[IP] CEI's CSpin - Should the UN Control the Internet? - Act II
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:08:26 -0400
From: Braden Cox <bcox@xxxxxxx>
Subject: CEI's CSpin - Should the UN Control the Internet? - Act II
To: farber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, please send a message to <mailto:bcox@xxxxxxx>bcox@xxxxxxx
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/