US grip on the
Internet challenged By Seema
Sirohi
ROME - A high-stakes battle is
raging over who should control the Internet, the
world's most powerful communication tool that has
arguably become an important vehicle of
globalization.
Not the Americans, is the
message from the rest of the world. Last week,
high-level talks in Geneva failed to resolve the
dispute as the European Union broke ranks with the
US government and joined Brazil, China and Iran in
demanding an end to America's supervision of the
Internet.
While many countries demand
nothing less than "regime change", others say the
United States should practice what it
preaches and instill some
democracy in the abstruse governance of the
Internet.
If another round of meetings
fails to break the deadlock, the World Summit on
the Information Society in Tunis next month will
be dead on arrival. The summit was to pronounce on
the future of the Internet, but the row is likely
to overshadow other crucial issues such as
bringing more people online and fighting spam
e-mails. In the absence of a peaceful compromise,
the biggest losers will be an estimated 1 billion
people who use the Internet.
In the worst
case scenario, dubbed by cyber pundits as the
"nuclear option", the Internet could fracture into
multiple networks that may be incompatible with
each other. It would be nothing less than
Balkanization of the virtual world - a web
meltdown where two computers might find different
websites at the same numerical address.
Brazil, Iran, Cuba and China want the
creation of a new international body to govern the
Internet, either through the United Nations or an
independent organization. The Americans, deeply
allergic to even the smell of the United Nations,
vehemently oppose handing over this powerful tool
to a bunch of bickering bureaucrats, many of whom
will surely rise from countries on Washington's
blacklist.
Incidentally, Iran - currently
the cause of American ulcers - was active in
Geneva opposing the domination of any "single
government" in running the Internet. Brazil was
equally vehement in its statement when it said
bluntly: "On Internet governance, three words come
to mind: lack of legitimacy. In our digital world,
only one nation decides for all of us."
The European Union, traditionally
America's ally in all things important, decided
even it couldn't live with US monopoly for all
time and joined other nations in calling for a
larger inter-governmental body to oversee the
Internet.
But the US government appears
equally determined to maintain its hold. Both the
executive and legislative branches of the
government are united in their aim to keep the
reins firmly in Washington's hands.
Joe
Barton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce
committee in the US House of Representatives,
wrote to the chief US negotiator, David Gross,
saying that the US must continue its "historic
role" in governing the Internet and exercise
"strong oversight".
Given such a mandate,
it was no surprise that Gross said in Geneva,
"What we are not interested in ... is the
establishment of a new international institution
to regulate the Internet." The uncompromising
American stance made a compromise difficult, which
in turn led to the EU abandoning the US camp.
Viviane Reding, the EU commissioner for
cyber matters, said the Americans were "absolutely
isolated and that is dangerous". Anticipating a
nasty virtual war, she asked to imagine the
unimaginable - the Brazilians or the Chinese
creating their own Internet. "That would be the
end of the story."
Indeed. Control rather
than free flow of information would be the rule of
the day, warn experts. Carl Bildt, former prime
minister of Sweden, wrote: "It would be profoundly
dangerous to now set up an international
mechanism, controlled by governments, to take over
the running of the Internet. Not only would this
play into the hands of regimes bent on limiting
the freedom that the Internet can bring, it also
risks stifling innovation."
So how does
the United States control the Internet? The US
Commerce Department effectively supervises
Internet traffic because it approves changes to
the Internet's "root zone files" or master
directories. In other words, the US government has
veto power and can theoretically deny access.
The Americans justify their control
because the Internet was created thanks to a
Pentagon project. Funded by the US Defense
Department, the project was designed to create
links among computer networks. But for the system
to function, a master list was needed to direct
data to the correct destination.
To manage
the master files, the Commerce Department founded
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers or ICANN. The California-based
organization administers master directories, which
instruct web browsers and e-mail programs on how
to direct traffic.
ICANN, which was
created on a contract by the US Commerce
Department, was to gain independence in 2006 but
President George W Bush said in July that the US
would "maintain its historic role in authorizing
changes or modifications" to the master lists to
"preserve security and stability".
Bush's
statement raised hell in various capitals around
the world where the Internet is as feared as it is
admired for its vast ability to stream through to
the individual and past the police check posts.
But many countries also fear that the US can
arbitrarily deny requests for changes in the files
depending on who's out of favor with Washington.
So far, that hasn't happened but diplomats don't
want to leave such a possibility for the future.
There is no doubt that geopolitics forms
the backdrop to the battle for control. The EU,
Brazil, Russia and China have had enough of the
American "unilateral approach" to world affairs
since the Iraq war. They want to send a signal
that the US can't dominate the digital world.
As for developing countries, they are
already angry with the US and Europe for gobbling
up most of the available addresses needed for
computers to connect, leaving only a few for the
rest of the world to share.
The Americans,
for their part, don't want to lose control of this
powerful tool to countries such as China that are
fast emerging as potential rivals for superpower
status. Already on the defensive by a fast-rising
China, the Americans would like to put some brakes
on the dragon.
The Americans are also
deeply concerned about terrorists using the
Internet. With multiple masters, the Internet
would be easier to abuse because it would be more
difficult to monitor.
But the Americans
seem to be alone in their stand. The Europeans are
trying to craft a compromise that would create an
international forum where other countries can
discuss their concerns while ICANN would continue
to be the technical administrator.
While
the bellicose Bush administration may not the best
example for civil liberties, communist China, a
theocratic Iran or a fundamentalist Saudi Arabia
might be worse for deciding the fate of a free
Internet, say analysts.
Seema
Sirohi is a Rome-based correspondent.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us for information
on sales, syndication and republishing
.)
