Print this article
America created and retains control of the internet. But with the global economy increasingly dependent on the web, more countries want a say.
Why is control of the web in the news?
The UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society convened this week (16-18 November) for its final phase in Tunis. The 10,000 delegates have been discussing all aspects of information and communications technology, and in particular how governments can help spread the benefits of IT in the developing world. But all that was overshadowed by a row over who controls the internet’s system of addresses – the Domain Naming System (DNS). America created the internet and will keep control for now, after an 11th-hour eve-of-summit deal. But the internet has become a global phenomenon of vital strategic interest to businesses and governments worldwide. Naturally, other countries now want a bigger say.
What is the Domain Naming System?
The system of unique addresses and suffixes that makes the internet so easy to use. National domains (such as ‘.uk’ for Britain, ‘.ie’ for Ireland, and ‘.de’ for Germany) and organisational domains (‘.com’, ‘.gov’, ‘.org’ and so forth) are known as top-level domains, or TLDs. When you type a domain name (such as www.moneyweek.com) into your browser, your computer translates that name into a string of numbers (the IP, or Internet Protocol) number, which allows your machine to send a message to the relevant website and view it. In order for this system to work, each address must be unique, and somebody needs to be responsible for managing domain names and IP numbers to ensure stability and security.
Who does the job at the moment?
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), an organisation based in the Los Angeles suburb of Marina del Rey. Icann was set up by the Clinton administration in 1998 as a public-private nonprofit organisation reporting to the US Department of Commerce but operating relatively freely. Overall, Icann is acknowledged to have done a good job, and the US government has not interfered in its activities. The only time the US government has been criticised for leaning on Icann so far was a few months ago, when the Commerce Department – under pressure from ‘family value’ campaigners – asked it to delay a decision over whether to set up a new TLD for pornographic sites, so that they all end in ‘.xxx’.
So what’s the problem?
Many countries are uneasy that the world’s superpower has control of an entity on which the global economy is increasingly dependent. Critics say that too much relies on the good faith of a corporation that ultimately reports to the US government and that Icann could be used for political ends. For example, if Icann refuses to enter a particular name into the DNS, it can’t be assigned. And in theory, Icann could shut the DNS, and hence the internet, down.
What’s the alternative?
Some kind of multilateral, multinational approach. (The Clinton administration saw Icann as the first step to just such a scenario.) A bloc of developing countries, including Brazil, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, proposed a new governing council to which Icann would be accountable. But the Bush administration made it very clear that the US has no intention of ceding any control. The EU proposed an independent Icann overseen by a regular meeting of states to hammer out technical issues, plus a UN-linked forum to discuss problems, but not make policy. This idea won some support from the developing country bloc, but was seen in the US as a betrayal.
What’s been agreed?
On the eve of this week’s summit, the 170 nations agreed to set up an Intergovernmental Forum to discuss all net issues, including spam, viruses and cyber crime. However, the US negotiator, David Gross, made it clear that the forum will have no oversight authority over anything – and that nothing has really changed. On the key technical questions, it looks like a face-saving deal to paper over international differences.
Why does all this techie stuff matter?
Because the technical rules for how networks and computers recognise each other – the internet’s ‘plumbing’ – determine how freely and securely information moves around. The EU says that if a new approach cannot be agreed, some countries, such as China and Russia, could start operating their own versions of the internet – meaning the universality that has made it such a success will disappear. Worse, any fragmentation could threaten the stability of the internet, and therefore the global economy.
Should control of the internet be given to an international organisation?
Yes
1. Americans make up a small minority of the world’s one billion users of the internet. It’s not fair that the US should control it.
2. Icann works too slowly and hasn’t provided enough internet addresses for developing countries.
3. The ‘.xxx’ episode shows that when under political pressure, US politicians have no qualms about interfering with Icann.
No
1. Politicians from authoritarian regimes who want to stifle free expression should not be handed any power over the internet.
2. Icann has done a good job up to now and already has directors from numerous countries.
3. The internet has evolved brilliantly to date, despite the lack of international regulation: if it ain’t bust, don’t fix it.
Published in
Economics
| More
articles
by
Simon Wilson
Related articles
-
By David Stevenson, Feb 08, 2010
-
By John Stepek, Feb 04, 2010
FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment email
Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.
