Should the United Nations control the Internet? Thats the subject of a
heated debate slated to take place at the World Summit on the Information
Society in Tunis later this month. The European Union is pressing for a
U.N. role in governing the Internet, which is currently in the hands of a
U.S. nonprofit. Lawrence Lessig breaks down the debate and offers his
views.
FOREIGN POLICY: What is causing the rift between the United States and
Europe over control of the Internet and what do you think will be the
outcome of the summit in Tunis?
Lawrence Lessig: The largest cause of this rift is European distrust of the
United States. Its not particularly related to the Internet. The Europeans
are eager to stand up to the Americans, and that I think has been produced
by the last five years of U.S. foreign policy. Its not really a cyberlaw
problem.
>From what we know right now, three different things could happen [at
Tunis]. The Europeans could get it together and actually invoke the
authority to exercise control over Internet governance, displacing the
[Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or] ICANN position.
The Americans could find a way to buy them off. Or, there could be a
stalemate. But whats interesting is, in 1998, there was no question of the
Europeans taking over because there wasnt the level of skepticism of the
U.S. government, even though there was a lot of skepticism about ICANN at
the time.
FP: The EU and several countries say that their nuclear option would be
to set up a rival ICANN, resulting in two standards for the Internet. Do
you think thats a realistic scenario?
LL: Lets talk about what that would mean. Right now, there is a limited
number of root servers that point to the primary root server from which you
get propagation for everything in your general top-level domain (TLD). So
theres a .com server that serves 13 other servers that then propagate all
changes in the .com name. And the same thing is [true] for every other
TLD.org, .ing, [.edu, etc.]
>From the beginning, people have talked about building an Internet that
wouldnt depend upon the TLD hierarchy. It doesnt mean there would be two
or three Internets, but that you would have a domain name system that
wouldnt depend upon hierarchical naming. As long as theres coordination
across hierarchies about ownership of domain names, you wouldnt
necessarily produce any destructive results. One could query a hierarchy
for the answer to the question Who owns Lessig.com? and then ask another
hierarchy if we dont get an answer from the first one. So it is possible
for different systems to evolve that would allow the Europeans to control
one part and the Americans to control another without destroying the
ability of the Internet to continue to function the way it does now.
What people are afraid of is that there will be a split within the single
hierarchical system which would result in two different populations of the
dot-com domain name system existing out there. Then there would be a real
conflict. My view is that if in fact there is a separation like that, there
are a lot of incentives for these two separate roots to figure out a way to
coexist. There would be lots of anger [when] you realize that youre not
getting the IBM.com you expected. But theres no reason why you couldnt
have multiple root systems.
FP: Some say a shift away from ICANN would empower countries such as North
Korea, China, and Iran to censor or control the Internet. Is that an
accurate criticism?
LL: The ability to facilitate censorship is independent of the question of
who owns the roots. Say we have the system we have now and China wants to
censor it. It builds a list of IP addresses it wont serve content to or
wont allow to be shown on its servers, and then it basically uses that
list to filter all IP packets that come across the Chinese network. If the
world had two roots, one China-controlled and one U.S.-controlled, then it
would be one step simpler for China to censor because it could filter its
own root. But it would still have to do the same things it does now with
regard to the U.S. root content. The technology youre using to censor is
not necessarily tied to the architecture of the root name.
FP: Do you see international governance of the Internet having an impact on
the free flow of ideas and commerce on the Web?
LL: Ive been a critic of ICANN for a long time, especially in its early
stages. But I think what its trying to do now is pretty close to what it
ought to be doing, which is just trying to serve technical functions in the
narrowest possible way. Theyve resisted a lot of policy work that they
could have been doing.
Seven Questions: Battling for Control of the Internet
Page 2 of 2
Right now, I hope that ICANN continues to exercise control. Its not
because I have any affection for the U.S. governments control over ICANN,
but because I think that theyve developed an internal norm about making as
light a regulatory footprint as they can. I would be worried about
transferring authority because I think that some other body coming in might
imagine it can use its power over the domain names to try to regulate all
sorts of policy objectives. Wed all be worse off if that happened.
FP: Are the biggest challenges and questions that face the Internet right
now essentially social and political, or are they more technological?
LL: I dont think theres an or. The fundamental point Ive conveyed in
my writing and teachingapparently no policymaker has yet learned thisis
that policy is a function of technology. You cant do policymaking in
cyberspace without thinking about the interaction between technology and
policy. Its as ridiculous to be a policymaker and believe that you can
make policy without thinking about the technology as it is to be chairman
of the Federal Trade Commission and think that you can talk about
competition policy without thinking about the economic consequences of the
rules you impose. A smart policymaker asks, What technology will my policy
produce? and Will the net result of that technology in my policy be the
policy result I want?
FP: Are there any decisions that will be taken at the summit in Tunis that
you see as being overshadowed by the EU-United States conflict?
LL: I question whether the [summit] is considering all the issues it needs
to be. I was a speaker at one of the preparatory committees and, before my
speech, I was asked about what I was going to talk about. I said I was
going to talk about the need for balanced intellectual property rules in
order to produce the best information society [possible]. The chairman of
my session said I was not allowed to talk about intellectual property. She
said thats a problem for the World Intellectual Property Organization. It
was ridiculous. It revealed a way in which the deal was struck to establish
the World Summit on the Information Society, which was as long as you dont
touch intellectual property you can talk about whatever you want. The
insane thing about that position is that theres no way to strike the right
balance unless you consider intellectual property. [For example,] database
rights are going to fundamentally affect the future of the information
society. The question remains whether the [summit] will be allowed to
develop any coherent policy position about the proper balance for
intellectual property. My skepticism suggests that they wont. This issue
will be negotiated off the table by those who want to keep control over
that policy.
FP: What impact, if any, will recent changes to the makeup of the U.S.
Supreme CourtRoberts and possibly Alitohave on information technology,
intellectual property, and the Internet?
LL: No idea. I dont know anything about Alitos views about technology. I
dont think hes ever said anything interesting about it. I think Roberts,
just based on the kind of work that Jeffrey Rosen did in his recent New
York Times piece, will be smart and eager to understand and do the right
thing. But I dont think we have any good information about how they think
about these issues.
Lawrence Lessig is professor of law at Stanford Law School and a columnist
for Wired magazine.
C. Gh.
---------------------------------
Targul Online de Joburi . Participa si tu!
http://www.myjob.ro/index.php?m=jobfair
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/RR.olB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
*** sustineti [romania_eu_list] prin 1% din impozitul pe 2005 -
detalii la http://www.europe.org.ro/euroatlantic_club/unulasuta.php ***
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romania_eu_list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
