Who owns the ’Net?

Though the Internet as we know it has only been in existence since the early 1990s, it’s a well-known fact the U.S. Government had been working on it since the 1960s.

Thus the architects of the original concept for a global communications tool wish to retain control of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the California-based organization responsible for overseeing the ’Net’s address structure, known as the domain name system (DNS). DNS enables communication between computers.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton had promised to relinquish America’s control of ICANN and go with a global communal effort. That the current U.S. administration under President George W. Bush has since reneged on that pledge should come as little surprise.

Other countries, including Canada, are uncomfortable with a singular American-run cyberspace. It has been said Canada does not like the perceived power the U.S. has over the Internet but at the same time, we’re uncomfortable at the thought of opening up the Web to overall state control.

Some countries in the European Union and others elsewhere have joined in promoting a shared responsibility. The U.S. naturally, is opposed to any such notion. As a result of the loggerheads, there is a considerable possibility China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab countries could start operating their own versions of the Internet thereby destroying the ubiquity that has made it such a success in the first place.

“The Americans don't directly control ICANN. It is an American (non-profit) corporation, but that doesn't mean that it would always, of necessity, be controlled by Americans,” said Warren Shiau, senior IT analyst for the Toronto-based Strategic Counsel. “ICANN membership is mostly composed of Internet Society members – an international body with American flavouring but international nonetheless, which makes ICANN international in its composition.”

Shiau called the ICANN debate the most politicized argument within the information technology (IT) realm to date. Control of ICANN under a body of countries similar to the United Nations would almost certainly add bureaucracy, even further politicize it, he warned, and doing so could negatively affect ICANN’s decision-making efficiency.

“Imagine turning ICANN into a political entity, which it would be under UN control,” he said. “ICANN decision-making would turn into a Security Council type political circus, where it's not just personalities clashing but entire national political agendas.”

The economic and social strength of the Internet derives from its open and decentralized architecture. The train of thought being if governments began to create their own distinct Internets it would in turn undermine the essence of what makes the Internet so powerful.

“A global governing body would help eliminate or minimize the vested interests that one country can't help but bring to the table,” said Michelle Warren, an IT analyst with the Evans Research Corp. in Toronto. “One body of nations would likely add a layer of bureaucracy, but the benefits of minimizing the vested interests of one nation in particular would outweigh any bureaucratic tendencies.”

Michael Geist, an Internet law professor at the University of Ottawa, favours the creation of an International Internet Council that would assume responsibility for the Internet governance issues that arise on the national level. ICANN's mandate would need to be altered based on the development of the IIC, he stated.

“If countries are looking to deal, it seems to me that this option provides the best prospect for the basis for negotiation,” he said. “It focuses on ICANN's softest spot, Internet governance at the national level. This addresses a major concern for many countries and opens the dialogue in the one area where the U.S. may be comfortable with some change.”

ERC’s Warren said the rise of an alternative Internet has already begun. She cited the popularity of the Chinese search engine Baidu.com – a search engine many have pegged to be the next Google.

“Certainly the individual population bases of China, Russia, Brazil, Iran, and India would lend nicely to having their own Internet,” she added. “So then what do we want, one Internet or many? Perhaps the U.S. only wants one. Or perhaps they want to control the
English one.”

Warren is hopeful ICANN will ultimately become a shared responsibility. If not, she said she could also see it becoming American or English-centric.

Dictatorial, authoritarian states that wish to limit or control speech and communications would dearly love to set-up their own closed-box, in-country communications networks and have all their citizens communicate only through the state owned infrastructure, Shiau added.

“If they could develop their own Internets and limit their citizens to using that Internet, they would do it,” he said. “For developing countries like Brazil, the issue isn't really building their own ’Net – that's impractical from an infrastructure investment point of view.

“The issue is frustration with the lack of transparency in ICANN decision-making. A major part of ICANN's remit is to promote Internet development and use in developing countries, yet the same developing countries have very little real input or visibility into what ICANN does. ICANN could help itself a lot by doing more to bring developing countries into its processes and giving them more of a voice.”

Courtesy image