'Only Washington' Can Protect the Internet
While fair and equitable international control over the Internet is certainly a desirable goal, according to this editorial from France's Le Monde, the facts of life in today's world are that, 'only Washington is currently capable of ensuring the security of the network.'
EDITORIAL
November 16, 2005
Original Article (French)
Should the United States control the Internet? Many, from the European Union to Argentina, but also countries with non-democratic regimes, from China and Iran, are pushing for the "internationalization" of its management. This was the debate that should have been discussed at the World Summit on the Information Society, which is being held in Tunis until November 18. And although the proposal was gutted from the start, with the announcement of a status quo "compromise" for which American negotiator David Gross immediately took credit - this fundamental debate, like the issue of closing the "digital divide" between rich and poor, will go on.
How can the Internet be "internationalized? All the options, open or state-oriented, all aim to break the lines of authority that subject the management and administration of the Web to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Historically, the Internet is an American creation. Its businesses, its researchers and its engineers essentially invented it. Since then, the United States has held practically all power over it.
It can, if it wishes, "unplug" an entire country. If the idea struck its fancy, Washington could make all sites registered under ".fr" [France] inaccessible. It would only take an action on a single computer, the "ultimate root," which coordinates the functioning of the planet's twelve "root servers." Held at a secret location, this "grand master" of the Web is controlled by Icann, a private non-profit that operates under the authority of the American Department of Commerce.
The United States is pushing for the maintenance of this structure, citing the necessity of "preserving the security and stability" of its operations, which are ensured by Icann. But while Washington acknowledges the legitimacy of other nations wanting to manage their own "domain names," and believes that the "dialogue" should continue, it is hard to see any lessening of its ðdesire to maintain the status quo. Washington's reaffirmation in an official declaration on June 30, referring to the "supreme importance" of keeping the Internet under American control, clearly shows the United StatesÌ desire to retain ultimate control.
Is this position sustainable? Or conversely, would the Internet even benefit from international control? There are two conflicting visions. The American "guarantee" is based on the history of the Internet. Internationalization, on the other hand, is based on the Net's futre development.
The Internet is already used by a billion people. Regarding the number of people "connected," Asia leads, followed by Europe; North America is behind them. In two decades, the Internet has escaped the United States. Most of the networkÌs development is now commercial, cultural or scientific. Its political role is now incontrovertible, and its strategic importance is vital.
Washington refuses to cede any ground to the international community by invoking the need to keep non-democratic states from having any control over it. Certainly a weighty argument, considering that the U.N. is holding the World Summit in a country that jails its Internauts [Tunisia].
Clearly, if authoritarian countries had control over their main domain names, their power would be reinforced. But the Internet can be used for propaganda as much as for protest. Democracy can only win ground when such a means of communication and expression develops. To suppose this is not just a pious hope. To entrust control of the Internet to a commonly accepted international body is just common sense. Except that in the real world, only Washington is currently capable of ensuring the security of the network.