[IP] CEI's C:Spin - Dangers of World Internet Governance: Lessons from the Proposed Domain for Adult Content
Begin forwarded message:
From: Braden Cox <bcox@xxxxxxx>
Date: August 19, 2005 1:13:28 PM EDT
To: farber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: CEI's C:Spin - Dangers of World Internet Governance: Lessons
from the Proposed Domain for Adult Content
Dangers of World Internet Governance – Lessons from the Proposed
Domain for Adult Content
Issue No. 182
By Daniel Corbett and Braden Cox
Competitive Enterprise Institute
August 19, 2005
The recent decision by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN) to delay deciding whether to approve the ".xxx"
top-level domain signals what could be yet another debate about
“indecency” over communication networks. This time, it’s about the
structure and content of the Internet, not the broadcast airwaves.
And because it’s the Internet that will be impacted by debate
concerning “indecent” content, international sovereignty and cultural
integrity is at stake. The fear is that supposedly independent
technical standards bodies will be hijacked by governments wanting to
restrict the free flow of content.
The U.S. is not alone in its apprehension over what it considers to
be illegitimate content. Internet communications spill over national
borders, connecting and uniting people everywhere. Other countries
fear that cultural fragmentation and the violation of national
sovereignty will result from increased interconnection.
ICANN Should Not be a Political Pawn
ICANN—a longstanding player in the Internet governance debate— has
been in charge of assigning all domain names and country codes though
the Domain Name System (DNS) since its creation by the US in 1998. It
was created upon recognition that the Internet would best be governed
by an independent, nongovernmental organization, free of politicized
demands.
Yet, on June 30 the U.S. ruffled feathers in the Internet governance
community when it stated its intent to maintain control of ICANN and
the DNS. In a controversial “Declaration of Principles,” the US
argued that in order to preserve the “security and stability” of the
Internet and the economic transactions that take place on it, it
would exercise unilateral control over the DNS. And on August 11,
U.S. assistant secretary of commerce Michael Gallagher sent a letter
to ICANN board member Vinton Cerf. The letter stated that the
Department of Commerce had received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mail
messages expressing concerns about the impact of the new domain on
children and families, and it requested a delay in voting on the
matter. As a result, ICANN’s Government Advisory Committeerecommended
that there should be more time for additional governmental and public
policy concerns to be expressed before reaching a final decision
on .xxx.
International Internet Governance Bodies Should not Control Culture
For years, most debate was limited to the DNS and ICANN. However, in
December 2003 the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a
United Nations group that studies technological development, created
the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). Leaders at the
summit created WGIG because they saw the Internet as a vital part of
the growing information society and noticed there was broad range of
opinions as to how the Internet should be managed in a global
society. Upon its creation, WGIG was charged with creating a working
definition of Internet governance.
While the WSIS has attempted to increase global access to technology,
it has simultaneously undermined the benefits these technologies have
to offer by calling for what is essentially “cultural protectionism.”
Acting, in large part, on fears of “cultural imperialism,” WSIS and
other international organizations like UNESCO have launched massive
campaigns to preserve cultural heritage. In attempting to preserve
cultural identities, these organizations would face a Hayekian
“knowledge problem”—they would have difficulty in choosing whose
culture to preserve, what parts of that culture were worth
preserving, and at what expense culture should be preserved.
This notion of “preserving a culture” wrongly assumes that culture is
a single, discrete entity that can be protected the same way a mother
bird protects her young. In the globalized 21st century, however,
cultures are mutable, shifting, and constantly interacting. Those who
fear Western culture imposing itself on the developing world through
technological development often forget that “Western” culture is not
monolithic, but rather a rich, diverse tapestry of many different
cultures. The world has become increasingly better off because of the
free flow of cultures.
Attempts to “preserve” cultures will limit the use of new
technologies and artificially cut off the developing world from this
robust cultural exchange.
The Problem of State-Sponsored Filtering
Even more alarming than its mission to preserve cultures is WSIS and
WGIG’s failure to address the issue of countries that block access to
certain Web sites. Currently, many national governments, from China
to Saudi Arabia, use filtering technology to prevent their citizens
from navigating the Web freely.
What kinds of sites are filtered? Pornography, gay and lesbian sites,
women’s rights organizations, sex education and other public health
sites, anonymizers (which allow users to hide their identities
online), and certain political and religious groups are all subject
to filtering in different countries.
Not only are many people deprived access to certain information
online, but in most cases, they are oblivious to this fact. The
OpenNet Initiative, a partnership between Harvard, Cambridge, and the
University of Toronto studies freedom of information on the Internet.
And off all the nations the group has studied, not one of them made
its block list available to the public.
WSIS argues that one of the benefits of technological development
will be better “e-government,” or more “transparency in public
administrations and democratic processes.” This is certainly one of
the many benefits of providing access to technology, but it will be
negated unless WGIG and other international groups take a stand
against state-sponsored filtering.
A top-down dictum that all nations stop filtering is not the best
solution. It is important that solutions to the problem of national
filtering are sympathetic to every nation’s rule of law. For example,
if a specific Web site violates already-extant national laws, that
content may be filtered. But this should not stop the fight against
arbitrary filtering, which is an essential part of making
technological access meaningful and democratic.
Public Input is Good, Political Pressure is Bad
The debate over the triple x domain involves legitimate debate that
should be in the public discourse. Will it merely be a location for
pornography that establishes a virtual red light district, much like
those in the physical world, where you can visit if you’d like but
stay out if you want? Is it the precursor toward a requirement that
all porn be identified by .xxx?
But the point is this: political pressure is unlike that of normal
public discourse. Political bodies exert influence beyond that of any
nonprofit public interest group. Indeed, because they have the power
of law by their side, they wield power beyond that of all interest
groups combined.
ICANN and other Internet governance bodies should have
accountability, but not necessarily political accountability to the
U.S. or UN. These organizations have a role in deciding on the
technical specifications that will encourage the free exchange of
information, not limit it.
Braden Cox is Technology Counsel and Daniel Corbett is a Charles G.
Koch Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
C:\SPIN is produced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute
This message was sent to: farber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, please send a message to 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
-------------------------------------
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/