|
|
COMMUNICATIONS: No Agreement on Internet Governance
By Gustavo Capdevila
GENEVA, Sep 12 (IPS) - The script for the final act of the World Summit for
the Information Society (WSIS) will begin to be written on Sep. 19 in this
Swiss city, with the participation of a cast that will be made up - for the
first time on the international stage - of a wide range of actors:
governments, business and civil society.
Stemming from its novel makeup are discrepancies that have stood in the way
of the drafting of a text that everyone can agree on, which is to be signed
by the heads of state and government at the second phase of the WSIS, to be
held Nov. 14-16 in Tunisia.
The WSIS, the first phase of which took place in Geneva in December 2003,
revolves around the challenges posed by the information society with respect
to the future of the Internet, especially the gap between rich and poor
countries in the use of computer and telecommunications technologies.
The business community and some governments, especially the George W. Bush
administration in the United States, want to maintain the current Internet
governance regime, which so far has been almost exclusively in the hands of
the private sector and the U.S. government.
Industry, which controls - and profits from - the current system, wants to
leave it as it is, a position shared by the United States, said Brazilian
representative José Marcos Nogueira Viana.
The great majority of developing countries, on the other hand, are pushing
for reforms of Internet governance, as are civil society organisations,
although they differ with the proposed models for reform.
The issue of Internet governance will be the focus of the last Preparatory
Committee Meeting, scheduled for Sep. 19-30 in Geneva.
Since its creation in the 1960s, the worldwide web has been growing by leaps
and bounds, and currently connects some one billion users around the globe.
The question of Internet governance also includes aspects like the
mechanisms to be established to follow up on compliance with the resolutions
reached in the two phases of the WSIS, in Geneva and Tunis.
The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) set up by U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan noted in its final report in July that defining Internet
governance "has been the subject of long discussions."
It therefore provided the following definition: "Internet governance is the
development and application by governments, the private sector and civil
society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules,
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use
of the Internet."
The report made a significant clarification by limiting the actions of the
three sectors - governments, business and civil society - to "their
respective roles."
That concept, which is supported by the great majority of governments, would
apparently place limits on this first experiment in holding a truly
tripartite U.N. conference.
Civil society groups have protested that the specific roles granted to
non-governmental organisations and the private sector are ambiguous in
relation to the role assigned to governments.
Referring to civil society and business, Viana said the governments were not
opposed to "observers," while adding, however, that there are times when it
is governments that must make the decisions.
He pointed out that Brazil and the United States hold public hearings, but
afterwards it is the governments that decide by decree or by law.
Viana also noted that the digital gap has two facets: financial
inequalities, which make it difficult to attain Internet connection and
purchase computers in poor countries; and political inequalities, arising
from the inability of developing countries to influence decision-making with
regard to the Internet.
In the first phase of the WSIS, participants decided to study the
possibility of obtaining resources to finance the expansion of information
and communications technologies in developing countries.
But the U.S. and Japanese representatives said there were no funds for that,
said Viana.
The only option for financing emerged from an initiative put forth by the
president of Senegal, Abdoulaye Wade, which was taken up by municipal
authorities in a number of cities, led by Lyon and Geneva, to create a
"digital solidarity fund".
Viana noted, however, that the fund is an initiative to help cities, while
at a global level there is nothing, because donor nations are not
interested.
Another aspect of the controversy focuses on the power exercised by the
private sector and the U.S. government in Internet governance.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a
U.S.-based private not-for-profit body, is exclusively responsible for
assigning Internet names and addresses, such as domain names like .net, .edu
or .com.
The WGIG stated that "No single government should have a pre-eminent role in
relation to international Internet governance."
But Michael Gallagher, assistant secretary at the U.S. National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, recently indicated that
his government was not ready to give up the control it exercises.
The bloc of civil society organisations active in the WSIS expressed concern
over Gallagher's statement, saying it "raised a number of questions" and
implied that unilateral U.S. control would be maintained indefinitely.
Brazil, one of the countries that has been most active in calling for the
democratisation of Internet governance, said the incident involving the
creation of a top-level domain name for pornography websites had
demonstrated U.S. power over the Internet.
Two months ago, ICANN officials approved the concept of the .xxx domain
name.
Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet and the chairman of the ICANN
board, said everything was ready for registering the domain name and that
the only concerns were technical ones.
The Brazilian representatives argued that creating the .xxx domain name
would pave the way for accepting the registration of others like .nazi,
while the delegates from Spain said it would be like approving a domain name
like .odio (.hate).
"ICANN has the tendency to adopt political decisions under the guise of
technical criteria," said Viana.
ICANN only postponed the creation of the .xxx domain until Sep. 19 because
the U.S. government sent a letter stating that it had received protests from
church groups in the United States, said the Brazilian representative.
"That proves that there is a government that controls the entire system," he
maintained.
(END/2005)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is RSS?
