Who rules your Internet?

The five-letter answer is ICANN. Nominally, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a private corporation. A recent meeting in Tunis of the WSIS sparked up the debate for the independence of ICANN and its transformation to a more “international” entity.

Currently, ICANN’s founding document states that “neither national governments acting as sovereigns nor intergovernmental organizations acting as representatives of governments should participate in management of Internet names and addresses.” In effect, the corporation’s bylaws prohibit government officials from sitting on the Board of Directors.

The critics of ICANN, which is mostly the EU, argue that ICANN is a US corporation and as such is not independent to the extent it should be. After all, the Internet is not just US “space” anymore. One suggestion was to transfer the control to a UN committee which will ensure a high level of independence from the government.

Another argument, albeit extreme, is that the US might use ICANN as a beating stick for countries they consider a threat, e.g. Iran or North Korea. They could (in theory) shut-down the TLD (the country-specific domain extension) for that particular country immobilizing all sites based on that domain, including government sites.

In an article on the BBC’s site, US rejects changes to net control, Ambassador David Gross is quoted to say: “We will not agree to the UN taking over the management of the internet. Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable."

Obviously, this is a flat rejection of the proposal by the EU. The defense of the US position is simple: not all countries share the same ideas about freedom of expression. Relegating this authority to a UN committee might infringe on the freedom of expression.

“Reporters Without Borders” officially supports the US position with an example that speaks for itself – the UN committee for human rights is currently chaired by Libya.

The WSIS meeting in Tunis ended with ICANN getting a 5 year extension. Hopefully, in 5 years all rogue states (from the US point of view) will adopt a US-like freedom of speech. I strongly doubt this will happen so we’ll be staying with ICANN for some decades to come.

AUTHOR: Krasimir Koichev, iConcertina Creative

Comments

[Limont]

Personally I like the EU's proposal to transfer control over to a committee of the UN.

The internet is one of the only true levellers on a global scale. That is equal rights of expression afforded anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Both the US and the UN promote such ideals and so control of the internet should be safe with either one in theory.

There is one big difference however, the US is and agressor in defense of its own kind and the UN a promoter of peace for all......I say give the internet to us all to control. And there is only one organisation who affords all global citizens a form representation, the UN.

[Krasimir Koichev]

Hi Limont and thanks for your comment.

I agree with you that there's very good reasoning on why the transfer of ICANN over to the UN should take place. I definitely feel that the Internet has passed the point where a single country should create the rules of the game.

In more practical terms, however, ICANN has done a pretty good job so far. They've lowered the price of domains significantly, the dispute policies are much clearer now, etc. The Internet is no longer a wild, wild West.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule is something of a consolation for the time being. The next review is in 5 years so hopefully then we'll see some progress towards a more international body.

[Steve]

I am sorry how can anyone suggest the UN be in charge of anything! The UN is one of the most useless and corrupt organizations out there.

I worked there as a contractor I even seen more of the corruption and people that do not work and feel entitled.

Please may they never turn this over to the UN

[Matt Jacobson]

"Hopefully, in 5 years all rogue states (from the US point of view) will adopt a US-like freedom of speech."

This very statement reflects the bias of the media in the United States and associated 'democracies'. Case in point.

Granted the current topic of discussion is the internet, which affords a much greater degree of freedom than media outlets which are essentially propaganda dissemination outlets for the US government.