Civil Society, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines

COMMUNICATIONS: The Struggle for Real Control Over the Virtual World

Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, Oct 11 2005 (IPS) - The real world is involved in a battle for control over the virtual world, one of the central issues to be dealt with at the Nov. 16-18 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in the Tunisian capital.

Against the wishes of almost all other governments, Washington wants to maintain the current system of domain names administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private sector, non-profit body that is linked to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

There has even been talk of creating another global computer network, independent of the current system under U.S. control.

The invasion of Iraq and U.S. restrictions on basic rights in the name of the “war on terrorism” have heightened the urgency of the need to place the Internet under international oversight, according to Carlos Afonso, a Brazilian member of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) set up by the United Nations.

Control over the domain name system is a question of “power over life and death,” because all it would take is the elimination of a country code, like .br for Brazil, .ar for Argentina or .mx for Mexico, to banish it from cyberspace, Alexandre Rangel, executive coordinator of the Brazilian non-governmental organisation Digital Society, told IPS.

The issue is unlikely to worry most of the world’s one billion Internet users, who feel secure that the web, their source of communication and entertainment and their working tool, is not facing a risk of suffering unwanted changes as a result of a decision or the ineptitude of any government or authority, above and beyond their actual servers.

But the increasingly complex expansion of the worldwide web has made it clear that the decisions affecting it are not merely technical. The creation of the .xxx domain name for pornographic web sites, for example, prompted reactions even from the government of George W. Bush, under pressure from church groups, not to mention China and more moralistic societies.

Magaly Pazello, an activist concerned with gender issues and the information society, commented to IPS that the globalisation of the Internet as a “public asset” has reduced the legitimacy of control that is based on national laws and is under the supervision of a specific government ministry from one country.

Rangel also said the centralisation of domain name system administration allows the United States to reserve the best, most easily accessible addresses for itself, while keeping the cost of communications in developing countries high, because they are farther removed from the central Internet networks.

This is another problem cited by the WGIG, which in its final report in July recognised the “absence of an appropriate and effective global Internet governance mechanism to resolve the issue.”

The WGIG also provided the following definition of Internet governance: “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 first phase of the WSIS, held in Geneva in December 2003, concluded that Internet governance must be “multilateral, transparent and democratic,” and based on “the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations.”

But the Bush administration’s demonstrated contempt for multilateralism has fuelled the struggle for international Internet governance, although it is also a hurdle.

The democratic aspects of the Internet, on the other hand, face resistance from many governments which, like China’s , want to control or limit communications.

Human rights questions have also become a point of contention in the run-up to the second phase of the WSIS, which is to be held in Tunis, whose human rights record has been heavily criticised by activists.

There is little prospect of the WSIS reaching agreement on Internet governance, as 10 proposals for restructuring the system are still under debate after the last preparatory conference, which officially ended Sept. 30 in Geneva.

In an attempt to settle this and a number of other divisive issues, the preparations for the Tunis summit will be extended by additional rounds of negotiations, from Oct. 24-28 in Geneva and Nov. 13-15 in the Tunisian capital.

The tendency, given the divisions and U.S. resistance to any change whatsoever, is towards the emergence of a compromise solution, in which ICANN would continue to perform its technical functions, while moving gradually over to a system of multilateral oversight, said Afonso, who is also planning director in the Brazilian Information Network for the Third Sector.

The WGIG recommended that the present structure be revised, under the argument that “No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance,” which should be based on participation by all stakeholders.

Governance is not limited to the question of names and addresses – presently in the hands of ICANN û but includes other public policy matters, like infrastructure, the management of the root servers system, security and protection, capacity building, freedom of expression and intellectual property rights.

The WGIG, which is composed of 40 members from different countries and institutions, recommended the creation of a global forum for a multi-stakeholder dialogue on Internet governance that would take place “on an equal footing.”

The working group also suggested four alternative models of Internet governance.

The first would involve the creation of a Global Internet Council, made up of government representatives, with the involvement of other stakeholders from all regions. The international council would be “anchored in the United Nations” and would take over the functions currently in the hands of the U.S. Department of Commerce, while internationalising ICANN.

Under the second model, nothing would change, except that the ICANN governmental advisory committee would be strengthened and the functions of the proposed global multi-stakeholder forum would be expanded.

The other two models also propose the creation of international councils, with variations in their functions and their relationship with ICANN.

The proposals being discussed ahead of the Tunis summit tend to mix parts of each model, generating new formulas, said Afonso.

Brazil has played an important role in the debate on Internet governance, having set up its own exemplary Internet Steering Committee, comprised of representatives of the government, business, civil society and the scientific community.

However, the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is losing support because it has allied itself on some issues with undemocratic governments in Asia and the Middle East, and rejected participation of civil society observers in preparatory meetings, said Afonso and Pazello.

10112115 ORP012 NNNN