[Ecommerce] Frederick Kempe in the Wall Street Journal: How the Web Was Run

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

THINKING GLOBAL
By Frederick Kempe


How the Web Was Run

The U.S. and Europe Are at Odds
But There May Yet Be a Way Out
October 25, 2005

A new transatlantic conflict has erupted over Americans' continued
control of Internet governance. The issue may seem arcane compared with
other disputes, namely Iraq. But the two sides of the debate are
responding with rancor and the stakes are considerable: How the Internet
is managed could affect issues ranging from free speech to business
regulation.

As was the case with Iraq, some European Union officials privately
accuse Americans of arrogance and unilateralism. Yet unlike Iraq, this
time all 25 EU countries have unified behind a position that Washington
believes endangers its interests. America and its industry friends worry
that Europe's fuzzy-headed multilateralism could endanger one of globe's
most valuable resources.

A showdown will come Nov. 16-18 at the United Nations' World Summit for
the Information Society <http://www.itu.int/wsis/>^1 in Tunis, Tunisia.
The outcome won't be binding but will be politically significant. Both
sides agree that they must avoid empowering autocratic governments --
which some fear would be the result if Internet governance is spread
among multiple governments. The trick will be how to deal with world
sensitivities over American oversight without undermining the very
success that U.S. control has spawned.

** * **

Bush administration officials blame the European Union's surprise attack
on U.S. Internet interests on Viviane Reding
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/commission_barroso/reding/profile/index_en.htm>^=
2
, a 54-year-old former journalist, who is now tiny Luxembourg's only
member on a panel of 25 EU commissioners. Her outsized responsibilities
reach from digital entertainment and media to telecommunications and the
Internet. Even EU officials appeared stunned when their 1 1/2-page
proposal
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/sca/EU-28.doc>^3 for a
"new international cooperation model" immediately inspired laudatory
statements from the undemocratic likes of Cuba, Iran, China and Saudi
Arabia.

"Seeing who was supporting [the EU] was a good market-based test for
what was going on," says Ambassador David A. Gross
<http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/46292.htm>^4 , the senior diplomat
leading negotiations. "The EU proposal in my view was historic and
shocking." He believes a more multilateral governance system would
endanger everything from free expression to innovation. "It was so
extraordinarily different than any position they had taken before."

In an interview, Ms. Reding returns volley. She argues nothing has
changed in the EU position, which has long endeavored to gradually move
the Internet away from U.S. control while preserving its openness. She
says it is the Bush administration that has drifted from the Clinton
administration's agreement to internationalize the Web. Ms. Reding says
she wants the current framework, which gives the Commerce Department
ultimate oversight over Internet governance, to be replaced with no
government oversight =96 U.S. or otherwise.

Ms. Reding wants technical management to remain in the hands of
California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or
Icann, a Commerce Department-sanctioned nonprofit that oversees the
address system that helps Web traffic find its destination. Without U.S.
oversight, Ms. Reding, says Icann would turn to its Government Advisory
Committee <http://gac.icann.org/web/index.shtml>^5 for advice when it
runs into a tricky political situation. And she wants the committee
broadened to include more governments as well as representatives from
the private sector and nongovernmental organizations.

Critics say the elimination of U.S. oversight would leave the Icann
vulnerable. Over time =96 and with potentially growing influence from the
Government Advisory Committee -- Icann could become ensnared in
bureaucratic, multilateral oversight. "What is to stop the U.S. or the
U.N. or another other group from taking responsibility for operations,"
says Mr. Gross. "We look at the Internet's success and want to make sure
we keep the recipe for it. If you modify it, the risk is that you come
out with something far worse."

In any case, he says, the U.S. isn't ready to give up the Internet's
holy grail, it's "root zone authoritative file." That is what Icann
oversees and what ensures that when Internet users type in a Web
address, they end up at the Web site they have in mind =96 whether they're
in Pittsburgh or Pretoria.

Ms. Reding bristles in response. "If I have learned something in 25
years of politics, it is that if you are isolated, the best defense is
attack. Today, in a globalized world in which the Internet has become a
global resource for freedom of expression and for economic exchange,
this monopolistic oversight of the Internet by one government is no
longer a politically tenable solution." She argues that larger countries
kept out of the governance system will set up their own Internets, which
would muddy the online world.

She believes the EU has done the U.S. a favor by drawing unfriendly
world governments toward a compromise position. "It is true that some
governments outside Europe, particularly in the developing world, have
argued that this can best be achieved by creating a formal, treaty-based
U.N. organization to supervise the Internet. =85 Europe does not agree. =85
There must not be any government involvement in the day-to-day
management of the Internet, neither one of the U.S. government nor by
any other government."

Erika Mann, a member of the European Parliament who specializes in such
issues, sympathizes with Ms. Redding's arguments but fears the EU has
moved forward with inadequate debate, raising an issue in an
unconsidered way that could have waited. "One must be very na=EFve to
argue the way the European Union is doing at the moment," says Ms. Mann.
"The moment you talk about replacing the U.S., you have to name who
would do it. There's no methodology of how to choose the others."

** * **

So how did we land in this transatlantic mess? The causes are a case
study in how Europe and the U.S. often end up in transatlantic dustups
where common purpose would better protect democratic interests.

=95 Rising anti-American resentment and the Bush administration's
suspicion of multilateral decision-making have complicated America's
defense of its Internet position. A short Commerce Department statement
of four principles on Internet governance issued in June fanned the
flames by essentially calling for an indefinite continuation of the
current system (while increasing international consultation). Mr. Gross
argues the statement
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm>^=
6
followed intensive consultation with governments and industry, but that
didn't lessen the usual charges of American arrogance.

=95 Commissioner Reding's world view differs from that of her predecessor,
Erkki Liikaanen, now Finland's central bank president. U.S. officials
believe she is more susceptible to political arguments against American
unilateralism and less swayed by practical and technical arguments of
how a new system could endanger the Internet's success. She has a
doctorate in human sciences from France's Sorbonne and, as a long-time
journalist at the Luxembourger Wort, she concedes that she's not a
"techie." Mr. Liikaanen
<http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Liikanen%20Erkk=
i?open>^7
, a political scientist from Nokia's homeland, had close links to
business and made frequent trips to Silicon Valley.

=95 Europe and American have a fundamentally differing philosophies on
global governance. Europeans tend to value process more, while Americans
prefer results. The EU itself was born out of a process whose aim was to
prevent new war in Europe and, thus, the EU is valued for its own sake
irrespective of its inefficiencies. Americans find it difficult to love
multilateral bodies that don't produce results -- or might endanger
achievement.

There still appears room for a solution in Tunis that doesn't endanger
the Web, but it will involve getting EU compromise on the U.S. role. Ms.
Reding's spokesman Martin Selmayr says the EU could accept a
step-by-step process that removes that U.S. role gradually. The U.S.
doesn't feel change is necessarily: It would prefer Washington's
oversight remain fixed even as an international advisory forum's role
expands.

There may be ways to split the difference. For instance, Nominet, which
looks after all .uk domain names, backs an Argentine proposal
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/19/nominet_votes_argies/>^8 rather
than the EU stance. The Argentine plan -- one of eight alternative plans
that have been floated -- may just work. It satisfies the U.S. desire to
retain ultimate oversight, while giving Ms. Reding the kind of
world-wide forum she wants to advise Icann. Perhaps Argentina can help
save the U.S. and EU from themselves.

=95 /Who do you think should govern the Internet?/ *Write to* Frederick
Kempe at fred.kempe@wsj.com <mailto:fred.kempe@wsj.com>^9 with your
thoughts.


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113016040615477507.html