Time to challenge U.S. control of the Internet

Bharat Jhunjhunwala, Contributor, New Delhi

The Internet is now managed by a non-profit American Company named "Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers" (ICANN) which was established by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 1998 to assign names to Internet users. The Internet was invented in America, partly with funding from the American government.

Initially the use Internet was limited to America hence there was no difficulty in the American government regulating it. But now the Internet has got a global reach, though ICANN continues to be accountable only to the U.S. government.

For example, it made a unilateral announcement that only five of its 18 directors would be elected from among the Internet stakeholders. The four directors who had initially formed the company would continue to hold office. There are no shareholders or members of ICANN.

The only court of appeal against wrong actions of ICANN lies with the American government or, at best, the American judiciary. Thus South African President Thabo Mbeki said that the world community should discuss ICANN's powers, "Otherwise the world continues to be governed by California law." The suggestion came soon after South Africa country took legal control of its country domain, .za, without seeking ICANN approval. In the same tone China had threatened some years ago that it would set up a parallel Internet system if Chinese characters were not accepted by ICANN.

The U.S. government acquires immense powers from its control of the Internet. It can block selected email id or websites. Hans Klein, chairman of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility says, "The U.S. might remove from central databases the domain names for countries deemed sponsors of terrorism, essentially kicking them offline." This could also be done for those who opposed other American interests.

The U.S. government can, so to say, put a person in solitary confinement by blocking his email id. It is also possible for the U.S. government to track the information being exchanged through the Internet. The U.S. government can overhear the messages just as the postal departments used to open mail to trap spies during the World War II.

The Internet can also be used for commercial espionage. Robert Guerra, director of Computer Professionals for Social Restructuring, said that intellectual property protection is necessary within the Internet, "So that developing countries do not get ripped off of their indigenous knowledge by big companies in the West."

The U.S., however, is reluctant to hand over control of the Internet to any multilateral organization under the United Nations. It says that governments like those of China have had a poor record of providing freedom of information to their people.

The Economist wrote, "America is wary of a completely intergovernmental approach, since it might jeopardize the Internet's capacity for free speech and technical innovation. Some of the countries that want more of a say-China and several Middle East and African nations-have dubious records on transparency, human rights and press freedoms.

They seek more power not to preserve the Internet's character as an open medium, but to control it better within their borders." It has to be accepted that the U.S. has not imposed nay restrictions on the use of Internet till now while the Chinese government has often blocked the websites of opponents like Falun Gong frequently.

However, this argument of the U.S. being the policeman of the world cannot be accepted. The people of a country have the right to decide what kind of government they want. If a people do not oppose a dictatorial government then we must assume that it is what they want. The present free orientation of the American government cannot be taken for granted because it is used selectively against countries obstructing American commercial interests.

No wonder Brazil, China, India and South Africa have challenged this control by the U.S. They want the Internet to be managed by International Telecommunications Union, a multilateral organization which manages telephones, telegraph, radio and TV across the world allotting wavelengths, telephone numbers, etc. But America prefers the status quo though it is not openly opposing this demand yet.

It would be futile to "ask" the U.S. to give up its control of the Internet. Power is taken, not given. The only way is for the developing countries like India to be one-up on America in the future developments of the Internet. David J. Farber of People For Internet Responsibility says in An Open Letter to the Global Internet Community that "An intensive, international study be started at once, with a mandate to propose detailed and meaningful paths for the Internet's development, operations, and management.

The goal of this study would be to help guide the formation of purpose-built representative organizations and policies that would be beneficial both to established Internet stakeholders and to the wide variety of organizations and individuals who are effectively disenfranchised in the current Internet policy environment."

Internet has not stabilized yet. Many new areas will emerge in the coming years. The Indian government, in collaboration with other developing countries, should immediately launch a serious study of the future course of the Internet.

We will have to establish a better system than that of ICANN. We should not forget that the U.S. is trying to establish its sovereignty upon the space and is developing weapons that can be used to destroy the satellites of unfriendly countries. The intentions of the U.S. are clear.

We should also recognize that America's control over the Internet has been established because the U.S. government provided the initial grants for its development. If these developing countries want to be a party in the global regulation of the Internet then it should start an ambitious program of developing the next generation of Internet.