Clark Boyd
BBC NewsTue, 15 Nov 2005 12:00 UTC
The US is headed for a showdown with much of the rest of the world over control of the internet at this week's UN summit in Tunisia.
Most net users probably do not spend a lot of time worrying about who runs the resource they are using, but there is a global battle brewing over that very question.
The internet grew out of US military and academic research, and the US government still has certain measures of control over it.
Other nations, however, are clamouring for a bigger say and are pushing for significant changes at the UN's World Summit on the Information Society.
The issue is expected to overshadow the summit, which is intended to focus on how to take the internet to less developed parts of the world.
Government role
Most internet users around the world would agree that the internet has been functioning, technically, quite well.
It is not a monolithic entity. In fact, it is comprised of some quarter of a million private networks that choose to interconnect with each other.
A California-based non-profit created by the Clinton Administration in 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) is charged with making sure that these networks talk to each other.
The organisation says its job is technical, making sure that web addresses take surfers to the right site.
What Icann does not do is "run" or "control" the internet, according to Theresa Swinehart, General Manager for Global Partnerships at Icann.
"Actually, nobody runs or controls the internet single-handedly. It is multiple parties, multiple businesses, users, and networks connecting to this. All these different groups, organizations and companies have a responsibility."
But Icann operates under a memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Commerce. To some, that looks like American control of the internet.
"The rest of the world doesn't want to see US hegemony here, in large part just for symbolic reasons," says Jonathan Zittrain, Chair in Internet Governance and Regulation at Oxford University.
"So there's one set of countries, anchored by Iran, Cuba and China, that would like to see some process by which governments of the world have a much larger hand in controlling the shape of the internet."
Many African politicians are also asking for "regime change" on the internet, and the European Union called in September for a new, international body to govern the net.
US stands firm
But the Bush administration and many in the US Congress reject the idea.
Both the US Departments of Commerce and State have reiterated that the US will maintain what they call "stewardship" of the internet. They contend that the US, working with Icann, is best placed to ensure an open, secure and stable online environment.
And in a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, Republican Senator Norm Coleman wrote: "There is no rational justification for politicising internet governance within a United Nations framework."
That view has plenty of support outside the US.
"We don't see any advantage in moving toward UN control," says Bill Graham, who works on internet governance issues for the Canadian government.
"In fact, we're on record as opposing that. We just feel it would be bureaucratically heavy and frankly, unnecessary."
Mr Graham supports a compromise measure, some kind of international forum that would have no oversight duties, but would help other nations feel like they have more input into how the internet functions.
At risk
Some in the anti-US camp are threatening more drastic action. They say, if the US won't cede some control, they will create their own internet.
Michael Geist, who teaches internet law at the University of Ottawa, says that a world of multiple "internets" might not be a good thing.
"What's at risk is the possibility that the communications system of the internet that we've come to rely upon, the ability for me to send an electronic message anywhere around the world, and similarly access websites around the world, and have little doubt that my requests will be recognised, is put in some measure of peril by the fact that we might have several different internets," he said.
Few think this will actually happen, but the threat will be there as politicians and technocrats from across the globe meet in Tunisia from this week.
Special preparatory meetings to address the internet governance issue are under way ahead of the summit's official start on Wednesday.
"It's a political battle where, I think it was Henry Kissinger who once said, 'the fighting is so fierce, precisely because the stakes are so small'," says Oxford's Jonathan Zittrain.
"Almost all of these things are in part the result of what happens when you get a bunch of diplomats in a room.
"They'll find a way to have a grave disagreement, then have a way to work it through, and eventually come out with a communiqué, and it may not have anything to do with the technically realities of the way the internet works."
It would be better, Professor Zittrain says, for governments to focus on the serious internet issues that do need an international solution, especially things like spam, phishing, and cyber security.
Others have called upon leaders to focus their efforts on the original intent of the summit to find ways to bring the benefits of information and communication technologies to the developing world.
Comment: As is usual in this crazy world of ours, serious issues get reduced down to slogans and talking points that obscure the complexity of the underlying reality. In the case of the Internet, we have a situation where the technology that enables the net grew out of the needs of the US military-industrial complex to have a communications network that would resist the threat of nuclear war. The solution was a network of nodes where data could be moved around via myriads routes. If one node was taken out, communication between the other nodes remain intact and secure.
