Support for the US’s continued unilateral oversight of internet resource management, which the country’s competitors continue to be angry about, appears to be eroding, with European Union support evaporating earlier this week.
At the final preparatory meeting of the World Summit on the Information Society, PrepCom-3, civil servants from around the world are trying to settle on language dictating what internet governance is, and who should do it.
At the debate has boiled down to one between those who think the US should continue to overseer the internet’s naming and addressing systems, and those who think that responsibility should pass to a multilateral body, possibly with ties to the UN.
The US so far has been immovable. The Bush administration decided a few months ago that its policy is to continue to have oversight of these systems, and Ambassador David Gross, on the floor in Geneva, has been reiterating that policy all week.
The United Nations will not be in charge of the internet. Period, Gross said earlier this month while talking at the US Congressional Internet Caucus on WSIS and Internet Governance, before PrepCom-3 kicked off.
In 1998, the US Department of Commerce gave responsibility for policy development over the domain name system and IP address allocation to ICANN, the Internet Corp for Assigned Names and Numbers.
But it retained oversight of ICANN, a private non-profit California corporation, with a view to eventually formally hand over control after ICANN completed a series of Herculean technical and political tasks.
Some countries, prominently including Brazil, China and Iran, want the UN to take over Commerce’s and/or ICANN’s role. And the UN-linked International Telecommunications Union has been spoiling for a rumble with ICANN for a year or more.
As government representatives meet for a last day of discussions on the matter today, Brazil and Iran are pushing identical language: no single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance.
A draft working document currently contains language thanking the US for its role to date but recognizing the need for legitimate, multilateral, transparent and democratic public policy setting and oversight over the root zone system and its future development.
A blow to the US position came mid-week, when the UK/EU delegation said: In reviewing the adequacy of existing institutional arrangements for Internet Governance and policy debate we agree that adjustments need to be made.
This represented that delegation’s first major shift away from the US position of endorsing status quo. The ITU could barely conceal its glee, calling the move a radical shift of position of ground-shaking import.
The UK/EU proposal envisages a cooperative Forum between governments and other stakeholders, which would have direct responsibility for formulating policy over the internet’s addressing systems.
It’s different from the Iranian proposal to create a Council for Global Public Policy and Oversight in a few technicalities. Both would see an international policymaking body oversee ICANN. The Iranian proposal would see ICANN reformed first.
While allocation of names and addresses may seem like mere administrivia, many people are concerned that too much government involvement in the internet could erode many of the economic and social benefits a mostly privately run internet has created.
In addition, the fact that it is countries like China and Iran pushing for UN control of these resources makes many free speech advocates very nervous indeed.
