Mitts off the Internet, Iran, China, Cuba . . .
Dennis Byrne, a Chicago-area writer and consultant
Published November 14, 2005
Is the Internet so broken that it needs to be fixed by the likes of
Iran, Cuba, China, Ghana and France?
They think so, but the United States--the country that developed and now
runs the Internet--doesn't. That it's ours explains why they and--here
it comes-- the United Nations think it should be theirs too. Just because.
We'll be getting more details on just how much control and money America
is expected to cough up from the UN-sponsored World Summit on the
Information Society, which will get under way in Tunis, Tunisia, on
Wednesday. Just about every country attending the summit will likely
show up with the expectation that they can decide how to run something
that none of them owns.
Arrogance? You bet. Dangerous? For us and the world, absolutely.
Technically, the debate centers on ICANN, the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers, a non-profit outfit that assigns Internet
domain names worldwide. Other countries may establish their own domains
(France's is .fr), but to hook into the main network, they need to go
through ICANN.
Yes, it's a monopoly, but how many complaints do you hear about America
running it like a private club? ICANN has guaranteed an open and
effective Internet, one that epitomizes freedom.
Yet, we're supposed to believe that the devotion of the UN and the rest
of them to freedom equals our own. How symbolic that the conference is
to be held in Tunis, where the government there has blocked Web sites
and, according to an article last year in The New York Times, surfers
look over their shoulders to see who's watching when walking into an
Internet cafe. UN Secretary General Kofi "Oil-for-Food" Annan assures us
that the UN isn't planning to "take over" the Internet. Yet he says that
its governance "should be shared with the international community." He
urges "a new space for dialogue, a forum that would bring all
stakeholders together to share information and best practices and
discuss difficult issues but that would not have decision-making power."
Uh oh, "dialogue," "stakeholders," "best practices" and "difficult
issues." The correctness of the language alone warns us of what we're in
for.
Hurricane warnings should be issued just because of the fuzziness of
what they actually want to do. Annan said his own study group offers
"several options for oversight arrangements, with varying degrees of
government involvement and relationship to the United Nations." No one,
he insists, would have the UN take over "technical bodies now running
the Internet" or have the UN create a new agency. See what I mean?
Just for the record, Mr. Annan, a European Union official says he is
"optimistic" it will have a greater role in running the Net. China wants
an "appropriate specialized agency of the UN as a competent body."
Russia, Brazil and Iran demand that no single government should have a
"pre-eminent role." Ghana perceives "unanimity" in the "need for an
additional body." Et cetera.
For those who haven't figured it out, they're talking about the pandemic
of multilateralism--today's model for the most ineffective,
no-one-is-responsible-but-everyone-has-a-voice utopian way of running of
things.
For a clue about how well they'd run the Internet, read this news
account from allAfrica.com on their preparations for the Tunis meeting:
"PrepCom III Tunis documents proved more difficult to negotiate than
expected. Disagreements centered on weather [sic] text from the original
Geneva declaration should remain unchanged or reinforced in the Tunis
output, given that the first PrepCom had agreed not to reopen what had
been adopted in Geneva."
America should have nothing to fear.
Like water off a duck, these folks are impervious to warnings about
tyrants and mad hatters like Korea's Kim Jong Il having a hand in
running the Internet. We're supposed to assume that China won't be
monitoring the e-mails of dissidents or Iran won't be on the prowl for
infidels. Right, just as no one would ever expect that Libya, a citadel
of liberty, would ever chair the UN Human Rights Commission.
Some suggest (threaten?) that the United States had better invite such
nations into running the freest of the world's intellectual markets, or
else they'll leave ours and create their own. Fine. Good luck. Auf
Wiedersehen.
The Internet is a product of American smarts. It's the embodiment of
America's superior commitment to free speech, association, religion and
other rights. It was created without a phalanx of government planners,
bureaucrats or enforcers. It works. Those who value this are welcome
aboard our Internet. As passengers, but not as captains.
E-mail: dennis@dennisbyrne.net
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0511140130nov14,0,4466574.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
No comments:
Post a Comment