The Internet is one of the world's most powerful engines of economic growth, the expression of ideas and personal freedom. That it has become all these things is thanks to the singular fact that the Internet was invented by the United States government and is, therefore, thoroughly inculcated with the same values that made America what it is.
The Obama administration, in its rush to liberate the governance of the Web from any vestige of U.S. control, wants to turn the last remaining piece it supervises, the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority), over to ICANN (an acronym standing for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a California-based nonprofit) without really thinking the process through.
Congress has heretofore blocked the administration from spending any tax money to facilitate the transition of the Internet and the IANA function away from the small agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce where it resides. On Wednesday the matter will be taken up by two House committees whose members will hopefully ask the tough questions about what the endgame will look like, questions the administration has so far ignored.
At issue is the future control of ICANN. Shall it be run by its board of directors or by a membership-based, multi-stakeholder model of governance that prevents any one government or group of governments or an international body affiliated with the United Nations from taking control? Thus far the corporation's leadership has resisted adopting anything like what is necessary to guarantee the Internet remains open and essentially free.
[GALLERY: Barack Obama Cartoons]
Some of those involved in the issue like to pretend it is no more complicated than a walk in the park on a sunny Sunday afternoon. In fact, it is a very complicated matter, with tremendous potential downsides if the transition is completed without the necessary safeguards. "The vague conditions of the transition set forth by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration allow room for the process to be potentially subverted by unfriendly governments or intergovernmental organizations with ulterior motives – or neutered by ICANN itself," a white paper issued by Frontiers of Freedom (where I am a senior fellow) said of the proposed transition. "As the process moves forward, the United States must require that ICANN be able to ensure its ability to maintain the security, stability, resiliency, and openness of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS), while meeting the needs and expectations of global customers and partners of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority and supporting a multi-stakeholder model of governance."
As one example of why this is necessary, there is currently nothing prohibiting ICANN – post transition – from eliminating or transferring the top level domain names .mil, .gov. and .edu, all of which are vital to the way the Internet functions in the United States. All three of these domains are "sponsored," meaning they are assigned to a single entity representing a relatively narrow community, and are three of the five original domains issued when the Internet was "born" in 1985.
Consider the importance of .mil, which is sponsored by the United States Department of Defense. It houses some of the secure systems and email addresses most vital to U.S. national security. Losing them would place a considerable strain on the nation's defenses, yet the Pentagon has no ongoing contractual right to it; the department's control over .mil is a legacy arising out of America's invention of the World Wide Web.
Presently, the U.S. government retains the right and the ability to approve all changes to the Domain Name System – meaning that ICANN would risk making changes to sites ending in .mil at its own peril. It would indeed be foolish to try since it would probably mean the end of ICANN's existence, as the U.S. government would no doubt create a new group (as it created ICANN) with a better governance structure in its place. However, once the government steps out of its final oversight role, once the transition is complete, there is nothing currently in place to stop ICANN from unilaterally terminating that particular domain (or .edu or .gov). Even worse, imagine the .mil domain managed by a company owned by or located in Russia, China or a power unfriendly to the United States somewhere in the Middle East.
It could happen, and is therefore an issue Congress should explore in its hearings. An agreement allowing the United States free, exclusive and perpetual use of these domain names must be part of any transition plan, as must the agreement of ICANN's leadership to adopt the multi-stakeholder, membership-based organizational design many have suggested.
That the Internet has made the world a better place is an idea beyond question. As a worldwide communications network it has linked disparate peoples and cultures, enlivening political discourse and changing the nature of global commerce. And, of particular significance, it has become a vehicle for those seeking freedom of oppression to give voice to their struggle and to tell the world their tale. It must be allowed to remain so. For that to happen will require the transition be given more time than the Obama administration seems willing to devote to it. Congress has the responsibility to insure the process is slowed and that, before it can be allowed to proceed, appropriate multi-stakeholder governance structures are in place.
Source : - usnews
No comments:
Post a Comment