[IP] Why WSIS Is About More Than Domain Names
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Why WSIS Is About More Than Domain Names
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 08:06:59 -0400
From: Michael Geist <mgeist@xxxxxxxxx>
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040514122148.0379a0d8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dave,
Given that you were in NY for the UN ITC meeting, this may be of
interest -- my regular Toronto Star Law Bytes column examines recent
developments involving the World Summit on the Information Society. The
column argues that while the domain name systems captures most the
attention, the tension between the developed and developing world at
WSIS actually extends beyond the DNS to include the policy issues raised
by technical management and the sense of lost control felt by many
governments worldwide. The column concludes that although the
instinctive reaction among many in the Internet community is to cringe
at the prospect of greater U.N. involvement in Internet matters, the
WSIS has highlighted several legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.
Column at
<http://shorl.com/hyvoprynastoty> [Toronto Star]
MG
West urged to share Internet governance
Michael Geist
Lawbytes
Last December, thousands of politicians and technology experts converged
on Geneva for the first of two World Summits on the Information Society
(WSIS). Several years in the making, the WSIS was envisioned as a new
forum for the digital age. Instead, it primarily provided a showcase for
developing-country concerns over the growing digital divide and opened a
potential fissure over Internet governance.
In the months that followed, those involved in the WSIS began to work
toward bridging the differences exposed in Geneva. The two competing
perspectives typically pit the United States and some developed- world
allies including Canada, Australia, and parts of Europe on one side and
the developing world, led by Brazil, China, and India, with some support
from Europe, on the other.
The U.S.-led perspective posits that in the context of the Internet "if
it isn't broke, don't fix it." Supporters of the U.S. position maintain
that the private sector-led approach, in which the U.S. retains ultimate
authority over the domain-name system yet grants day-to-day
administration to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers, is at least partly responsible for the Internet's phenomenal
success. Moreover, the U.S. argues that Internet governance matters are
primarily technical issues that do not require government intervention.
The developing world counters this position by arguing that the Internet
may in fact be broken. Global Internet policies have a direct impact on
national policies and many countries, having only recently awoken to the
Internet's importance, are uncomfortable with their perceived
marginalization in the process. Furthermore, the developing world also
professes concern over the U.S.'s ultimate control over the domain name
system.
These highly charged issues have now been the subject of two major
meetings - one in Geneva hosted by the International Telecommunications
Union in late February and a second in New York in late March hosted by
the United Nations ICT Task Force.
Having attended both meetings, it has become increasingly clear to me
that contrary to many media reports, the WSIS is about much more than
just the domain name system.
Although that admittedly serves as the focal point for discussion, I
believe the debate actually rests with three issues, two of which extend
far beyond management of the domain name system.
First, with the exception of the U.S. and a few of its supporters, much
of the world would prefer to have the domain name system management
decentralized among the broader global community. Although there have
been few actual problems thus far, given the importance of the Internet
for both the developed and developing world, a framework that
distributes ultimate authority over the broader community is viewed by
many as essential.
Second, policy makers and technologists must acknowledge that the
Internet's technical issues raise policy concerns. While some in the
Internet governance community still maintain that they are engaged
solely in technical management, the policy implications - from free
speech to intellectual property protection to privacy - are deeply
embedded in their technological choices. These policy effects can no
longer be ignored and appropriate mechanisms must be established to
facilitate a robust and transparent policy debate.
Third, and most fundamentally, governments are struggling with the
perception that they have lost control over their traditional governance
mechanisms. That loss of control is focused chiefly on the inability to
enforce longstanding rules domestically as citizens can frequently evade
traditional law through a network that does not easily conform to
real-space borders.
While it is tempting to characterize this as a positive development that
leaves dictatorial regimes unable to suppress free speech, we should
bear in mind that governments in the developed world regularly express
similar concerns when matters such as spam or intellectual property
protections are raised.
These issues will not be solved overnight and the future WSIS timetable,
which calls for the second summit to be held in Tunis in the fall of
2005, is likely overly ambitious. With that caveat, the WSIS does hold
the potential to make some headway into issues that have been lurking
amongst governments for many years.
On the Internet governance front, the WSIS provides a useful forum to
consider alternative mechanisms to enable the global community to share
in the governance of the domain name system.
Such mechanisms might include new formulations to address the policy
issues presented by Internet governance matters or the division of
Internet governance responsibilities among several organizations.
While the WSIS alone cannot solve the sense of lost control, it does
have the potential to identify those issues that warrant global
co-operation. For example, at the most recent meetings, spam has been
cited as an issue in need of such a global forum to facilitate increased
co-operation between countries.
Although the instinctive reaction among many in the Internet community
is to cringe at the prospect of greater United Nations involvement in
Internet matters, the WSIS has highlighted several legitimate concerns
that need to be addressed. Its success over the next 18 months may go a
long way to determining whether the global community is ready for a
co-operative approach to Internet governance.
--
**********************************************************************
Professor Michael A. Geist
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law
University of Ottawa Law School, Common Law Section
Technology Counsel, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
57 Louis Pasteur St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5
Tel: 613-562-5800, x3319 Fax: 613-562-5124
mgeist@xxxxxxxxx http://www.michaelgeist.ca
-------------------------------------
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/