The Future of Internet Governance Remains Unresolved.

Navigation: Main page

Author: Ashling, Jim jashling@aol.com

The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), an independent group charged with deciding how the Internet should he run and governed in the future, has been meeting since November 2004. On July 14, it released its report (http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf). Its conclusions are to he considered first at this month's Geneva Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting and then during the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which is set to be held this November in Tunis.

WGIG was created solely because governments have been unable to agree on Internet management and control. Divisions exist between those governments that support the existing U.S.-dominated structure provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and those that seek more international governance and a greater role for developing nations.

The group acknowledged that a degree of internationalization of governance is required, based on the WSIS Declaration of Principles that were adopted in Geneva in 2003. However, although it identified a vacuum in existing structures for a global forum for the various stakeholders, the group was not able to come up with a single, definitive new model. Instead, the group proposed four possible options:

• Enhance the role of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).

• Establish a new body (likely to replace GAC) to address public policy issues.

• Replace GAC with a new U.N. body to which ICANN would be accountable.

• Create a new structure of three bodies to cover Internet policy governance, oversight, and global coordination that includes a reformed ICANN.

The report also makes recommendations in a number of policy areas including administration of the root zone files and system; allocation of domain names; IP addressing; interconnection costs; Internet stability, security, and cybercrime; spam; data protection and privacy rights; consumer rights; intellectual property rights; meaningful participation in global policy development; capacity building; freedom of expression; and multilingualism.

ICANN president Paul Twomey made his position clear in an interview with the online newsletter The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/18/twomey%5finterview). In somewhat colorful language, he accused governments looking to subsume ICANN into a U.N. body as "living in a political fantasy land." He also said that he was thankful that the Internet community doesn't have tanks. Twomey's preference is to enhance the role of the existing ICANN GAC.

Any loosening of U.S. government control appears to have been rejected by a U.S. Department of Commerce statement issued on June 30 (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples%5f06302005.htm). The statement said that the U.S. government intends to preserve the security and stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS) and that ICANN is the appropriate technical manager of the DNS.

The difference in position between the U.S. and developing nations is well-illustrated by an article that appeared in The Times of India on July 20. Telecom Commission chairman and DoT (Department of Telecom) secretary J. S. Sarma, who is leading the Indian delegation to this month's PrepCom meeting, said, "We are a strong proponent of an inclusive Internet Governance mechanism, which is founded on the InterGovernmental, multi-stakeholder, multilateral basis." Although the Indian delegation has not yet decided which model it prefers, it is unlikely to be the one favored by Twomey. (It is more likely to be the third or fourth model.)

Elsewhere, the EU aims to have a common approach for WSIS. EU ministers have expressed support for a 'light' intergovernmental cooperation model based on the current bottom-up, public-private partnership. This is seen as providing a platform for policy dialogue in the interests of all governments. With such a wide spectrum of positions, agreement at the PrepCom meeting may be difficult to reach.

London and the rest of the U.K. are still coming to terms with the aftermath of the July 7 London Underground and bus bombings and the subsequent bombing attempts. Situations such as these raise serious issues and ethical questions for all of us, whether we are purveyors, consumers, or gatekeepers of news and information.

U.S. librarians are certainly aware of the legislative responses that take place after events such as these. The PATRIOT Act has been well covered in this publication, and the act's further continuation will certainly be explored and discussed in future columns. In the U.K., there will be similar demands for restrictive legislation. There are already plenty of people calling for something to he done, but there is little agreement on how far we should go.

An early claim to come out of the investigations was that the bombers were radicalized in a local bookshop that sold anti-Western texts and videos. The press has made much of the fact that the bookshop is in a learning center that was funded by government grants and lottery money. In Australia, police are investigating allegations that extremist literature is being sold in a Sydney bookshop. However, South Australian attorney general Michael Atkinson says that the Australian Federal Police can use existing legislation to remove certain titles from shelves without imposing bans on specific bookshops.

While there is little support for moves to monitor the reading habits of library users or to log the purchasing behavior of bookstore patrons, can we--or should we--suppress or prevent the publication and distribution of hate literature or bomb-making manuals? Such suppression today seems futile. Why even bother controlling printed matter when the Internet carries all types of extreme material outside the jurisdictions of concerned nations?

Aside from preaching to the faithful and recruiting supporters, Web sites are also used by terrorists to make threats, to plan or instruct attacks, and to claim responsibility for their atrocities. These sites are closed down as the authorities identify them, hut they crop up somewhere else soon after. Sites that claimed responsibility for the London bombs were closed within days.

On the positive side, the Internet also carries many sites devoted to exposing hate groups and to correcting the myths created by them. Furthermore, in some countries, the Internet is the only way for people to hear views that oppose those of their prevailing government. As ever, one man's truth is another man's propaganda.

And what of conventional news media? You'd think newspapers, TV, and radio were dead and buried as Internet users around the world seeking info on the London bombings checked into online news sites, read blogs, viewed images in Flickr photo pools, or simply exchanged e-mails or text messages. Certainly, TV news relied heavily on reports and camera phone images provided by "ordinary people" as their own reporters struggled in traffic.

Citizen news reporters may provide valuable input, just like any other firsthand witnesses to an event, but in the confusion, unconnected and uncorroborated reports from individuals can lead to rumors and false information.

The lowest form of Internet life also re-emerged to take advantage of the London tragedy. Hoax e-mails requesting donations for victims and fake donation Web sites appeared in record time, mimicking similar scams such as the notorious "Nigerian millions" e-mail and the fake tsunami disaster relief sites. Whatever WGIG governance model is chosen at September's WSIS, let's hope--no, let's insist--that measures be taken to prevent unacceptable uses of the Internet.

CILIP: the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals passed a resolution directed at the G8 Summit leaders and the WSIS participants at the closing session of its Umbrella conference in Manchester, England, on July 1. The resolution recognized the social responsibilities of librarians and the special role of libraries in fostering literacy and learning that, in retrospect, could equally apply to combating hate and terrorism. It stated:

Whereas library and information services underpin information, literacy and the learning process; and whereas literacy and learning underpin all our aspirations, locally and globally, for ourselves, our communities and our economies including equality, social justice and the eradication of poverty; therefore he it resolved that this conference declares its support for the Make Poverty History campaign and calls on the UK government to recognize and promote the role of libraries in sustainable economic development.

Finally, in a similar vein, CILIP's Diversity Group gave a Personal Achievement Award to Jagit Kohli, multicultural librarian for Warwickshire County Council. The award recognizes outstanding achievement in the promotion of diversity through library and information services. Kohli began her career as a teacher in the Andaman Islands, where she still encourages the community to embrace education and to strive to make a better life for themselves. Over the last 15 years, she has brought multiculturalism to life in Warwickshire.

PHOTO (COLOR)

PHOTO (COLOR)

PHOTO (COLOR)

PHOTO (COLOR)

~~~~~~~~

By Jim Ashling

Jim Ashling runs Ashling Consulting, an independent consultancy for the information industry. Send your letters about this column to itletters@infotoday.com.