The battle for the right to “govern” the Internet has truly emerged between the United States and other countries around the world. The U.S. wants to maintain its dominance over the Internet while other nations are demanding more control.
The European Union Council warns that if the parties do not reach an agreement at the conference in Tunisia next month, it is very likely that the Internet will be fragmented.
The issue stems from the oversight role of the U.S. government over the Domain Name System (DNS).
The DNS can be likened to the address book of the Internet, where each IP address is assigned a human-readable address for easier recall. For example, Google has the IP address 216.239.37.99 corresponding to the DNS address www.google.com.
Not merely a collection of Internet addresses, the DNS organizes addresses by the area in which they operate, known as domains, allowing for swift and efficient communication over the Internet.
Currently, the DNS system is managed by the non-profit organization ICANN (The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). ICANN decides who operates at the top-level domain, such as .com, .org, or .vn, and is responsible for allocating space on the Internet. The organization was established in California under a license from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Therefore, ICANN must adhere to California state law.
All decisions made by ICANN are advised by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). In reality, the GAC exerts more pressure on ICANN than the U.S. Department of Commerce. The GAC reviews all requests for domain creation, while the Department of Commerce has never intervened in the company’s decisions.
Many governments believe they need a platform where all world leaders can freely express their opinions about the Internet, but since ICANN is under U.S. control, they have the impression that the Internet is dominated by a single nation.
A meeting was held in Geneva last month to gather opinions from politicians on this issue. Europe’s plan to open Internet governance to developing countries faced strong resistance from the U.S.
Viviane Reding, EU Information Commissioner, stated, “If the parties do not reach a multilateral agreement, countries like Russia, China, Brazil, and some Arab nations may very well build their own Internets. As such, the ubiquitous nature that makes the Internet magical will disappear.”
The U.S. argues that many non-democratic governments cannot create an open Internet.
Michaek Gallagher, Internet advisor to President Bush and head of the U.S. Communications Executive, believes they hold the heart of the Internet, the only heart that keeps it functioning. “Those aiming for control think that the DNS is everything in life. But life is based on territorial boundaries and the policies they establish there.”
The U.S. government created the Internet in the 1960s, intending to maintain oversight of ICANN, abandoning commitments made during the Clinton administration.
David Gross, head of the U.S. delegation at the Geneva conference, remarked, “An untested model of Internet governance could disrupt over 250,000 networks using TCP/IP protocols, with more than one billion participants engaged in 27 billion transactions daily.”
“The Internet has long been regarded as a reliable and stable network of networks. It has developed at an unprecedented pace in human history…What we are anticipating is a technological revolution of the Internet. We do not believe that creating or utilizing multilateral institutions to control the Internet is the way to expedite technological advancements.”
Domain Names – The Epicenter of Controversy
According to Emily Taylor, Director of Policy & Legal at Nominet, which manages .co and .org domains, all discussions at the Geneva conference revolved around top-level domains.
Although the DNS is a distributed system, it requires a starting point, a list of places where Internet addresses begin. That list is called the root zone file, which includes 248 top-level domains based on country codes such as .vn, .kr, .uk… and 14 top-level domains based on function like .com, .net, .org. The root zone file determines who operates in which domain and where to start searching for them. Only 13 servers worldwide hold this list, with 10 servers located in the U.S.
ICANN’s CEO, Paul Twomey, shares many concerns with the U.S. government. He stated, “We always aim to be progressive and dynamic. We are responsible for the stability of the Internet, and we believe that is the best way to develop existing systems. Our corporate structure today is a product of history rather than a specific design.”
Management – Just a Secondary Issue
Two weeks ago, Europe proposed a “collaborative model” to negotiate with ICANN and a forum for governments to debate Internet governance.
Europe’s plan was supported by China, Arab nations, Iran, Pakistan, and many others. In response to this move, some European politicians expressed doubt, stating, “The controversy surrounding Internet governance is minor while Europe is allowing other countries to draw closer to confrontation with the U.S., placing Europe in a precarious position.” Other politicians defended, stating: they “completely oppose controlling content on the Internet. Europe’s role differs from that of China or Brazil.” And they will not compromise with any proposals from those countries.
Although they dislike the way the U.S. dominates the Internet, Argentina and Canada expressed concerns if Internet governance were opened to all nations. Just three days before the conference in Tunisia, officials’ opinions will be collected for a thorough and candid discussion about Internet governance.
It seems the era of the “sun that never sets” on the Internet is coming to an end. Even though the decisions from the Tunisia conference may not have any legal significance, the ties between ICANN and the U.S. government will end by the end of September next year, at which point the company’s operations will be completely independent of the government.
Mr. Gallagher stated, “We will not bureaucratize, politicize, or hinder the development of the DNS. We do not agree with that in November this year, and we will not do so in September next year.”
