[Ecommerce] Wall Street Journal editorial: e-Meddling

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

e-Meddling
October 17, 2005; Page A18

International bureaucrats and assorted countries are struggling to wrest
control of "Internet governance" from that old unilateralist bogeyman,
the United States. There's one big problem with this picture: Cyberspace
isn't "governed" by the U.S. or anyone else, and that's the beauty of
it. But if the United Nations gets its way in the coming month, the Web
will end up under its control. Uh-oh is about right.

Internet governance, such as it is, currently falls under the purview of
a California-based nonprofit called the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers. Better known as Icann, it was created by the
U.S. Commerce Department in 1998 to administer the "root zone file," the
master list of all Web addresses world-wide, which the U.S. has kept
since the creation of the Internet in the 1970s. Ensuring that any given
Web address, or domain name, is assigned to only one Web site is a key
reason why the Internet has become such a powerful tool.

Maintaining the root zone file involves assigning -- or, more commonly,
accrediting other companies to assign -- domain names, such as our
OpinionJournal.com <http://OpinionJournal.com>^1 . Icann also manages
the top-level domains such as .com and .org. This includes the 248
country-specific ones -- from .ca for Canada to .aq for Antarctica, and
everything in between. Local authorities set policy for their
country-specific extensions, conferring with Icann to make sure
everything works smoothly.

And that's it. Real "governance," on the other hand, could bring
oversight of content and even transactions by a new international body
-- two jobs that Icann explicitly doesn't perform. For an example of how
the Internet is governed, look no further than the strict limits China
-- one of the main proponents of "internationalizing" the root zone file
-- places on Web sites that promote or even discuss democracy.

But if China and other countries already do this now, why would they be
pushing for change? Good question. So far, exactly what this new
intergovernmental body would look like or do remains worryingly vague.
According to a report of the U.N.'s Working Group on Internet
Governance, this body could be a Global Internet Council to which Icann
reports; or it could keep Icann in place and simply make
recommendations; or it could take over Icann's duties and relegate the
private sector to "providing advice."

The working group's report says the governing body would respect freedom
of expression. At the same time, it holds as one of its "key principles"
the "respect for cultural and linguistic diversity as well as tradition
[and] religion." On the Internet, it says, "that translates to
multilingual, diverse and culturally appropriate content" (our
emphasis). And who decides whether content is culturally, or otherwise,
"appropriate"? Today, no one. Tomorrow, Tehran, Beijing or Brussels.

One constant -- and this is where vagueness becomes an even bigger
danger -- is that a U.N.-run oversight body would address "public policy
issues that currently do not have a natural home or cut across several
international or intergovernmental bodies." In other words, it could do
darn near anything it wanted.

It's no surprise that supporters' bureaucratic web of choice is the
U.N., which cloaks its designs on Internet control in language about
such niceties as bridging the "digital divide." Spreading Web access is
a worthy goal, but centralizing control runs directly at odds with that
aim. The phenomenal growth of email, e-commerce and e-everything else is
directly attributable to the Internet's decentralized nature. One area
where a U.N.-run Web might very well expand its reach is into the
taxpayer's pocket. Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac have long dreamed of a
global "solidarity" tax on online financial transactions. This could be
their vehicle for doing so.

By no means is Icann perfect. The main gripe is that the agency is
subject to occasional political pressure from Washington. In August,
Assistant Commerce Secretary Michael Gallagher objected to Icann's plans
to introduce a .xxx top-level domain for pornographic Web sites. This
political misstep, while hardly the norm, undermined Icann's
independence and gave ammunition to the multilateral-at-all-costs crowd.
The Administration can neutralize its opponents by moving ahead quickly
with plans to grant Icann its full independence next year.

Without U.S. support for the U.N.'s Web "governance" campaign --
withheld so far -- the current system can't be changed. But Washington
doesn't hold all the cards here. Countries could create parallel
Internets. The same Web address might take users in China and the U.S.
to different Web sites -- a nightmare outcome for online business as
well as the vibrant marketplace of ideas that the Internet has fostered.
Perhaps our friends at the European Union, who last month turned against
the U.S., will realize that their sudden push for "control" over the Net
carries a high price.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112950445280770217.html