America created the Internet...but how long will we control it?

Al Gore notwithstanding, the Internet was created by the Pentagon decades ago. Only recently, with the invention of the internet browser--the first one I recall put out by Mosaic--has the medium blossomed into the smorgasbord of personal, corporate and government use that it supports today. Now even as the internet has grown, the United States has maintained itself at the forefront of Internet governance, mainly because the U.S. retained control of the Internet's master directories. But all of that is now in question. As the Associated Press reports:

At issue is who would have ultimate authority over the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic.

That role has historically gone to the United States, which created the Internet as a Pentagon project and funded much of its early development. The U.S. Commerce Department has delegated much of that responsibility to a U.S.-based private organization with international board members, but Commerce ultimately retains veto power.

Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.

They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy.

Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable.

So what we have forming here is the war for control over information, or the flow of information. This is a formidable power, and one that the United States should hang onto at all costs. A European intervention, and God-forbid, an International one, for control of the Internet would create a mess. The entire world would want to stick it's fingers in the U.S.'s business. That's not to say they don't have a legitimate grievance that we won't do the same. But I'll take the U.S. system of government, with checks and balances, and a free press, over some International coalition any day.

I don't know...what would Vint Cerf do?


Thankfully the Wall Street Journal is sufficiently alarmed.

The implications for online commerce are profound. The moment one puts up a Web site, one has "gone global"--perhaps even automatically subjected oneself to the laws of every country on the planet.

A global Internet regulatory state could mean that We Are the World--on speech and libel laws, sales taxes, privacy policies, antitrust statutes and intellectual property. How then would a Web site operator or even a blogger know how to act or do business? Compliance with some 190 legal codes would be confusing, costly and technically possible for all but the most well-heeled firms. The safest option would be to conform online speech or commercial activities to the most restrictive laws to ensure global compliance. If you like the idea of Robert Mugabe setting legal standards for everyone, then WSIS is for you.

The very confusion of laws makes some favor a "U.N. for the Internet" model. Others propose international treaties, or adjudication by the World Trade Organization, to stop retaliation and trade wars from erupting over privacy, gambling and pornography. Still others assert that the best answer is to do nothing, because the current unregulated Web environment has helped expand free speech and commerce globally for citizens, consumers and companies.

We favor the nonregulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve" or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression.

The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.

Control through the backdoor is exactly the right analogy. And it's how the U.N. has operated for a while now. They are trying to claim a "right of control" for all nations, when in reality the Internet was never created for all nations in the first place. Enjoying the fruits of U.S. labor is fine. I agree with the sentiment that the Internet is a fix for a lot of censorship and a boon for growth in the world. But handing over the reigns to the U.N. would just send this promising medium down the slow road to enslavement.


Anyone interested in more stirring commentary on current events should check out Basil's blog and view the recent blog selections.