[IP] American dominance of the Internet, redux
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 14, 2005 8:57:58 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: American dominance of the Internet, redux
Dave [for IP, if you choose]--
I have following the thread re: US "control" of the Internet with
only half an eye. It seems to have missed the fundamental point: how
well is it governed, and would a change of governance improve it? If
the US is "arrogant", maybe it's because the Internet actually works
more or less as its supposed to; can we say the same if the UN/ITU
takes over? The question answers itself.
I write because I ran across this recent interesting Economist
article. Perhaps IPers would find it of interest:
Internet governance
America rules OK
Oct 6th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Plans for global management of the internet are a threat to its future
WHY should America control the internet? A growing number of
governments are asking this apparently reasonable question. At a
diplomatic meeting last week in Geneva, the European Union
unexpectedly dropped its support for the current arrangement, and
sided with America's critics (see article). America could now find
itself isolated as negotiations over future regulation of the
internet continue.
The critics' point of view seems quite understandable. The internet
is not just a hugely important tool of global communication but also
an engine of economic growth. Other countries quite understandably
balk at American hegemony over something that matters so much to
their future. Yet although America's exercise of power in the bricks-
and-mortar world may not always have been flawless, its oversight of
the internet, which it invented (Tim Berners-Lee, a Briton, is
sometimes credited with the feat, but he created the world wide web)
has been remarkably benign. That's probably partly because politics
has been kept out of it. The longer it stays that way, the better.
Benign neglect
Most people think of the internet as decentralised and thus
uncontrollable. That's largely true; nevertheless, its infrastructure
requires some co-ordination, so it needs a bit of governance. This is
currently done by a non-profit group called the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This organisation operates
under a contract from the American government, and consults private-
sector firms and groups of techies and users.
Much of ICANN's work is boringly technical. It co-ordinates such
features as domain names (like .com or .net), routing numbers and
technical standards. But small technical details can sometimes have
big political ramifications, and ICANN has often found itself
embroiled in controversy. For example, many countries were outraged
when ICANN considered creating a .xxx domain name for pornographic
websites. (It diplomatically put the idea on hold.)
Nevertheless, ICANN's stewardship has succeeded because its focus has
been not on politics, but on making the network as efficient as
possible. The sometimes fierce debates that break out among techies
have been conducted transparently. The result has been an internet
open to innovation and free expression, led mostly by the private
sector and relatively free from government interference.
Yet because the system runs under American auspices, other countries
are unhappy with this arrangement. Many of those who want to relieve
America of its control think ICANN's job should be taken over by a
United Nations agency.
To anybody who has spent much time observing the UN at work, this
sounds like a poor idea. It is no accident that the world's telephone
systems remained so expensive and static for so long. They have been
heavily regulated nationally and their international links have been
controlled by the International Telecommunication Union, a UN body
which once rejected the idea of the internet in favour of a more
controllable and less efficient system. That standard never amounted
to much. The ITU's approach reflected the interests of state-run
telecom monopolies, which themselves are now being shaken to their
foundations by the internet.
It is also no accident that many of the countries loudest in their
demands for the internet to be taken out of American hands are those,
such as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, that are keenest on restricting
its use by their own citizens. These and many other countries are
hoping to use the lead-up to the UN's World Summit on the Information
Society to begin to wrest control away from America. By changing its
position last week the EU had hoped to act as a "bridge" between
America and other countries. Instead, it has simply isolated America,
with potentially damaging results.
America has offered olive branches to its critics. This summer, it
acknowledged that other countries have sovereignty over their
national addresses, and said it would never disrupt the system (ie,
kick France's .fr address offline). And, at the meeting last week in
Geneva, it supported the idea of a forum in which all governments can
discuss these matters in an "evolutionary process". That sounds like
an excellent scheme: just as startling as the speed of technological
development is the slowness of decision-making in international
forums. If this move works, it should succeed in parking the issue
harmlessly for many years.
Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber
Business and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
-------------------------------------
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/