On UN Attempt To Co-Op Internet Control

[Annie]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007381

GLOBALONEY

The World Wide Web (of Bureaucrats?)
Keep your U.N. off my Internet.

BY ADAM THIERER AND WAYNE CREWS
Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Kofi Annan, Coming to a Computer Near You! The Internet's long run as a global cyberzone of freedom--where governments take a "hands off" approach--is in jeopardy. Preparing for next month's U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society (or WSIS) in Tunisia, the European Union and others are moving aggressively to set the stage for an as-yet unspecified U.N. body to assert control over Internet operations and policies now largely under the purview of the U.S. In recent meetings, for an example, an EU spokesman asserted that no single country should have final authority over this "global resource."

To his credit, the U.S. State Department's David Gross bristled back: "We will not agree to the U.N. taking over management of the Internet." That stands to reason. The Internet was developed in the U.S. (as are upgrades like Internet 2) and is not a collective "global resource." It is an evolving technology, largely privately owned and operated, and it should stay that way.

Nevertheless the "U.N. for the Internet" crowd say they want to "resolve" who should have authority over Internet traffic and domain-name management; how to close the global "digital divide"; and how to "harness the potential of information" for the world's impoverished. Also on the table: how much protection free speech and expression should receive online.

While WSIS conferees have agreed to retain language enshrining free speech (despite the disapproval of countries that clearly oppose it) this is not a battle we've comfortably won. Some of the countries clamoring for regulation under the auspices of the U.N.--such as China and Iran--are among the most egregious violators of human rights.

Meanwhile, regulators across the globe have long lobbied for greater control over Internet commerce and content. A French court has attempted to force Yahoo! to block the sale of offensive Nazi materials to French citizens. An Australian court has ruled that the online edition of Barron's (published by Dow Jones, parent company of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site), could be subjected to Aussie libel laws--which, following the British example, is much more intolerant of free speech than our own law. Chinese officials--with examples too numerous for this space--continue to seek to censor Internet search engines.

The implications for online commerce are profound. The moment one puts up a Web site, one has "gone global"--perhaps even automatically subjected oneself to the laws of every country on the planet.

A global Internet regulatory state could mean that We Are the World--on speech and libel laws, sales taxes, privacy policies, antitrust statutes and intellectual property. How then would a Web site operator or even a blogger know how to act or do business? Compliance with some 190 legal codes would be confusing, costly and technically possible for all but the most well-heeled firms. The safest option would be to conform online speech or commercial activities to the most restrictive laws to ensure global compliance. If you like the idea of Robert Mugabe setting legal standards for everyone, then WSIS is for you.

The very confusion of laws makes some favor a "U.N. for the Internet" model. Others propose international treaties, or adjudication by the World Trade Organization, to stop retaliation and trade wars from erupting over privacy, gambling and pornography. Still others assert that the best answer is to do nothing, because the current unregulated Web environment has helped expand free speech and commerce globally for citizens, consumers and companies.

We favor the nonregulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve" or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression. (Think of the reason US rejected ICC )
The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.

Mr. Thierer, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Mr. Crews, vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, are the editors of "Who Rules the Net?" (Cato, 2003).

 

[Annie]

Oh yeah, he writes mystery novels too!

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/10/not_my_internet.php

October 09, 2005: Not My Internet!

Given what I am doing, I am barely off line these days (except when I sleep, and even then my dreams are sometimes wired), so I have been feeling on "en vacance" this weekend in the Santa Ynez Valley, only able to get online in spare moments when I can slip off to the WiFi at the Roasted Bean in beautiful downtown Santa Ynez (two blocks).

But.. cooled down or not... steam came out of my ears this morning when I read (via Glenn) The World Wide Web (of Bureaucrats) in the WSJ. My only quarrel with this excellent and important (to all of us, especially) oped, which opposes proposed United Nations control of the Internet, is that it is understated. "Bureaucrats"? How about "Criminals" - because that is just what many of them are! Can you imagine the conglomeration of vicious corrupt slime who gave us Oil-for-Food governing the Internet? We might as well turn in our laptops. It would be over. I couldn't agree more with the oped's conclusion:

We favor the nonregulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve" or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression.

The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.

I have never considered myself a libertarian. But I will say this - the strongest argument I could almost imagine for libertarianism is the idea of the UN taking over the Internet.

