Global Clash On Internet Governance

[george]

Global clash on Internet governance

In dealing with the world’s only superpower, do not get mad or even think of getting even. Just wait it out and hope your arguments win. That’s exactly what the EU is doing now, along with much of the rest of the world, in regard to the controversial issue of Internet governance.

The EU was succinct in saying that no single country should have final authority over the Internet, which is considered now to be a global resource. EU member states are now officially among the many countries supporting a new international body to run the operation of Internet. The newly espoused position of the EU immediately has drawn a strong response from the US, which repeated its position that it would not agree to have any international organisation, let alone the UN, take over management of the Internet.

The issue will be negotiated on at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in mid-November in Tunis. It is hard to predict what the outcome of that summit will be, with the two sides on this issue being so far apart. What is at stake is the future of the Internet, and whether it can remain relatively free and open or is to become more closely regulated and monitored. At the moment, the US-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) controls the operating Internet but it does not handle issues related to Internet cyber-crime and spam.

Controversies regarding how the Internet should be run have surfaced following a report released by the UN Working Group on Internet Governance in July, which said that no single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international governance.

The report also outlines options for addressing concerns over the Internet’s future. One of them is to keep Icann as it is and let the body continue its system for administrating Internet addresses. While the US prefers this option, many other countries want to see Icann overhauled and the establishment of a new international agency under the auspices of the UN. The report also recommends a global multi-stakeholder forum to discuss Internet issues.

When the issue was first raised in Geneva in 2003 during the first WSIS, no agreement could be reached on a new governance system. A working group was then set up to make recommendations on the future of Internet governance and the role of Icann.

Now that the EU’s position is no longer in synch with Washington’s, future discussions on the governance of the Internet will have to be more delicately handled. Previously, the EU opposed the idea of Internet operations and policies being run by a new international organisation and thought that the current system worked well enough.

Now the US will be alone in defending its position at the Tunis summit. The EU change of heart was understandable, given its experience with the war in Iraq, the US predilection for using force and its unilateralism.

A prevailing fear among various governments in regard to governance of the Internet is that Washington will in some capacity take advantage of the fact that Icann is based in the US to push its agenda or national interests. To its US credit, it has not yet do that.

Sadly many countries view the US in such a way, as it clouds the real intention of the world’s most powerful country. The US wants a free and open system for the Internet and does not want to see it controlled by governments or international bureaucrats. Everybody knows the Internet was born in the US, as were many other things now found throughout the world. Now the Internet has become a global resource. Strong feelings prevail that the US should allow other countries to have a say in the running of the Internet--the quality the US has yet to manifest.

Countries like China, Brazil, South Africa and most Arab countries have advocated bringing the Internet governance under international control. With international bureaucrats overseeing the Internet, countries with a history of controlling information within their borders would be in better position to place restrictions on the free flow of information on the Internet.

Thailand has yet to take part in this global debate. The Information and Communications Technology Ministry is supposed to represent the Thai voice in the world on these kinds of issues, but has had little to say about the Internet’s future. Instead the ministry has found itself busy enough being entangled with local issues, scandals and the issues involving telecom privatisation. It has failed to contribute to the discussion about the Internet. In Asean, it has been Malaysia that has taken the lead.

Despite its small (but fast growing) number of broadband online users, Thailand is still a leading developing country advocating an open and free flow of information on the Internet. Thailand is among the few developing countries that has an access-to-information law. Other safeguards for a free flow on information are enshrined in the Thai Constitution and in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As such, it would be wise for Thailand to support an Internet that is open and free of the bureaucratic control of any organisation.

--The Nation 2005-10-17