Last week, after years of struggle, you and I finally got our first glimpse of "internet freedom". Yep, that cabal of crooked men in a Dr Evil hideout (aka, the US Department of Commerce) finally relinquished its iron-tight grip on governing the web. Instead, the US Government will allow the free market to determine the future of a medium that will no doubt generate trillions in trade and topple a few despots along the way.
You mean you weren’t aware that all these years we’ve been surfing, shopping and communicating under the careful watch of the Bush Administration? You weren’t aware there was a contentious geopolitical tug-o-war for oversight of the most powerful medium in the world?
In reality, the scenario is not nearly that creepy, and never has been. But that’s no fun. When you’re talking about something as crucial as "governance" of a shared, global medium, it’s a bit disconcerting to think that one country (in this case the United States, whose military built the backbone of the network in the 1960s) maintains such lopsided control of its central hardware.
This fact has agitated many for years, from well-meaning privacy advocates to innovative network engineers. It also bugs the likes of Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro, who are united in one central belief: the United States is not to be trusted. They therefore seek to overturn the current system, under which a non-profit organisation – the California-based International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – sets the policy, but answers to the Commerce Department.
There are many sound arguments for a truly independent governing body, one that is not subject to the whims of misguided politicians and free of red tape. This is the scenario the innovators, entrepreneurs and free speech advocates favour. And thus, they cheer the decision for the eventual severing of all government ties when the current charter between ICANN and the Department of Commerce lapses in 2009.
There is also something to be said for the argument that local governments should have more of a say in the development of the medium, as ICANN’s chief nemesis, the United Nations International Telecommunication Union, insists. For example, ICANN continues to keep domain name registration records in the form of phone numbers, e-mails and addresses on the Whois database open to the public, a no-no under EU privacy rules. Few would object to the logic that countries should have the right to ensure that its everyday laws governing speech, privacy or, say, gambling, are respected also in cyberspace.
With the US Government ostensibly getting out of the net governance game, the clamour for home rule is growing louder.
"Particularly because each society and economy differ as to what are the best approaches, the future of internet governance is inevitably local rather than global," Robert Shaw, deputy head of the ITU strategy and policy unit, told me in an e-mail exchange this week.
But there is an unmistakably sinister side to localising the medium: numerous countries are keen to stifle free speech and conceal their thuggish tactics of muzzling critics. If you’re Mugabe, you don’t want your main political rival to take up blogging.
Herein lies the real debate about the future of internet governance. Nobody wants to see important policy decisions about this global medium dictated by a government with a shaky human rights record, whether it be the Bush Administration or the Mugabe regime. On the other hand, effective laws governing hate speech and privacy protection should be respected wherever we wander, online or off.
Who then is the best candidate? For now, there’s only one sheriff big enough for the job: big business. The private sector has shown time and again that it’s best suited to implement and foster rapid technological change. It has also demonstrated that it’s nimble and sensitive enough to abide by the laws of the countries in which it operates.
It may not have been noble, but if the recent decisions by Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google to capitulate to the Chinese government told us anything, it’s that they intend to play by the local rules – for now. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than a patchwork of restrictions and embargoes placed on the net by panicky governments. Or worse, allowing two internets to co-exist: one that respects free speech, the other, a censored version that prosecutes those who scribble a moustache on the face of our glorious leader.
ICANN has its failings. Its track record on transparency and openness is, at best, poor. And, yes, its relationship to the Commerce Department means it will always be open to justified criticism that it’s beholden to American Government policy, an argument that’s grown louder since the Bush Administration vetoed the .xxx suffix, fearing it would create a red light district on the internet.
If the .xxx incident has shown us anything it is that the internet needs less political meddling, not more. There is no doubt a need for international cooperation to fight spam and cybercrime, but that doesn’t dictate that the medium should be patrolled by a team of cyber blue helmets. Should the US government indeed step aside, the temptation will no doubt be strong for other political bodies to muscle in on the turf of dictating internet governance.
Back at the ITU, Shaw believes that when all is said and done, "the internet will not be governed or regulated that fundamentally different than any other communications technologies". The trick will be in convincing Robert Mugabe.
Bernhard Warner, formerly Reuters' internet correspondent in Europe and senior editor for The Industry Standard Europe, writes about technology, the internet and media industries. He can be reached at techscribe@gmail.com
Previous articles by Bernhard Warner can be found here