 

[Johnney]

there are too many what if's on this one. and this one, what if our freedom of... is impeded. i still think they should build their own internet and mold it anyway they want to chop it up and censor it.
the freakin un wants so desperately to be in charge of something that they are bringing up stupid shit.

 

[theim]

The UN owning the internet? Just think of all the kiddie porn rings that will flourish. Think of the children.

 

[musicman]

The UN owning the internet? Just think of all the kiddie porn rings that will flourish. Think of the children.

LOL - that seems to be U.N. peacekeepers' chief problem. They think of the children - TOO much!

 

[Avatar4321]

Don't they need to buy the rights from Al Gore?

 

[nosarcasm]

America rules OK
Oct 6th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Plans for global management of the internet are a threat to its future

WHY should America control the internet? A growing number of governments are asking this apparently reasonable question. At a diplomatic meeting last week in Geneva, the European Union unexpectedly dropped its support for the current arrangement, and sided with America's critics (see article). America could now find itself isolated as negotiations over future regulation of the internet continue.

The critics' point of view seems quite understandable. The internet is not just a hugely important tool of global communication but also an engine of economic growth. Other countries quite understandably balk at American hegemony over something that matters so much to their future. Yet although America's exercise of power in the bricks-and-mortar world may not always have been flawless, its oversight of the internet, which it invented (Tim Berners-Lee, a Briton, is sometimes credited with the feat, but he created the world wide web) has been remarkably benign. That's probably partly because politics has been kept out of it. The longer it stays that way, the better.

Benign neglect

Most people think of the internet as decentralised and thus uncontrollable. That's largely true; nevertheless, its infrastructure requires some co-ordination, so it needs a bit of governance. This is currently done by a non-profit group called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This organisation operates under a contract from the American government, and consults private-sector firms and groups of techies and users.

Much of ICANN's work is boringly technical. It co-ordinates such features as domain names (like .com or .net), routing numbers and technical standards. But small technical details can sometimes have big political ramifications, and ICANN has often found itself embroiled in controversy. For example, many countries were outraged when ICANN considered creating a .xxx domain name for pornographic websites. (It diplomatically put the idea on hold.)

Nevertheless, ICANN's stewardship has succeeded because its focus has been not on politics, but on making the network as efficient as possible. The sometimes fierce debates that break out among techies have been conducted transparently. The result has been an internet open to innovation and free expression, led mostly by the private sector and relatively free from government interference.

Yet because the system runs under American auspices, other countries are unhappy with this arrangement. Many of those who want to relieve America of its control think ICANN's job should be taken over by a United Nations agency.

To anybody who has spent much time observing the UN at work, this sounds like a poor idea. It is no accident that the world's telephone systems remained so expensive and static for so long. They have been heavily regulated nationally and their international links have been controlled by the International Telecommunication Union, a UN body which once rejected the idea of the internet in favour of a more controllable and less efficient system. That standard never amounted to much. The ITU's approach reflected the interests of state-run telecom monopolies, which themselves are now being shaken to their foundations by the internet.

It is also no accident that many of the countries loudest in their demands for the internet to be taken out of American hands are those, such as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, that are keenest on restricting its use by their own citizens. These and many other countries are hoping to use the lead-up to the UN's World Summit on the Information Society to begin to wrest control away from America. By changing its position last week the EU had hoped to act as a “bridge” between America and other countries. Instead, it has simply isolated America, with potentially damaging results.

America has offered olive branches to its critics. This summer, it acknowledged that other countries have sovereignty over their national addresses, and said it would never disrupt the system (ie, kick France's .fr address offline). And, at the meeting last week in Geneva, it supported the idea of a forum in which all governments can discuss these matters in an “evolutionary process”. That sounds like an excellent scheme: just as startling as the speed of technological development is the slowness of decision-making in international forums. If this move works, it should succeed in parking the issue harmlessly for many years.


commentary from the Economist.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4488644

 

[musicman]

Thanks for sharing that, nosarcasm. Articles like these are proving very helpful - to me, at least. Very involved, confusing stuff. But, I'm beginning to get a handle on it now.

While I'm at it, thanks to Kathianne and -Cp, as well. This story is huge, and I appreciate the way USMB is staying on top of it.