October 13, 2005
NOT A NEGOTIATION:
U.S. May Face World at Internet Governance Summit (Jonathan Krim, October 13, 2005, Washington Post)
Several other countries, particularly many in the developing world, object to continuing U.S. supremacy. As the Internet penetrates deeper into societies around the globe, many nations want the international community to supplant the United States as primary overseer.The United States suspects that some of these governments want to try to control the Internet to stifle free expression and preserve dictatorial control.
The argument has been simmering for some time, and several proposals have been put forth by a U.N. working group for more international oversight, through the United Nations or other entities.
Countries such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and Brazil have been especially vocal, mirroring other splits in the United Nations over a variety of issues, including the war in Iraq.
But things turned red hot late last month when the European Union infuriated the United States by endorsing the idea of international authority.
Attempting to strike a pose between the United States and countries that want a new Internet governing body, the E.U. said an international "forum" should be created to set policy principles for ICANN and adjudicate complaints.
Martin Selmayr, spokesman for the E.U. directorate on Information Society and Media, insisted yesterday that there is no major split with the United States on the issue.
"We believe in freedom of speech and the freedom of the Internet," he said. "No new organizations need to be set up. . . . We're not asking for enhancing government's role" in the operations of the Internet.
But, he said, "the E.U. is proposing moving from unilateralism to multilateralism in Internet governance. Public policy principles . . . issued in the future should be discussed internationally."
The United States is having none of it.
"When the E.U.'s proposal was read, it was interesting how quickly it was endorsed in large part by countries such as Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others who have been very clear that they do not believe" in principles of free expression, said David A. Gross, coordinator of International Communications and Information Policy for the State Department.
Gross said the United States would not accept any other entity taking on oversight of ICANN, no matter what may happen at the conference in Tunisia.
"We are firm in our position," he said. "This is not a negotiation."
Gross said that while that might sound jingoistic, the U.S. goal is to keep all governments and politics out of the Internet's evolution and preserve free-market development.
A whole bunch of folks just don't get Jacksonianism. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 13, 2005 8:46 AM
Gross is great!
Posted by: Genecis at October 13, 2005 9:47 AMThis could be a major issue in the 2008 election, if the Republicans are smart enough to use it. Other treaties like the law of the sea and even Kyoto, gain some support among Americans because they don't see how it would directly affect them if the U.S. bowed to world pressure a little more. But the Internet has become a very personal thing to people who use it, due to the access and freedom it provides.
Frame the issue that Hillary -- or whoever the Democratic nominee is -- wants to have the Europeans or the United Nations control your Internet content and access, and it can score major points (though in Hillary's case, I'd be willing to bet she's smart enough to tell the U.N. and the EU to pound sand on their proposal, even if the bulk of her party thinks it's a peachy-keen idea).
Posted by: John at October 13, 2005 9:56 AMThey can't beat us, so they try to convince us to surrender to underwhelming force.
Suuuure, we'll get right back to you guys.
Posted by: Mikey at October 13, 2005 10:03 AMThe axis of evil should just build their own infrastructure. And then we could monitor and tap into it.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 13, 2005 10:46 AMJohn:
You are right. If the House or Senate Repubs had an iota of wit they would introduce a "sense of the chamber" resolution declaring US ownership of the internet is inviolable, and force a vote on the measure. That would elevate the issue and put people on record.
Posted by: Luciferous at October 13, 2005 11:30 AMThe silly thing about all this is that ICANN controls nothing but DNS, and there's nothing inherently controlling about the root DNS servers, just that everybody uses them as the final arbiter.
If the EU wants to set up their own root servers, let them! Others have in the past, everyone ignored them, and no-one cared. Problem solved.
Posted by: Mike Earl at October 13, 2005 11:47 AMThis is all about Eurocrats and autocrats and totalicrats and sociocrats and bureaucrats -- all of whom can't stand to see people using something (something that one day will be more real than the physical world) without their supervising or controlling it in some way AND charging for the "privilege" of using it. The the greatest fear of any Kontrollocrat is to be irrelevant. On the internet, they are IRRELEVANT. They want to be paid and paid well to control the world, and you, the idiot peon.
Posted by: F. Ahllodamunee at October 13, 2005 1:29 PMThe Guardian, as can be expected, is good for a laugh on this issue:
But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.
No! Not International Consensus! Anything but that!
Posted by: Timothy at October 13, 2005 1:53 PMHow come they're ragging on the U.S. about who controls the Internet? After all, Al Gore invented it, if I'm not mistaken, shortly after Ali McGraw died on him in that really sad movie. It seems to me that if Al wants to give it to his pals in China, Iran and the UN, that's his business.
Posted by: JonSK at October 13, 2005 2:09 PMThe mice voted to bell the cat...
Posted by: Tom at October 13, 2005 5:42 PMThe term "controlling the Internet" is an oxymoron. The Internet is fundamentally a decentralized system. The only central touchpoint are the 13 root DNS zone servers. And as Mike indicated anybody can go set up their own if they want.
There have been several attempts to create an alternate DNS root (alterNIC, eDNS, OpenNIC), none of which have ever gone anywhere. To succeed you would have to convince millions of DNS server operators to change the root zone file on their DNS servers.
Nobody in their right mind is going to want to run a web site under alternate DNS hierarchy where they will exclude a majority of potential visitors.
Posted by: Gideon at October 13, 2005 8:14 PM