US endorses Internet Governance Forum United Nations

The US has inked a broad agreement at WSIS but that does not mean it relinquishes its influence over Internet operations

The Bush administration and its critics at a United Nations summit at Tunis in Tunisia have inked a broad agreement on global Internet management that will preclude any dramatic showdown this week.

By signing the statement, the Bush administration formally endorsed the creation of an "Internet Governance Forum" that will meet for the first time in 2006 under the auspices of the UN. The forum is meant to be a central point for global discussions of everything from computer security and online crime to spam and other "misuses of the Internet".

What the agreement does not do is require the US to relinquish its unique influence over the Internet's operations. The statement takes "no action regarding existing institutions", David Gross, the ambassador leading the US delegation, said on Wednesday. "It created no new international organisations."

The last-minute deal, reached just hours before the WSIS began on Wednesday, effectively postpones a long-simmering dispute over the future of Internet management. China, Cuba, South Africa and other nations have argued that the US and other wealthier nations must share power — complaints that now will be taken to the new UN forum.

"It is a matter of justice and legitimacy that all people must have a say in the way the Internet is governed," Luisa Diogo, the prime minister of Mozambique, told the thousands of delegates who have gathered in Tunisia's capital city.

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe offered a more ominous warning. The US and allies such as the UK unreasonably "insist on being world policemen on the management of the Internet", and that must change, Mugabe said.

At issue in this dispute is the unique influence the US government wields over the master list of top-level domain names — such as .com, .org and country codes including .uk and .jp — as a result of the network's historical origins. In addition, ICANN, the nonprofit organisation created by the Clinton administration to oversee day-to-day management is located in Marina del Rey, California

In June, the Bush administration announced it had no plans to relinquish its role as at least a symbolic guarantor of the stability of the Internet. A statement published at the time backed the current ICANN structure and said "no action" will be taken that could destabilise the Internet.

Over the last few months, the administration's envoys have found themselves increasingly isolated in preliminary meetings leading up to the Tunisia summit.

The European Union, for instance, implicitly backed the creation of a stronger UN body...

The US has inked a broad agreement at WSIS but that does not mean it relinquishes its influence over Internet operations

...that could even be granted regulatory powers. But as the official start of the summit on Wednesday neared, China and other critics chose to agree to the set of principles and instead take their complaints to the newly created UN forum during its first meeting next year that is expected to take place in Greece.

Vague principles for "forum" Because the principles adopted this week are so broad, nearly everyone involved in the discussions can boast a political victory.

The US stressed that the UN forum will have no regulatory power. "It will have no oversight function, (remain) non-operational and engage only in dialogue," Ambassador Gross said. We have "no concerns that it would morph into something unsavoury".

Gross also pointed to language in the agreement saying the forum should be "subject to periodic review" — meaning, he said, it will not become a permanent bureaucracy.

Also included in the broad principles: The forum shall "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public", "facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different crosscutting international public policies regarding the Internet" and discuss "issues relating to critical Internet resources".

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, on the other hand, said the agreement highlights "the need for more international participation in discussions of Internet governance issues. The question is how to achieve this. Let those discussions continue."

Annan acknowledged that the US has exercised its Internet oversight "fairly and honourably" but said that change has become necessary. The United Nations has no desire to "control or police the Internet", Annan added.

That stance seemed to be an effort to placate conservative groups and businesses, especially in the US, which are alarmed at what some view as the prospect of a thoroughly corrupt and unaccountable bureaucracy seizing control of Internet management. A report released this week by the National Taxpayers Union warned that "controlling Internet content while securing another income source through the United Nations seems an attractive policy outcome for politicians looking to suppress dissent and to prop-up financially ailing bureaucracies."

The CompTIA trade association has stressed that it supports a "market-based solutions" approach rather than expanded UN control. So have a roster of tech companies including Google, IBM and Microsoft and members of the US Senate and House of Representatives. One reason why businesses are alarmed is the lengthy list of suggestions that have been advanced in the past by nations participating in the UN process. Those include new mandates for "consumer protection", the power to tax domain names to pay for "universal access" and folding ICANN into a UN agency. The United Nations has previously suggested creating an international tax bureaucracy and once floated the idea of taxing email, saying in a report that a one cent tax on 100 email messages would be "negligible".

Violence before summit The lead-up to the WSIS has been marred by violence against journalists and human rights activists. French journalist Christophe Boltanski, who had arrived early to write about Tunisia President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's civil liberties record, was stabbed in an assault by four men and not aided by nearby police. The Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement that such attacks are characteristic of Tunisia's secret police.

In another incident, journalists and civil liberties activists planning their own summit on human rights were assaulted and detained by Tunisian police. In response, members of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange said they would pull out of the summit.

Human rights groups have warned for years that Ben Ali's autocratic regime has imprisoned and tortured political opponents and harassed full-time journalists and part-time online scribes.

"By signing the statement, the Bush administration formally endorsed the creation of an "Internet Governance Forum" that will meet for the first time in 2006 under the auspices of the UN. The forum is meant to be a central point for global discussions of everything from computer security and online crime to spam and other "misuses of the Internet"."

