of a fundamental part of the Internet's structure, the assignment of domain names and numbers, currently managed by The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. If you look at ICANN's site, you get a sense of the complexity of governance. Declan McCullagh has a very good piece about the proposed "power grab" and the implications of a possible balkanization of the Internet:

This may seem like a complicated political muddle that only Talleyrand could love, but this process is important. If it spirals out of control, we could end up with a Balkanized Internet in which the U.S. attempts to retain control of its root servers and a large portion of the world veers in an incompatible direction.

This would amount to a nuclear option in which a new top-level domain would not be visible in the U.S. and its client states--but would be used in many other nations. The downside, of course, comes when two computers find different Web sites at the same address.

He goes on explain a key concern about governance via the UN:

The autocratic, bellicose Bush administration is no paragon of civil liberties virtue, but letting delegates from Cuba, Iran and Tunisia decide on the principles for an open and democratic Internet would be an even worse alternative.

jon posted this at 9:11 AM
Share on Facebook| email to a friend

Comments

I think the UN might be among the worst choices of organizations to oversee the internet. Not that I think America has a right, or a good argument to retain control. But, to give you a preview of how the UN would run the Internet, let's look at their history:

In 2003, the UN's World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) failed to reach an agreement on how the net should be run. As a result, they setup the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)to reach an agreement. Two years later, the WGIG has announced its total and complete failure to reach an agreement.

My take? Clearly, the next step is for the UN to setup a Working Group on the Working group on Internet Governance (WGWGIG). Perhaps WGWGIG could do what the UN does best, and write an angry letter to WGIG. After WGWGIG "issues" its angry letter, then perhaps we could have delegates from both WGIG and WGWGIG meet to "discuss tensions" in Luxemburg. After the WGIG/WGWGIG summit, they could announce a resolution, or "less angry letter."

After months of further talks, the WGWGIG and WGIG would announce the formation of the "Federation of Internet Governance Working Groups". The FIGWG would be the oversite body which now would oversee all future interaction between WGIG and WGWGIG, and would be comprised of 10 delegates elected from each group.

Then, with confidence, we could say "there is a UN body overseeing Internet Governence." Not that the body would accomplish anything good. But the UN is all talk. They bring forward "feel good" initiatives while the member states continue hard policies that promote third world hunger, and war. The UN represents the nation states of the world -- who have a less than spotless record.

I think at all costs, the group that "governs" the internet should be completely seperate from both national, and international coalitions of nation-states. The Internet is the property of humanity -- not the states, or coalitions of states which claim to represent humanity.

My two cents...

Posted by: Nick Lewis | October 11, 2005 5:53 PM