CEI's CSpin - Should the UN Control the Internet? - Act II

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:08:26 -0400
From: Braden Cox <bcox () cei org>
Subject: CEI's CSpin - Should the UN Control the Internet? - Act II
To: farber () cis upenn edu

CEI C:\Spin

This issue:  Should the UN Control the Internet? – Act II

By 
<http://cei.org/dyn/view_expert.cfm?expert=234&Submit2.x=12&Submit2.y=10>Neil 
Hrab
Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow
<http://www.cei.org/>CEI
April 15, 2004


Late last year, <http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03775.cfm>C:\Spin looked at 
the emerging policy debate over whether the United Nations should control 
the Internet. We alerted readers to demands from some foreign countries to 
hand control of the Internet to the International Telecommunication Union 
(ITU), a UN agency. The debate has taken some interesting turns since we 
last reported on it. It is starting to resemble a classic studio rivalry 
between two actors over who will be the star in a blockbuster Hollywood 
picture.

The debate breaks down as follows: At present, a California-based (but 
internationally organized) non-profit group called the Internet Corporation 
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) administers the Internet’s domain 
name system. That system, in the 
<http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0404domain04.html>words of 
Associated Press reporter Chris Hawley, “allows computers to find each 
other in cyberspace.” United Nations supporters believe the domain system 
is too important to be left to ICANN, which they say is too close to the US 
government (it reports to the Department of Commerce); the job should 
belong to the UN. ICANN’s supporters wonder if the top-heavy, 
bureaucratized UN is nimble enough to take on the task of overseeing the 
Internet.

ICANN is learning to defend itself in a more articulate way than before. 
For example, in a March 25th news report in the Financial Times, ICANN 
chief Paul Twomey explained why clumsy bureaucratic oversight hurts the 
Internet’s chances to grow. While acknowledging that “governments have to 
play a key role” as the ‘Net continues to mature, he cautioned against 
overestimating the UN’s ability to help in this process. “We don’t want 
[governments] to take the addressing system and politicize it – governments 
don’t always get along with each other.”

This is an excellent point to keep in mind when thinking about proposals 
for greater UN control of the Internet. Putting the Internet under UN 
jurisdiction would likely make it a hostage to the political infighting 
that frequently occurs behind the scenes at the United Nations. That would 
not be good for the Internet’s future.

Twomey is not the only one questioning the wisdom of increased bureaucratic 
oversight of the Internet. A March 4th Reuters wire 
<http://www.sabcnews.com/sci_tech/internet/0,2172,75231,00.html>story 
quoted similar comments from Lucio Stanca, Italy’s technology minister. 
Stanca blasted the idea of greater state control over the Internet as a 
“gigantic mistake.”  “Government must be involved only when public policy 
issues are at stake, but it is not the role of government to manage the 
Internet or to interfere in its free development,” declared Stanca. “One of 
the most important reasons for the Internet's success is that no single 
entity controls it,” he said further. And, finally, Stanca also said that 
“we see ICANN as an asset. It should play a major role in the future.”

Most of the people who favor greater UN control over the Internet, as a 
sort of global public utility, do so for well-intentioned reasons. (The 
same can’t be said of some censorship-prone governments, however, who also 
back the idea.) Some hope the UN could help reduce the flow of spam, hate 
literature and pornography, for example, via the Internet. But although it 
was hatched through military and educational research institutions, today, 
as the Albuquerque Journal observed in an April 2nd editorial, “the 
Internet is essentially a private-sector animal.” The private sector has 
managed the Internet’s growth “while maintaining its functionality.” These 
two tasks require enormous amounts of flexibility – a quality not 
traditionally associated with any known form of bureaucracy, especially not 
the UN. To go back to our acting analogy, the UN lacks the depth or range 
to try for the role of Internet supremo.

Perhaps the compromise outlined by Lucio Stanca represents the best way to 
resolve the UN vs. ICANN debate. Let the private sector (through ICANN) 
continue to manage the Internet; and let the UN, if it wishes to involve 
itself with Internet policy, confine its work to helping states coordinate 
action on shared Internet problems, such as the spread of computer viruses, 
or Internet crime issues.

The UN can play a positive role in the Internet’s future. Not a starring 
role by any means, but a smaller, supporting one (in line with its middling 
talents). Let’s allow the private sector to remain the lead character in 
this production.

C:\SPIN is produced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute

This message was sent to: farber () cis upenn edu

To subscribe, please send a message to <mailto:bcox () cei org>bcox () cei org 
with “subscribe” in the subject line.

If you no longer wish to receive CEI's C:\SPIN or have been added to this 
list by mistake, please reply to this message with "unsubscribe" in the 
subject line.

Competitive Enterprise Institute
1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1250
Washington, DC 20036
202.331.1010
<http://www.cei.org/>http://www.cei.org



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/