Internet Governance Debate Not Over, Lawmakers Warn

Coleman’s remarks came on the heels of an agreement reached at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) that left Internet governance in ICANN’s hands, despite efforts from the EU and elsewhere to transfer control of the Web to an international body, like the U.N. (WID Nov 17 p3, Nov 16 p1). The senator is a firm believer that the U.S. can’t be the “world’s sole policeman… or principal humanitarian provider” and he wants the U.N. to be strong, credible and functional. “But it’s not today, and that’s a reality,” he said. This is underscored by the organization’s Oil-for-Food Program, which was under investigation for more than a year by a Senate subcommittee. The probe showed “deep systematic fraud, corruption and mismanagement,” he said: “The last thing in the world you'd want to do today is to greatly expand their mandate over something as precious to growth and opportunity as the Internet.”

Rep. Doolittle (R-Cal.), who also spoke at the event, was pleased the U.S. delegation “defeated a clear and present danger for now,” allowing WSIS conferees to focus on other pressing issues. But he said that even after the agreement was reached, some foreign leaders reiterated their goal of having an intergovernmental body run the Internet. While the WSIS deal was a good first step, “nothing definitive has been done to assure this will not happen.” The Internet has become a vital element for communication, business and national security and there’s “far too much to risk and nothing to gain by handing this robust global medium over to an unreliable international organization,” he said. Lawmakers expressed similar worries on the House floor Wed. during consideration of a resolution (HCR-268) in support of preserving ICANN’s Web oversight (WID Nov 17 p7). Doolittle, Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Boucher (D-Va.) sponsored that measure, which won unanimous passage later in the day.

U.S. control over the Internet isn’t ideal either, Coleman said, noting that industry and innovators, not govts., should be shepherding the Web’s evolution. ICANN has a “pretty good system” but it’s not without flaws: It lack openness and has frustrated some registrars with its new proposed contract with VeriSign, which would allow the company to raise prices by 7% a year starting in 2007 and boost ICANN fees as well.

The challenge ahead lies in the probability that countries wanting to tighten their grip on the Internet, despite the preliminary WSIS deal, will continue to push their agenda. Their campaign has “certainly been put on hold, but it’s not dead,” Coleman said. A new international forum to discuss issues like spam, privacy and cybersecurity, which was born out of the agreement brokered Tues. night by the U.S., plans to meet in mid- 2006 in Greece. Organizers must be careful that that summit isn’t dominated by delegations that want to stifle the free flow of information online, Coleman said. He said WSIS too “started out well intentioned,” with the altruistic goal of providing cheap PCs for children all over the world, but digressed into the battle over Internet governance.

Free speech limitations aside, one of Coleman’s great fears is that the Internet could be an “aggregate cash cow for anyone who wanted to control it.” Reiterating the scenario he offered in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, he spoke of “an anonymous group of international technocrats” who hold secretive meetings to gain control over the Web under the guise of helping the developing world more fully participate in the digital revolution. The story is “not beyond the realm of possibility,” he said: “The vision we have to have is a vision of a liberated Internet, a vision of the Internet not controlled by governments, not controlled by international organizations.”