|
Retelling the history of the Internet might not
appear to contribute much to the subject at hand… Nevertheless, let us
recall a few dates and create a map to guide us through the vast and
complex network of networks.
The Internet was invented and developed in the
United States. Although studies of interconnection of computers date
back to 1962, the Internet as we know it today began in 1985 and from
then it on went on developing as the network of networks.
In mid-1995, the so-called commercial internet
began growing at an exponential rate. At that time, very few people,
if any, could have imagined the social and economic repercussions that
this phenomenon would have.
As a result of this huge development, a worldwide
debate began in 1996 aimed at reforming the “Internet System.” This
process culminated in October 1998 with the creation of ICANN
(“Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers”) www.icann.org
The idea was to set up an international nonprofit organization, in
which all interest groups with ties to the Internet and all
geographical regions would participate and be represented. On a
temporary basis, the Government of the United States signed a contract
with ICANN, delegating to it the functions that were under its control
via a foundation. Supposedly, as soon as a set of contractually
established requirements were met, those functions would be
transferred to ICANN on a permanent basis. The current agreement
expires definitively in 2006, at which point the transition period is
expected to terminate and the functions being administered by ICANN
today become a definitive part of its remit.
The functions delegated to ICANN are:
administration and management of domain names and Internet addresses
(IP numbers and autonomous numbers), coordination of technical
aspects, and the definition of technological parameters (protocols)
needed for the system to function. It also administers root servers.
Evidently, all these activities are well-defined and eminently
technological.
From this brief flashback, we observe that for
several years now there has been a discussion about various kinds of
“Internet governance” (the Spanish term used is “Gobierno de
Internet”); a discussion that the World Summit on the Information
Society is further developing. In the end, no major decisions on this
topic were taken at the Summit held in Geneva, in December 2003. They
were postponed for the second Summit phase, to be held in Tunis in
November 2005.
As for the expression “Internet
Governance”, there
could hardly be a more inappropriate term. No one can be certain that
all the individuals and institutions taking part in the discussions
share the same sense of what this means; and we believe that in fact
they do not.
Obviously, there is no Internet
governance, nor can
it be “governed” as a whole. There are innumerable and diverse aspects
of the Internet that are debated in various fora and organizations and
others that are governed by regulations and domestic laws.
A brief list of Internet-related topics might
include: e-commerce, intellectual property, e-government,
communications, human rights, education, security, privacy, to name
but a few.
There is no one organization or forum in which
these issues are discussed and channeled, nor any single agency in
which decisions are taken and standards set. So there is no such thing
as the famous Internet Governance.
Despite that, the term “Gobierno de Internet” (in
Spanish) has acquired its own momentum and taken on an existence by
dint of sheer constant repetition. So, regardless of how many of us
realize that it is a thoroughly infelicitous term, we have to accept
that it is in fact used to refer to the administration and technical
coordination of Internet resources.
In the preparations prior to the Summit, there was
some discussion of different ways of administering Internet resources,
or the so-called Internet Governance, as we explained earlier. Some
countries suggested greater governmental control in this area and
pointed specifically to the need for the functions exercised today by
ICANN to be performed by an intergovernmental agency. Some named the
ITU as the appropriate agency, while others have a United Nations
agency in mind (without specifying which or whether it would be a new
one).
In the current model, both third-world countries
and the sectors habitually accorded the least influence on power
structures have enjoyed a degree of participation and ability to make
themselves felt that they would be unlikely to have in an alternative
model such as that apparently being proposed. This is something to
bear in mind when it comes to analyzing other options.
Like any other organization, Icann can be improved.
The definitive delegation of its functions, the internationalization
of its operations, the geographical distribution of root servers, and
determination of the role of governments are some of the tasks still
pending, but this does not of itself warrant a change in the nature of
the agency. Today governments are participating, albeit in a
coordination capacity with ICANN. And many other function issues are
on the way to being settled. There is nothing to suggest that a
proposal for more, and more organic, participation by government would
be rejected as a topic for discussion.
Let us hope that the newly formed “Internet
Governance Working Group,” which reports directly to the UN Secretary
General, generates some clear conclusions that help to trigger
consensus among all those involved with this area. Another
consideration is that we need to protect our countries’, and
ultimately our peoples’, financial resources, because establishing a
new international agency will undoubtedly require further
contributions to finance its operations and upkeep.
Oscar Messano
|
I
