> The Internet Needs an Independence Day
> by Solveig Singleton
>
<snip>
>
> While we sleep, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
> ICANN, is creating a mechanism to subdue the Internet. The U.S. government
> created ICANN to administer a few technical rules. But ICANN seems poised
> to make itself an international government for the Internet, not a
> technical-standards body. ICANN's regime is neither democratic nor
> constitutional. . .
>
<snip>
>
> Founding documents and institutions matter -- the ideas outlined in the
> Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution played a crucial role
> in shaping America's future. This basic guidance is completely lacking for
> Internet governance.
First private-sector self-governance was good, now it's bad. In October,
meaningful constitutions and public-style governance methods were bad, now
apparently they're good. Larry Lessig and others have been saying for some
time now how important proper democratic structures will be in this process,
but early on, most Americans on this list, at least, seemed to equate
democratic structures with "heavy-handed, top-down bureaucratic government."
Well, it's proving tough to have it both ways, isn't it?
Many in this compressed "Internet community" (i.e. those who know what a
root zone is) think everything would be just fine if only they were in
charge. But if other people are going to be in charge instead, then they
can't possibly do anything right, nor can they have any authority. The
American libertarian crap above ("While we sleep..." - please) would apply
to ANY body which tried to take over Jon Postel's (and others') jobs.
Postel was a tyrant, a dastardly threat to Liberty. How could he not have
been overthrown? His regime was neither democratic nor constitutional. But
it worked, and had the authority of the USG (and the vague support of the
much-vaunted but unidentifiable "Internet Community") behind it. It's only
now that his power is being written down that it looks objectionable.
"Administering a few technical rules" IS Internet governance. Coordinating
technical standards IS Internet governance. What Solveig Singleton
describes as ICANN making itself into an "International government for the
Internet" is precisely what this whole process has been about: basing IANA's
functions in an internationally-recognized, authoritative, stable,
non-governmental body. It's ICANN's critics who now want it to act more
like a government, not ICANN.
Some of those critics now regularly say that they never needed IANA anyway
and will take their routers and go elsewhere. Unfortunately there just
might not be an elsewhere anymore, at least not one that matters in the way
the Internet matters. If we want one global network we have to work
together to build and maintain it. I've been all for democracy and
constitutions all along, even when real, effective democracy and real,
enforceable constitutions were considered bad things. It's nice to see the
Cato Institute now recognize them as good things.
Craig McTaggart
Graduate Student
Faculty of Law
University of Toronto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
