The Internet, which grew up in a state of anarchy, looks set to continue on its unconstrained path after a UN working group failed to agree on a strategy to move the Internet forward. The news, has been welcomed by one of the UK's more tech-savvy MPs.
The group reported on its findings last week and decided that the most important issue is that no single company or organisation should be allowed to dominate the Internet. Four possible ways forward have been proposed.
The report says that "no single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance". However the Bush administration's position, announced last month, is that the US should retain its key interest in controlling the development of the Internet.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has long pressed industry, government and private interest groups to ensure that people in poor nations have greater access to the Internet. But while Annan has fought for the rights of the poorer nations, others have been fighting to retain the status quo.
Labour MP and spokesman on the Internet, Derek Wyatt, welcomed the stalemate. "We should be eternally grateful that the UN has failed to reach agreement, it's the last thing we want," he told ZDNet UK. "It would be singularly inappropriate for that mid-20th century body, which is badly in need of a total refit, to take on anything as radical as Internet governance."
Among the governance options put forward by the UN group were a continuation of the current system; creation of a world body to address public policy issues stemming from the work of the ICANN; and creation of a body to address a broader range of public policy issues. The fourth option is to create three bodies, one to address policy issues, one for oversight and one for global coordination.
The group also recommended a coordinated global effort to combat spam and urged that law enforcement authorities respect the right to freedom of expression when they crack down on Internet-related crimes.
Talkback
Regulation of Internet
The Internet is a “joint venture” owned by the netizens at large whether they belong to US, UK or anywhere else. It is high time that Internet should be “decentralised” and access to it should be provided to all the nations of the world in an equitable and judicious manner. The same, however, cannot happen unless and until the issues of its “ownership” is decided conclusively at the “International level”. The same should, however, in no case be pressed further through the mechanism of UN. That is a remedy worst than the malady. The proper solution is to make it a part of WTO, etc and formulate an “International Treaty” named “Internet Treaty” and let the nations at large decide about its proper utilisation and ownership. It must be appreciated that Internet is an indispensable mode of communication in the contemporary society and it is the “electronic environment” of the planet named earth. If we can resolve the “environmental matters” of the earth by International Treaties and Convention, we can do the same vis-à-vis the “electronic environment”. The parameters of Internet will be extended to “Space” as well in the distant future and the Inter-Planetary Internet System may again face the same problem. We need a “futuristic aspect” of the current problem and that mandates an amicable solution of the internet ownership problem as soon as possible.
Now the UN has realised the inappropriateness of pressing the issue through its mechanism that is more or less “persuasive” in nature and by and large remains a “tiger without teeth”. The Law of UN is a “law” only and upto the extent recognised and enforced as such by the concerned State, otherwise it has a mere persuasive value and moral sanction only. It has to be judged on an “individual transaction basis” and not on “universal” basis because for the same transaction and event States act differently. Thus, while one State prefers to abide by its rules whereas the other may act in a flagrant violation of the same that cannot be justified either by the International Law itself or by a humanitarian behaviour. The only good thing about the UN law is that at times it is used by Courts to give a “purposive and updating” interpretation to the existing provisions of the municipal law. The same, however, by and large remains a “moral charter” only.
Thus, no single body, including UN, should be given the important task of regulating the “Internet” rather it should be “decentralised” further shedding the veil of “status quo”. It is apt to mention that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
I believe that the main premise of this article is incorrect - the WGIG did agree - to provide multiple options to the negotiating body. The report as presented is a consensus document, on which the group agreed.
The WGIG is NOT the UN. The mandate of this group was to provide input to the negotiation sessions, not to negotiate.
The negotiations will start soon, and after the Intergovernmental negotiations conclude, only then the UN can be said to decide (or fail to) on the way forward for Internet Governance.
There is no "status quo" option in the WGIG report. All of the models presented include some change. The most basic change, and common to all, is the recommendation to remove edit control of the root zone file from the US DoC and place it under International control. The models are not specific as to where the oversight and edit functions would reside, whether in the UN system or elsewhere.
Mr. Wyatt's statements are not relevant at this time, as :
a) In the first case re: failing to reach agreement - he is responding to something that does not exist, as the UN hasn't yet failed to agree on IG.
b) In the 2nd case: As the UN was mandated by the governments in the Geneva phase of the Summit in 2003 to create the IG working group and to tackle the thorny and complex issue of Internet Governance, in time for the Tunis phase of the Summit, the other part of his comment (It would be singularly inappropriate ... governance") is well after the fact, as this mandate was given in December 2003.
Last week, I sent Mr. McCullagh the links to the WGIG website and the documents that are archived there. The mandate of the WGIG is very clearly stated there. There are links to the history of this process, and the specific circumstances that led up to the creation of the WGIG, as well as the steps (open consultation process) that the group took to get to the report that was published. The website also contains a verbatim transcript of the presentations yesterday by WGIG members and the Chairman on the details of the report. If these documents and others available on the WSIS website had been considered, then many of the inaccuracies in this story might have been avoided.
Sincerely.