Online business Toolkit

Story: MP welcomes UN indecision on Internet policy

• 
• 

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”.

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread