Importance of Internet Today - Essay Example

Internet today is an essential infra-structure for global communications, including trade and commerce. Internet governance goes beyond the domain names system. The controversy over who should govern the internet started when EU wanted an inter-governmental body that oversee ICANN. The reasons why US wants internet to remain within its control are as clear as the reasons why the UN, EU or the developing countries want global participation. Internet was started, financed and so far has been managed by US efficiently. They have been able to meet all targets as decided at the Geneva Summit. They have the technical expertise and have expanded as the situation changed. Control in too many hands is bound to lead to operational problems. A slight flaw could be disastrous to global communications, trade and commerce. The opponents, on the other hand want to curtail freedom through their repressive regimes. The developing countries have benefited immensely out of the internet and derive more benefit if control remains in the hands of the US. Arguments support that US is well-equipped and control of the internet should continue to remain in its hands. Internet became available to the public in 1994 and it took almost ten years for people of different nations to wake up wanting to get involved in the issues pertaining to regulations and governance. Internet today is an essential infra-structure for global communications, including trade and commerce. Internet governance as defined by the WGIG, is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. This definition emphasizes that governance goes beyond the domain names system, which is handled by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The support at this stage for governance of the internet is very vital. Earlier, internet was declared beyond the realm of the government for various reasons. So far, internet governance has been in the hands of US through ICANN but for the past few years voices have been raised against their control. While some support the US dominated structure, other nations seek international governance and feel that developing nations should have a significant role to play in this. This paper will highlight reasons why governance of the internet should remain with the US. Eric Krapf, editor of Business Communications Review expresses, countries that have been shut out of internet governance are concerned that as global commerce develops through the internet, people would be subject to the vagaries of the American foreign policy. On the other hand, the US officials are worried that control should not go to the countries that have a record of controlling or suppressing domestic Internet access. Crews & Thierer, in their book titled Who Rules the Net? very aptly describe internet as a medium where people cross geographical boundaries without requiring a passport. Nobody really knows where the internet itself is. Nobody knows who owns the internet. This becomes the critical issue in deciding who should have the jurisdiction and control over the internet. Five years ago people would never have thought of a debate over governance because they were ignorant about the subject of internet itself. As the Chairman of United Nations WGIG, Nitin Desai has very rightly said, any decision taken should be flexible as we do not know what will be the state of affairs in the next years. The issue of governance has come up because of the economic potential that it provides. The debate over who should govern the internet has become interesting. It shows how people all round the world have become educated in such a short time. Doesn’t this itself speak volumes of the concept of the internet? Isn’t US worthy of kudos for such a step taken? Has US benefitted alone in bringing the world closer together? Voices have been raised against the developing countries demand for international participation in internet governance. The internet has helped the developing countries in poverty alleviation, health and education, in participating in global affairs. The developing countries first need to concentrate on providing the basic needs before indulging in matters of global concern. If the control of the internet goes out of the hands of US, the results would be a restrictive and politically motivated regulation. There are apprehensions that trying to bridge the digital divide would not benefit the developing countries at all. The repressive governments would only restrict content. China routinely blocks any type of political speech website from coming within their borders, says Cummings. Such repressive regimes are contrary to the very nature of internet, according to him. Hence, things should be left untouched. The controversy started when EU wanted an inter-governmental body that oversee ICANN. US was furious at this proposal as it has been enjoying unilateral control over the infrastructure, says Kieren McCarthy of The Register. Today every countrys economy and administration depends on the internet and it is natural that these countries want to be a part of the governance, said Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, to The Washington. Perhaps true, but how does one react when one reads a recent report by David Neal, of IT Week, that people in UK are not even aware that their employer’s have an internet usage policy and in some cases they were not aware of its contents? Peter Robbins of Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) expresses disbelief that companies have not yet woken up to the dangers, risks and legal liabilities of not having acceptable usage policies. With this scenario in UK, is it justified that EY be allowed to govern the internet? UN Summit for Internet in Tunisia last November has become famous. Isn’t it shocking to read of a Tunisian lawyer who was jailed for supposedly posting "false news" on the Internet? This was published in the African newswire Afrol, as reported by The Washington Times on 18 November. This country boasts of highest restrictions and has one of the most repressive governments. It is amazing that UN paid heed to arguments from such countries and governments in favour of