[Ecommerce] Guardian: Breaking America's grip on the net

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1585288,00.html

*Breaking America's grip on the net*

After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to
relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments

*Kieren McCarthy
Thursday October 6, 2005
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>*

You would expect an announcement that would forever change the face of
the internet to be a grand affair - a big stage, spotlights, media
scrums and a charismatic frontman working the crowd.

But unless you knew where he was sitting, all you got was David Hendon's
slightly apprehensive voice through a beige plastic earbox. The words
were calm, measured and unexciting, but their implications will be felt
for generations to come.

Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business
relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European
Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month's World
Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political
coup over the running of the internet.

Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat
just feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon
explained the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral
control of the internet and put in place a new body that would now run
this revolutionary communications medium.

The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely divisive
issue, and for 11 days the world's governments traded blows. For the
vast majority of people who use the internet, the only real concern is
getting on it. But with the internet now essential to countries' basic
infrastructure - Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the
question of who has control has become critical.

And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. In
the early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and
funded expansion of the internet. And when it became global, it created
a private company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (Icann) to run it.

But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had
always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the internet's
foundation - its "root servers", which act as the basic directory for
the whole internet.

A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China,
Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control,
but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the
EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that
would decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising
governments that would be in overall charge.

Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its
representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any
changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling
the top level of the internet.

But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the
world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves
ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world
leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is
little the US government can do but acquiesce.

But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that
"even on technical details, the industry will have to follow
government-set policies, UN-set policies"?

No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet
governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are
not concerned with the technical and operational management of the
internet. Standards are set by the users."

Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU
doesn't want to see this change as bringing new government control over
the internet. Governments will only be involved where they need to be
and only on issues setting the top-level framework."

*Human rights*

But expert and author of Ruling the Root, Milton Mueller, is not so
sure. An overseeing council "could interfere with standards. What would
stop it saying 'when you're making this standard for data transfer you
have to include some kind of surveillance for law enforcement'?"

Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for filtering
content from the net within its borders. Tunisia - host of the World
Summit - has also come under attack for silencing online voices. Mueller
doesn't see a governmental overseeing council having any impact: "What
human rights groups want is for someone to be able to bring some kind of
enforceable claim to stop them violating people's rights. But how's that
going to happen? I can't see that a council is going to be able to
improve the human rights situation."

And what about business? Will a governmental body running the internet
add unnecessary bureaucracy or will it bring clarity and a coherent
system? Mueller is unsure: "The idea of the council is so vague. It's
not clear to me that governments know what to do about anything at this
stage apart from get in the way of things that other people do."

There are still dozens of unanswered questions but all the answers are
pointing the same way: international governments deciding the internet's
future. The internet will never be the same again.