By endorsing, they mean the US government agreed to participate in a forum that has no real power.

""It is a matter of justice and legitimacy that all people must have a say in the way the Internet is governed," Luisa Diogo, the prime minister of Mozambique, told the thousands of delegates who have gathered in Tunisia's capital city."

The legitimacy of the Internet has nothing to do with a bunch of self absorbed politicians. It's a proven technology.

What's in question here is how domain names are issued and maintained, not content on the Internet itself.

The way it has been administered has worked well. It's being administered by a private nonprofit organization that was put in charge of it by the government that created the technology.

There is no compelling reason for this to change.

"Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe offered a more ominous warning. The US and allies such as the UK unreasonably "insist on being world policemen on the management of the Internet", and that must change, Mugabe said."

More false words and blustering. Countries have control over their own domestic networks. They can choose to block sites from their networks if the choose to do so. China chooses to do so, and does.

The US isn't blocking content from other countries' servers from going to another country's network.

"Over the last few months, the administration's envoys have found themselves increasingly isolated in preliminary meetings leading up to the Tunisia summit.

The European Union, for instance, implicitly backed the creation of a stronger UN body... "

That's strange. I didn't see a single one of these countries decide to sever their networks from the Internet. I haven't seen popular web sites jumping to some alternative worldwide network. Did I miss this isolation?

The Internet doesn't need governance. The domain names need administered. IP addresses need administered. They're being administered by a consistent set of rules now, and it's working well in the vast majority of situations.

I have little doubt that The UN is looking at the Internet as something to tax and control. The UN has proven itself to be both corrupt and incompetent. It is in no one's best interest to give them ANY kind of control over the Internet. The only ones who might benefit are bureaucrats. The Internet, the people who rely on it for information, and the companies that rely on it can only be harmed by the interference of the UN.

A few remarks to the crowd of reflexive anti-UN posters. First, this issue is far more complex than this article describes (though Declan McCulloughg certainly know better, his employer isn't really into deep analysis journalism)

Second, those that fear there is a great scheme to make money, are nmostly correct. All those non-technical cushy-wushy feelgood NGOs on this proces, and certainly all those crazed third world dictator governments simply demand cash. The rest of the sounds they make is just distraction. Show me one NGO that does not demand money out of some unspecified internet-user finmanced slush fund.

Third, even that is not the core problem. It is just the vultures circeling over a sick animal. The current central administrative body, ICANN, excells most at alienating people. ICANN, an uncontrolled, fast growing and therefore constantly underfundend buerocacy, tried to levy multi-million $ "domain-taxes" on the European registries, basically for one line of text entry in a centrally administrated file and the reliable operation of a hand full of not so expensive servers. They balked. ICANN tried to, ahem, put pressure on them. Threatened them. They still balked. ICANN pissed the Chinese off by idly sitting for several years on the issue of non-ascii doamins, which the emerging chinese Internet industry direly needed. ICANN made US sweetheart deals with Verizon and others when contractes for generic domain registries were up for reassigment. ICANN pissed the average Joe user off when it first started a decent plan for user involvement and representation and a year later systematically destroyed the whole thing again. ICANN pissed the open source community off by basically declaring Paul Vixie and the Internet Software Consortium - the organization that develops and maintains Bind - unfit to run an internet registry (in order to give the .org Registry to someone else in one of those aforementioned sweetheart deals).

I could go on. name me one stakeholder in ICANN and I can tell you where ICANN has unfairly treted him, snubbed him, angered him. So whatever Support ICANN has left is based on most people's (in as well as outside of the US) larger mistrust of the ITU.

Did I mention that ICANN is basically run by lawyers ? One key weakness of ICANN actually is that it resides and is chartered in the US and therefore can be sued over anything it does by anyone. And it has vastly less resources for that than the big players it tries to regulate. That makes its "lead counsel" and his band of lawyers the real leadership inside ICANN, while the directors are window dressing. Also, because of the constant fears of beeing sued ICANN has become an pretty secretive organization which barres its constituency any insight into its decision making.

What can be done ? Well, if the US wants to keep ICANN's role, it will have to step up.

First, ICANN needs a legal framework (some kind of immunity) to work within without being theratened with or constantly hauled into court.
Second, there needs to be transparency and oversight. Have the GAO or somebody else qualified control ICANN and force thier culture to be opened up, if necessary by replacing key personnel.
Third, someone has to keep buerocartic growth in check.
Fourth, last but not least, there has to e a universal, well defined and widely accepted source of funding. And by the old motto of the Boston Tea Party, as long as the US Goverment calls all the shots, they also will have to pay all the bills.

The next WSIS debate will come. The next round of talks. of demands. And in a few years, ITU or WIPO or someone else will have ICANNs functions, if the US Government doesnn't get its act together soon.

And don't kid yourself - technically nobody owns the internet any more. Its just a matter of whose lead the majority will follow.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.