TUNIS, TUNISIA – At a United Nations summit in Tunisia this week, the Bush administration reached an accord – of sorts, at least – with some of its international critics, through a broad agreement on global internet management.The deal, inked just hours before the start of the World Summit on the Information Society, should preclude an anticipated showdown between the administration and a number of international critics over the future of the internet. Cuba, China, and South Africa are among a number of countries that have argued the US and other wealthy, industrialized nations need to do more to share power over the Net.
In signing the agreement, the Bush administration has formally endorsed the creation of an “Internet Governance Forum,” which will convene for the first time in 2006, under the auspices of the United Nations.
It remains to be seen, however, how much will actually change with the creation of the new forum, which is envisioned as a central hub for international discussions regarding network security, online crime, spam, and other “misuses of the internet.”
The agreement provides for “no action regarding existing institutions,” said David Gross, an ambassador leading who is leading the US delegation. “It created no new international organizations.”
Initial reaction to the agreement has been mixed, and some critics and international leaders are concerned that the new arrangement does not go far enough in sharing power over the internet internationally.
“It is a matter of justice and legitimacy that all people must have a say in the way the internet is governed,” said Luisa Diogo, prime minister of Mozambique in a speech to the delegates assembled in Tunis.
President of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe took the rhetoric a step further, claiming that the US and its allies like the United Kingdom “insist on being world policemen on the management of the internet,” and asserting that internet oversight policies must change.
The central issue in the dispute is the unique position of influence the US government has over the master list of TLDs – “top level domains” – such as .com, .org, various country codes (.uk, .jp), as result of the internet’s developmental history and origins. The Internet Coroporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees management of domain names, is located in Marina del Ray, California, and critics of current internet policies and protocol assert that ICANN is very much subject to influence (or put more politely “input”) by the US government. As evidence, some cite ICANN’s reconsideration of the proposed new sponsored TLD .xxx, after members of the Bush administration voiced concern.
As recently as this past June, the White House had announced it had no plans to relinquish any of the US’ role, or power, in the maintenance of the internet. A statement issued by the Bush administration this summer endorsed the current ICANN structure, and said no action would be taken, due to concerns over affecting the internet’s “stability.”
Criticism and behind the scenes grumbling from US allies, including the European Union, have led the Bush administration to back down somewhat from their unequivocal position, and give some ground – even if so far it is only rhetorical ground they have given.
The US delegation emphasized that the new UN-led forum will have no regulatory power, and that its role will be essentially one of consultation, and to serve as an audience for the airing of grievances.
“It will have no oversight function, [will remain] non-operational, and engage only in dialogue,” Gross said. Gross added that the US has “no concerns that it would morph into something unsavory,” and added that there is language in the agreement that the forum will be “subject to periodic review” – meaning, Gross said, that it will not grow into permanent bureaucracy.
UN secretary-general Kofi Annan said the agreement underscores “the need for more international participation in discussions of internet governance issues. The question is how to achieve this. Let those discussions continue.”
Annan said that the US has exercised its influence over the internet “fairly and honorably” thus far, but added that change is necessary, adding that the UN has no desire to “control or police the internet.”
Annan’s reassurance that the UN did not want to take over maintenance and governance of the internet was seen by some as an effort to placate conservative groups and corporate interests, who worry that the new forum could become an unaccountable organization which might seize control of managing the Web. Many leading US technology companies, including Microsoft, Google and IBM, have voiced support for a “market-based solutions” approach, rather than an expansion of international influence or control.