global governance of the internet. After the Geneva summit in 2003, the issue of Internet governance had reached a stalemate condition. Debates and discussions continued at various levels; people expressed their grievances and sought intervention. The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) met in Geneva in September 2005 to develop a concrete, clear map for the future. They were supposed to have charted the future of internet governance as a multi-stakeholder and democratic form, to discuss how the digital divide be crossed, and where should the financial resources be focused. Till the last day all they could manage was speech making and arguing over how to write the chapter. No consensus was reached whether a formal governance structure be created. If it were created, would there be a global forum providing the stakeholders a platform for debating internet policies and suggesting recommendations? Would there be a global policy over everything on the internet? In nutshell, people wanting to be a part of the governance are not even clear what the decision-making process should be. How can governance of internet be safe in their hands? Reacting to the charges that ICANN was the proxy for the Bush administration, the ICANN chief, Paul Twomey, in an interview by John Zarocostas, of The Washington Times, reiterated that ICANN does not speak for the American government. He was glad, though, that people had become educated on the subject of internet since the first summit in 2003. They have recognized that internet governance is much more than domain names. Again, there are reports that UN wants ICANN to work under the auspices of UN as a global agency while the chief of ICANN is of the firm opinion that 150 governments cannot come to any consensus on any model. His argument holds weight in light of the proceedings at Geneva when the governments were not even clear what the decision-making process should be. At the WSIS in Tunis in November last, divergent views were expressed and no agreement reached on any of the issues. They agreed to allow US to carry on as it had been doing. Why did the EU suddenly decide to leave things as they are and why was another forum to be set? Was it a game of power or the bargaining strength of US? Did the members of opposition feel incompetent to handle it independently? It was primarily out of a fear of insecurity and instability, that they decided to leave things as they are for the time being. Perhaps it could be a feeling of incompetence but it is no doubt a difficult task to reach a consensus on such an important issue. A letter from the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to the UK foreign minister Jack Straw acting in the role of presidency of the EU expressed that US was determined to retain ICANN in overall charge of the internet, perhaps also was the reason that the EU members decided not to take a hurried decision. The world today is dependent on internet trade and commerce, communications, development, and no compromise on its governance can be made. US was obviously elated at the decision for their continued control after the Tunis Summit. In trying to mediate between Iran-China and the US, the European Union expressed that a new combination of governments and the private sector share the responsibility of policing the internet. This led to the creation of a forum with representatives from government, civil society and the private sector. The forum could address spam, cyber crimes and any other issues that the members deemed fit but without any decision-making powers. US officials agreed that an international forum would be created to address the concerns instead of transferring the management to United Nations. According to the Internet professor Michael Geist, before the Tunis Summit, US had made it abundantly clear that it was not prepared to make concessions. It was truly a matter of strength because without actually threatening, US could maintain its position and force everyone to give in. The success of the Tunis lies in the fact that the issue of internet governance received a global recognition. Now it is equally important that the members have thorough knowledge of what is at stake. US is of the firm opinion that the full potential of the internet can be reached and benefitted from, only if it is free from intergovernmental oversight and control, which is exactly what the EU wants to do. Unless it remains decentralized, regular upgradation and innovation is not possible. If it has worked for so many years, why not now. US had taken the initiative back in 1998 when internet became increasingly global and commercial. At that time, US research agencies were unable to manage the DNS and the ICANN came into existence in 1998 with limited powers. Today the internet is way ahead than where it was in 1998. When it was deemed necessary as global usage increased, the control was shifted from DNS to ICANN. Further administration and technical changes can be incorporated as the situation demands. At this point, it would be prudent to consider how internet service could be affected if control goes out of the hands of US. US had incurred all the expenses in the early stages of internet development. Today there are thirteen root servers, which serve as internet’s master directories, explains Jason Miller of Webpronews. These servers belong to private bodies but the government allots or approves of the suffixes like .edu, .org, .gov etc. The US government governs the web traffic and the internet is under that authority. Anytime that the US government deems fit, this can be shut down. US cannot afford to give up custody of the internet, as its security would be at risk. US argue that internet security and stability can be maintained through the current systems of technical control as done by ICANN now. At the summit at Geneva in 2003 certain policies had been framed which the UN feels requires a global governance. Targets laid out to increase information and communication technologies (ICT) access and internet connections for rural areas, hospitals, libraries, and universities in the developing world have been met. Proposals for online access for local governments, for