A battle for the soul of the Internet

By Elliot Noss
http://news.com.com/A+battle+for+the+soul+of+the+Internet/2010-1071_3-573764
7.html

Story last modified Wed Jun 08 13:08:00 PDT 2005

Without garnering much attention, a battle is raging for the soul of the
Internet.

The United Nations and the International Telecommunications Union are trying
to wrest control of domain names and DNS and IP addresses from the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. This battle manifests itself
through the United Nations-created World Summit on the Information Society
and the ITU-led Working Group on Internet Governance.

If the United Nations controlled domain names and IP addresses, the ability
of countries to censor the Internet would be greatly enhanced.
While the Internet itself is essentially a series of protocols adhered to by
consent, it relies on a single authoritative root at its core. This assures
that Internet users end up where they should when they type "www.news.com"
into their browsers. Anything but uniqueness with this vital resource would
result in collision and confusion. The same would be true for e-mail. Unless
senders could be sure there was only one unique identifier for a recipient,
they could not use e-mail with confidence.

Both the United Nations and the ITU have their reasons for trying to take
control of these vital resources from ICANN. For the United Nations, ICANN
represents a body that transcends the nation state structure and could
become a model for similar efforts covering subject matter most
appropriately dealt with at a global level.

For the ITU, gaining control of core Internet resources represents an
opportunity to put the Internet genie back in the bottle and gain a greater
measure of relevance in the IP networking world. The ITU doesn't see itself
as merely an overseer of the old circuit-switched networks, which it
presides over today. Rather, it views itself as the overseer of all
networks, including the Internet.

While ICANN has its flaws, it also possesses important and unique
characteristics. Two are worthy of special note.

First, ICANN's form of governance explicitly includes policy, technical,
business and user interests under one roof. Each interest group has a formal
role and voice in both policy making and governance. Each has a stake in the
proceedings, and each is an important part of the system. (Yes, users'
voices need be heard more, and as an active participant in the ICANN process
and member of the 2005 ICANN Nominating Committee, I will continue to work
toward that goal.) Having these combined interests explicitly inside the
process avoids some of the perversions that we have seen in other forms of
governance, campaign finance being perhaps the starkest example.

Second, ICANN is a truly global organization. It is global in the sense that
the individuals involved each represent one of the above-mentioned interests
but not national governments. This is an important concept, in that the
Internet is truly a global resource, but it is this unique element that
creates the greatest challenge. We have no model for managing a global
resource of this nature. There are numerous models for managing
international resources--resources being managed between nations--but that
is not what the Internet is.

In this regard, ICANN mirrors the Internet in that it works by "rough
consensus." The checks and balances are systemic. This is what has allowed
for the price of domain names to drop by 50 percent to 75 percent over the
last five years, while service levels have increased dramatically. This is
what has allowed the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Process to
eliminate cybersquatting of trademarks.

The World Summit on Information Society contains 40 delegates, including
members from Cuba, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, Pakistan,
Syria, Russia and Egypt. If the United Nations controlled domain names and
IP addresses, the ability of countries to censor the Internet would be
greatly enhanced, as would the ability to tax or impose other regulatory
burdens on these resources in order to fund unrelated projects of any kind.

In fact, if the United Nations and the ITU were successful, it is not
difficult to envision a balkanization of the Internet, as whole portions of
the network decided they did not want to rely on the United Nations and the
ITU for their single authoritative root. If that balkanization were to take
place, the damage to the global economy would be incalculable.

In addition, these Internet governance positions would not be plum United
Nations postings. We could expect to see the likes of Internet pioneer Vint
Cerf replaced by some dictator's wife's third cousin.

For the United Nations, ICANN represents a body that transcends the
nation-state structure.
The United Nations and the ITU are putting forward two main arguments for
replacing ICANN. They claim such a move is necessary to wrest control of the
Internet from the United States and that ICANN is a private organization,
beholden to no one and representing no one.

To be clear, ICANN is a not-for-profit California corporation that nominally
reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce. It operates under a memorandum
of understanding with the agency that is reviewed and renewed in six-month
intervals.

Despite this, ICANN is not American--it is global. There are three Americans
on a 15-person board of directors. There are six Americans on the 22-person
generic names-supporting organization council, the main policy-making body.
Two Americans are on the 10-person at-large advisory council. There has not
been a meeting in the United States since November 2001, and the earliest
possibility of a U.S. meeting is in June 2007, a 17-meeting gap. (The last
North American meeting was in Montreal in June 2003, and the next is in
Vancouver, British Columbia, in December.)

As for it being representative, ICANN has always had one prerequisite for
involvement: a willingness to take the time and effort to participate. There
is active representation from Internet communities from around the world.
The level of participation, the quality of participation and the output of
the process have steadily improved over ICANN's history.

Neither the United Nations nor the ITU can make any of these claims.
Participation in their processes requires a position with a national
government or a telecommunications monopoly, neither of which are known for
their deep appreciation and understanding of the Internet.

There is no doubt that both the United Nations and the ITU are much more
adept at politics than either ICANN staff or the vast majority of
participants in the ICANN process. That makes the threat here all the more
real.

It is important to remember that we all rely on the rich ecosystem that is
the free Internet. We are all beneficiaries of the innovation it spawns, the
information it provides and the interaction it supports. We cannot take this
for granted.

Companies that rely on a free Internet--and there are few technology
companies that don't--need to become active in the ICANN process through the
business or ISP Constituencies. Other institutions and nonprofits need to
get involved through the noncommercial constituency.

Companies, institutions and individuals from around the world that have
access to their governments' decision makers need to let them know that the
Internet needs to stay free and that supporting ICANN supports that
principle. Individuals who care about the future of the Internet and believe
they can contribute to creating a better ICANN and preserving a freer
Internet should think about the ICANN-nominating committee's call for
Statements of Interest, which seeks qualified candidates to help the
organization move forward.

The Internet has contributed more to freedom, education and innovation than
any other advance of the last number of decades. It deserves to be protected
from the people and the institutions that do not share an appreciation for
preserving the values on which the Internet was founded.


Copyright �1995-2005 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.




You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit
www.infowarrior.org for list information or to unsubscribe. This message
may be redistributed freely in its entirety. Any and all copyrights
appearing in list messages are maintained by their respective owners.

Reply via email to