This is a great step forward when the net became available to everyone because it permitted a quick and easy way for the grass roots to connect with one another. The growing anti-globalisation movement used the net to effective measure as it stood up against the plans of international capital to open the markets of the world. We are told, on the other hand, that it has permitted those evil villains at al Qaeda to hook up and organise their terrorist attacks.
The Powers That Be do not want the grass roots to have this type of political weapon: the ability to share information outside of the official channels and to organise responses. Our flash animation,
Pentagon Strike, has been seen by half a billion people around the globe. It is not only China, Cuba, or Iran, the three countries named in the article, who wish to control the flow of information: all countries have the same interest. Often, the question comes down to one of means: is this censorship down openly, or is it down on the sly? IS it down by the outright banning of access to certain sites or types of information, or is it done by weighing search results and corporate filters justified through appeals to employees wasting their time at work surfing the net? The same result is achieved through the two approaches, yet the soft approach permits the culprit to accuse the first of heavy-handed censorship and anti-democratic oppression of its people.
The Internet is now a world-wide resource. In a perfect world, everyone would have a say in its management. Obviously, we live in a less-than-perfect world. Representative forms of democracy tend to obscure political control rather than guarantee it is in the hands of the governed.
It is normal that other countries wish to have a say. The level of trust one can put in the United States has plummeted in recent years with the innumerable lies that have come out of Washington. Although the US claims it is an arbiter of freedom of speech, wishing to protect the Internet, it is clear that this is a political stance it is using against those countries that use the hard methods of censorship. The US monitors all Internet traffic, from the content to the simple fact of who is in communication with whom. We would be naive to think otherwise.
Prognostications go from creating phoney bodies to give the appearance of input to multiple Internets to allow certain countries to more directly control the content. The upshot for the public is that no matter which side wins, or what kind of compromise is achieved, the Internet as we have known it will change to the detriment of freedom of speech and access to information.
The clampdown that is coming will be world-wide.
Comment: As is usual in this crazy world of ours, serious issues get reduced down to slogans and talking points that obscure the complexity of the underlying reality. In the case of the Internet, we have a situation where the technology that enables the net grew out of the needs of the US military-industrial complex to have a communications network that would resist the threat of nuclear war. The solution was a network of nodes where data could be moved around via myriads routes. If one node was taken out, communication between the other nodes remain intact and secure.
This is a great step forward when the net became available to everyone because it permitted a quick and easy way for the grass roots to connect with one another. The growing anti-globalisation movement used the net to effective measure as it stood up against the plans of international capital to open the markets of the world. We are told, on the other hand, that it has permitted those evil villains at al Qaeda to hook up and organise their terrorist attacks.
The Powers That Be do not want the grass roots to have this type of political weapon: the ability to share information outside of the official channels and to organise responses. Our flash animation, Pentagon Strike, has been seen by half a billion people around the globe. It is not only China, Cuba, or Iran, the three countries named in the article, who wish to control the flow of information: all countries have the same interest. Often, the question comes down to one of means: is this censorship down openly, or is it down on the sly? IS it down by the outright banning of access to certain sites or types of information, or is it done by weighing search results and corporate filters justified through appeals to employees wasting their time at work surfing the net? The same result is achieved through the two approaches, yet the soft approach permits the culprit to accuse the first of heavy-handed censorship and anti-democratic oppression of its people.
The Internet is now a world-wide resource. In a perfect world, everyone would have a say in its management. Obviously, we live in a less-than-perfect world. Representative forms of democracy tend to obscure political control rather than guarantee it is in the hands of the governed.
It is normal that other countries wish to have a say. The level of trust one can put in the United States has plummeted in recent years with the innumerable lies that have come out of Washington. Although the US claims it is an arbiter of freedom of speech, wishing to protect the Internet, it is clear that this is a political stance it is using against those countries that use the hard methods of censorship. The US monitors all Internet traffic, from the content to the simple fact of who is in communication with whom. We would be naive to think otherwise.
Prognostications go from creating phoney bodies to give the appearance of input to multiple Internets to allow certain countries to more directly control the content. The upshot for the public is that no matter which side wins, or what kind of compromise is achieved, the Internet as we have known it will change to the detriment of freedom of speech and access to information.
The clampdown that is coming will be world-wide.