the availability of content in all languages and for developing primary and secondary school curricula to meet the challenges of the information society, have also been met, confirms US. The developing countries argue that internet governance could promote VoIP, which can lower the telephony charges, thereby leading to maximum utilization of the existing resources. The US counters that the plan of action adopted at Geneva is being met with success, which denotes that the current system is equipped to handle it. Any interference could only hamper progress. The demand for internet governance to be more transparent seems to be on flimsy grounds, more to have a bureaucratic attitude. It would serve no practical purpose as far as improvements in services are concerned. The US officials countered Maria Luiza Viotti, a Brazilian diplomat’s plea that internet governance should not be the prerogative of one group of countries or stockholders and that the concerns of the developing countries should be considered. The US maintained that if other governments are involved, it could cause erosion of freedom of expression and independent political opinion, reports Rizvi of Inter Press Service News Agency. The US believes that the countries looking for control over the internet do not have an idea of what governance entails. According to Michael Gallagher, U.S. President George W. Bushs internet adviser, these countries feel that DNS is the meaning of life, but the essence lies within their own country and policies. There is a fear that internet could soon have a different version launched by the countries who seek participation in governance but it is not as simple as it seems. The U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, reiterates that the role of UN would only be supportive and concentrate on expanding internet facility in the developing countries, but past UN experience suggest that a limited role gradually expands into restricted territories under pressure from the member countries, says Puddington of The Washington Post. A coalition that wants to take over the internet has already left the U.N. Human Rights Commission in shambles. No participation can be allowed under such circumstances. Even the stand of EU has become questionable. Initially it had aligned with the US but subsequently demanded creation of a forum to govern the internet. The very nature of the internet is contrary to the way some countries treat their people and politics as in the case of China. Internet has proved to be a strong weapon against state repression. Besides, internet was started by America, most of the initial expenses were funded by America, it is American in nature, and would function best if left in the hands of US. The insistence to have global governance of the internet appears to be politically motivated according to Cummings. Iran, Syria, and China would like to shut down domains that carry political speeches. The UN wants control so that the repressive regimes of the world could decide who could publish what online. This takes away the freedom, fear those who do not want internet governance to be interfered with. In view of all the above arguments, there is hardly any justification for internet governance to be out of the control of the US. The stakes are too many and the democracies of the world have to stand united against forces that want internet governance to be in the hands of the UN, EU or a conglomerate of the developing countries. References: Annan K A (2005), The U.N. Isnt a Threat to the Net, Washington Post, 05 April 2006 Cogburn D (2005), The US role in running the net, BBC News, 05 April 2006 Cummings K D (2005), The UNternet, < http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1005/1005unternet.htm> 14 April 2006 David N (2006), Net usage policies need publicity, IT Week, British Council Journals Database. Thomson Gale. Geist M (2005), Analysis: Net control debate rumbles on, BBC News, 05 April 2006 InformationWeek (2005), "Compromise On Internet Governance Opens U.N. Conference, British Council Journals Database. Thomson Gale Information Society, UN Panel: No Single Nation Should Control Internet Addresses, InformationWeek (July 14, 2005): NA. British Council Journals Database. Information Today 22.8 (Sept 2005), The future of Internet governance remains unresolved, British Council Journals Database. Thomson Gale. Internet Governance, Asia-Pacific Perspectives, 03 April 2006 Kaser D (2005), WSIS preview and highlights of PrepCom-3, Information Today, British Council Journals Database. Thomson Gale. Krapf E (2005), Who Controls the Internet? Business Communications Review. Volume 35 Issue 12 2005. pp. 10. McCarthy Kieren (2005), Read the letter that won the internet governance battle, < http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/02/rice_eu_letter/ 14 April 2006 Miller J L (2005), US Crawfishes On ICANN, Will Remain Internet “Steward” Webpronews, < http://www.webpronews.com/insidesearch/insidesearch/wpn-56-20050701USCrawfishesOnICANNWillRemainInternetSteward.html> 14 April 2006 Paik & Stark (2000), The Debate Over Internet Governance, Harvard Law School, 05 April 2006 Puddington A (2005), Keep the Internet Free, < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101408.html> 14 April 2006 Rizvi H (2005), COMMUNICATION:U.S. Fights to Remain the Ultimate Webmaster, Inter Press Service News Agency, < http://ipsnews.org/news.asp?idnews=30990> 14 April 2006 Saxena K B C (2005), Towards excellence in e-governance, International Journal of Public Sector Management Volume 18 Number 6 2005 pp. 498-513 The Washington Times. Publication Date: November 18, 2005. Page Number: A22. The New American., UN to Make Internet a Global "Common Heritage"?. olume: 21. Issue: 6. Publication Date: March 21, 2005. Page Number: 5. Wayne & Thierer (2003), Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction, Publisher: Cato Institute Washington, DC 2003. Page Number: xv. Zarocostas J (2005), U.S. Tells Nations Hands off Internet, The Washington Times. Publication Date: September 27, 2005. pp. A12. Zarocostas J (2005), Who Should Run the Internet? The Washington Times. Publication Date: August 1, 2005 pp. A11 Read More