Stanching The Bleeding
Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman's article in todays WSJ is an essential read for those of us who not only value freedom of speech on the Internet, but who are suspicious of unelected international "governments".
He addresses the UN move to seize control of the Internet:
There is no rational justification for politicizing Internet governance within a U.N. framework. The chairman of the WSIS Internet Governance Subcommittee himself recently affirmed that existing Internet governance arrangements "have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges."
Nor is there a rational basis for the anti-U.S. resentment driving the proposal. The history of the U.S. government's Internet involvement has been one of relinquishing control. Rooted in a Defense Department project of the 1960s, the Internet was transferred to civilian hands and then opened to commerce by the National Science Foundation in 1995. Three years later, the non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers assumed governance responsibility under Department of Commerce oversight. Icann, with its international work force and active Governmental Advisory Committee, is scheduled to be fully privatized next year. Privatization, not politicization, is the right Internet governance regime.
Coleman needs to be complimented - by people on both sides of the aisle, as it happens - for taking the lead on this issue - although it's more vital for those of us on the right, who so heavily depend on the Internet to outflank the mainstream media.
Coleman concludes:
Allowing Internet governance to be politicized under U.N. auspices would raise a variety of dangers. First, it is wantonly irresponsible to tolerate any expansion of the U.N.'s portfolio before that abysmally managed and sometimes-corrupt institution undertakes sweeping, overdue reform. It would be equal folly to let Icann be displaced by the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union, a regulatory redoubt for those state telephone monopolies most threatened by the voice over Internet protocol revolution.
Also, as we expand the global digital economy, the stability and reliability of the Internet becomes a matter of security. Technical minutiae have profound implications for competition and trade, democratization, free expression and access to information, privacy and intellectual-property protection.
Responding to the present danger, I have initiated a Sense of the Senate Resolution that supports the four governance principles articulated by the administration on June 30:
• Preservation of the security and stability of the Internet domain name and addressing system (DNS).
• Recognition of the legitimate interest of governments in managing their own country code top-level domains.
• Support for Icann [an almost-privatized Internet naming convention] as the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS.
• Participation in continuing dialogue on Internet governance, with continued support for market-based approaches toward, and private-sector leadership of, its further evolution
Say what you will about US hegemony in other areas - I generally but not universally think it's a good thing - but I have yet to see a rational argument
for UN control of the Internet.
Posted by Mitch at
November 7, 2005 06:49 PM
| TrackBack
You mean (as for rational argument) outside of having an Internation body, rather than a single government, in control. I'm not saying the UN is the right body, but there is logic behind the general principle as the internet is, in fact, an international interest and asset.
As for Coleman, the man is playing upon anti-foriegn bias in a pretty useless way. The UN abetted Oil For Food, yep, and US companies represented 25% (or so) of the allocations, where is Mr. Coleman's investigation into those organizations (nowhere)?
If you are concerned about internation, unelected governments, you might want to start concerning yourself with MNC's, organizations with FAR greater power and resources than the UN.
But I don't think you are, in fact, really concerned with such things, you just don't like anyone who has the audacity to point out US flaws... which is, in the end, the reason for Coleman's "investigation." I wonder if Normy will ever "investigate" the failure on the part of the Security Council to ENFORCE the Oil for Food restrictions... hmmmm...
Maybe after that he could investigate why the Wall Street Journal, in editorial after editorial during the late 90's derided Clinton for his concern about the Taliban, describing them as "not like your typical Shia extremist Group in Iran" and "similar to the Sunni fundamentalists in control in Saudi Arabia, but we have dealt effectively with them." (WSJ 1997 , 1998)... in those editorials the WSJ editorial board suggested that Clinton was too concerned with the Taliban and it's anti-feminist, increasing strident voice.. it touted the benefits cooperating with the Taliban because of the upcoming Natural Gas Pipeline(Gasp! an editorial from the WSJ favoring business and overlooking human rights abuses). Maybe the editorial board of the WSJ should be more selective in what they aspouse, maybe the right should cease it's fiction that it was ardently pursuing terrorism protections while Clinton fiddled, and maybe, just maybe, the right should consider investigating/examing the ever-present blinders where corps are concerned, while at the same time being ultra-bellicous extremists against anyone and anything that tries to tell the US (and it's companies) to actually WORRY about human rights. Maybe, but judging by this post, I won't hold my breath.
The WSJ, Norm, and the neo-con right are simply a bunch of hypocrites entirely lacking in credibility on this topic. You want to seem credible, stop claiming credit for anti-terrorism when you opposed it with the taliban, stop blaming Clinton when you opposed him, stop assailing the UN unless you are willing to do the REAL job of ferretting out WHY that corruption occured, and please STOP trying to say the whole world is out to get us. It's not, and that sentiment is no less extreme than saying the US is always wrong. The US isn't always right, and the UN sometimes has decent motives.
PB
Posted by: pb at November 7, 2005 08:54 PMPB,If the internet should be under the auspices of an international body,
1) Should it be the UN? If so, what leads you to believe the UN is up to the task? Given their record with child prostitution in places like Kosovo I'm not sure we should give them to the keys to the most efficient distributor of porn the world has ever known.
2) If not the UN, then who or what?
Any international body, with the exception of NATO*, quickly degenerates into a means by which other countries can stick it to the US**.
* NATO works because while the 'attack against one is an attack against all' is great in theory, the US has historically been the only member with a viable military capable of defending fellow members against another super power. Other members have to play nice with us.
** And, of course, Israel.
I wonder if anyone will ever investigate why the majority of UN Security Council members failed to ENFORCE its own sanctions against Iraq... hmmmmm...
Posted by: chriss at November 7, 2005 10:34 PMMaybe after that they can investigate the corruption behind the building of the pipeline in Afghanistan. Oh wait, that's right, it was never built.
US companies received 25% of the kick backs? That means other countries received 75%. These other countries, coincidentally, generally opposed the war. This would seem worthy of investigation. (Apparently your dreaded MNC's control do indeed control governments - just not ours.) The US pays 22% of the UN's operating expenses. We have a right to investigate impropriety.
Focus, PB, focus.
Posted by: badda-blogger at November 7, 2005 10:46 PMColeman's WSJ article is a response to Kofi Annan's Saturday column in the Washington Post. The basic of Annan's column is "Aw, shucks, we don't want to take over the Internet, and even if we do, we have the best of intentions." A friend asked me a question as to who should own the Internet, and who should control it, and it inspired me to comment on Annan's column.
Posted by: Douglas at November 9, 2005 02:47 AM