[Mb-civic] Keep the Internet Free - Arch Puddington - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Keep the Internet Free

By Arch Puddington
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A25

Delegates from around the world will gather next week in Tunisia for 
what is known as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Few 
people are aware of WSIS's existence, its mission or the purpose of this 
conference. That is unfortunate, since the principal agenda item calls 
for a wholesale change in governance of the Internet that could lead to 
a significant setback for global freedom of information.

Although many are under the impression that the Internet is unregulated, 
this is not entirely the case. There are a number of technical issues -- 
such as the allocation of the dot-com or dot-net designations or the 
country codes that are attached to e-mails -- that must be determined by 
a central entity. This job is currently handled by an American 
nonprofit: the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
(ICANN). With an international staff on three continents, ICANN has met 
its mandate in a way that all agree has been fair and nonpartisan.

While ICANN functions on a charter from the Commerce Department, the 
U.S. government has followed a strict hands-off policy; ICANN's actions 
are transparent and decisions are made only after extensive consultation 
with Internet companies, governments, techies and freedom-of-expression 
organizations. ICANN has contributed to the unique nature of the 
Internet as a creative and innovative means of communication that links 
people and ideas across national boundaries -- for the most part outside 
the control of government.

But demands are growing for the "internationalization" of Internet 
governance. To this end, a number of countries are pressing to remove 
oversight from ICANN and place it under the auspices of a new 
organization that would be part of the U.N. system. Advocates of this 
arrangement make no claims that the current system is flawed. Instead, 
they focus on the supposed "injustice" or "inappropriateness" of a 
system overseen by an American agency. And there is an ulterior motive 
behind the clamor for change.

In a Nov. 5 op-ed column in The Post, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan 
wrote that a U.N. role in Internet governance would be benign and would 
concentrate on expanding the Internet into the developing world. But 
while Annan's intentions are no doubt well-meaning, the same cannot be 
said for the coalition of U.N member states making the loudest noise for 
change. Among them are regimes that have taken measures to control their 
citizens' access to the Internet and have championed global controls 
over Internet content. These include some of the world's most repressive 
states: Cuba, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Other governments have 
weighed in to support U.N. oversight, either out of anti-Americanism, a 
reflexive commitment to international governance or a belief that 
Internet content needs to be reined in.

Although U.N. officials deny any intention to broaden ICANN's mandate, 
past U.N. experience suggests that a limited mission can gradually 
expand into unanticipated territory under the relentless pressure of 
determined member states. Some of the most shameful U.N. episodes -- 
particularly regarding freedom issues -- have occurred because the 
world's democracies were outwitted by a coalition of the most repressive 
regimes -- the very coalition that is taking shape over Internet 
control. Working with determination and discipline, this alliance of 
dictatorships has already left the U.N. Human Rights Commission a 
shambles, something that Annan himself has deplored.

In this emerging contest, the position of the European Union is 
particularly disappointing. Initially aligned with the United States in 
support of Internet freedom, the E.U. recently went wobbly and proposed 
creation of a "forum" to govern the Internet, something different from 
ICANN though not under U.N. control -- this to the delight of Cuba and 
China.

Compounding the problem is the choice of Tunisia, a country with a 
woeful record of press freedom violations, as the WSIS conference's 
host. On Freedom House's global index of press freedom, Tunisia ranks 
near the bottom, right along with Iran and Saudi Arabia -- 173rd of 193 
states. It is particularly zealous in restricting Internet content and 
has mobilized security forces to block Web sites, monitor e-mail and 
conduct surveillance of Internet cafes.

The United States delegation has pledged to stand firm in defense of 
ICANN while proposing a plan to allow more global discussion and debate 
on Internet issues. This is a good starting place; even better would be 
a decision by the European Union to align itself with the United States.

It is no secret why Iran, China and Cuba are lobbying so desperately to 
replace ICANN: The Internet has proven a potent weapon against state 
repression. In an age of media concentration, it has contributed 
mightily to democratization of the means of communication. It nullifies 
totalitarian schemes to monopolize the airwaves; in the age of the 
Internet, the total control portrayed by George Orwell in "1984" is 
simply impossible in all but the most hermetically sealed countries.

Given the stakes involved, it is incumbent on the world's democracies to 
stand firm against efforts to undermine this critical instrument of free 
ideas.

The writer is director of research at Freedom House, a nongovernmental 
organization that monitors political rights and civil liberties worldwide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101408.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051112/b4663830/attachment-0001.htm