American dominance of the Internet, redux

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
Date: October 14, 2005 8:57:58 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
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 lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/