Web Governance Woes Persist Days Before UN Report Release

The report, prepared by the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), shouldn’t contain surprises, UN officials said. It’s supposed to tackle spam, network security, cybercrime, root server systems and administration of Internet names and addresses. The last 2 topics have proven the most contentious, and analysts are concerned that others will take a back seat to the Internet governance fight. The report was said to have reached UN Secy. Gen. Kofi Annan early this month as he prepares for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Nov. 16-18 in Tunisia.

NTIA Dir. Michael Gallagher said this month the U.S. intends to keep control of the domain name system (DNS) to preserve Internet security and stability and added the country is “committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS” (WID July 1 p8). While the U.S. says its stance would maintain status quo, and the govt. still supports ICANN as the proper technical coordinator for the Web, some countries saw this announcement as a bombshell dropped in the run-up to WSIS.

Nations that want more govt. control over the Web’s evolution are trying to get more control over the Internet because some developing countries can’t afford to build the networks they need on their own, experts told us. Other countries simply have a different perspective than the U.S. regarding citizens’ access to online information. An intergovernmental organization overseeing the Internet or more involvement from individual govts. isn’t supported by businesses around the world, Internet consultant Marilyn Cade argued: “We're talking about 2 very different worlds here.” Some have found Brazil and China’s comments to WGIG particularly interesting. Both countries are still calling for the creation of an intergovernmental mechanism to oversee the entire Internet.

These positions are based on ignorance, and some countries’ arguments are “so factually far off base,” they're laughable, Information Technology Assn. of America (ITAA) Pres. Harris Miller told us. Dissent by Cuba, Syria and China is part of broader anti-Americanism sentiment, he said, and it’s not based on a complete understanding of how the Internet operates. He said those countries’ representatives need to “stop talking and start listening.” “The idea that somehow the ITU or some other Internet governing body is going to approve the Internet is just pure nonsense,” he said.

Internet insiders think representatives from those govts. will make their case in Geneva at the 3rd WSIS preparatory meeting in Sept. “We've all been subjected to fact that the primary purpose of WSIS has been diverted into a political fight,” Cade said: “It’s really important for countries going to prepcom to focus on what the purpose of prepcom is -- to prepare for the final meeting of the ministers” in Tunis. ITAA’s task in coming months is making sure ever fewer countries support efforts to reassign Internet governance, Miller told us. The Assn. is engaged in “very serious discussions” with its Indian counterpart to ensure that leaders are not siding with “people who think the Internet should be governed out of Geneva.”

Despite China’s industrial strengths, it’s still a closed society, Miller said: “Clearly, their message is ‘we want to control the Internet and control access to content for our own citizens.'” Tunisia also has a problem with allowing citizens access to online information, Miller said, saying “they ought to get their act together before they host this meeting in November.” Meanwhile, Cuba’s hatred for America is motivating its opposition to the current Internet governance system, and Syria is using the issue “as a way to get at the Bush Administration,” he said. But opposition raised by Brazil and India make no sense to him: “They've just got the wrong people coming to these meetings.”

Some experts can’t fathom how a UN-like agency to oversee the Internet would work. The Web consists of interconnected networks, vast libraries of information, individual e-mails, ISP connections and more, they argue. Cade wonders how a monolithic governing group could better handle hot-button topics like junk e-mail and cybercrime than the current structure, which is largely led by public-private partnerships. National laws already affect the Internet, and when a country needs to develop stronger cybercrime legislation, that’s a national matter, Cade said.

Cooperation between existing entities is needed -- and is happening, Cade said. Encouraging organizations to increase and deepen their involvement and activities doesn’t require a new oversight body whose job would merely be to watch the work of others and divert attention, energy and resources needed elsewhere, she said. “Dealing with spam doesn’t take an intergovernmental body; that takes continued hard, practical work on technical approaches, and support and cooperation between the public and private sectors.” Some fear that all that may come out of WSIS are discussion, debate and mechanisms to track projects, but little about bringing ICTs to developing nations. “That seems to me to be the question that ministers must address to prepare for the summit,” Cade said.