Who will manage the Internet?

Manila Standard Today
Mar 9, 2006

Who will manage the Internet?
By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

As the Information Revolution heats up and the information highway embraces the entire world, a sticky question which the international community has to face is the issue of Internet management. The United States dominates Internet governance but it is not likely to give up such domination for obvious reasons. It is the source of its global power and its global reach is best demonstrated by control of the domain name management and the primacy of the English language online. The US has time and again categorically said that its control of the Internet is part of its role as the global policeman.

The rest of the world (the developing countries, including the Philippines) is not exactly appreciative of Washington’s’ presumptuous assertion to manage the global information highway. In their honest opinion, the US control of the Internet is enough reason for the continuing digital divide between the rich and poor nations. In brief, the gap between the rich and poor countries is being exacerbated by the US inability to loosen its grip on the Internet.

In the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) held late last year in Tunisia, developing countries had sounded out for massive changes regarding Internet management. Iran minister of communications and information technology Mohammed Soleymani called for the elimination of the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)—which approves new top-level domain names—in favor of a domain name system controlled by the United Nations. The Philippine representative, Commission on Information and Communications Technology chairman Virgilio Peña had pitched for the creation of a Global Internet Council (GIC) to govern the Internet. Not a bad idea from one low-key public official in an obscure government agency.

The developing nation’s clamor for the UN to take control of Internet management from the US is not without solid basis though. Under the US leadership, wealthier nations had not done much to help the poorer nations to take advantage of the Internet. In fact, the developing nations have ended up subsidizing the rich countries, which is quite a strange situation in the relations of the two contrasting bloc of nations. Hence, the digital divide is growing between the rich and poor countries. The proceeds have not been equally shared by developing and developed countries.

Answering all those initiatives, US ambassador to Manila David Gross had rejected those calls for a UN body to take control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet and reiterated US intentions to keep its historical role as the Internet’s principal overseer. The proposal for a US body is totally unacceptable, according to Gross. It is a matter of national policy and, therefore, nonnegotiable, Gross said. Thus, US control of the Internet is to remain contentious for many years to come and the US is not likely to give even an inch.

Who should serve as the principal traffic cop for Internet routing and addressing seeks to ensure a fair sharing of the Internet for the benefit of the whole world. Developing countries have been asserting for wresting control of domain names from ICANN and placing them with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations. This is on the pretext that no single country should exercise ultimate authority over the Internet, which has become a vital part of the global economy.

Curiously, the WSIS did not end up on something concrete. What the more than 10,000 participants from some 50 countries had agreed is to institutionalize a global forum on Internet management, which is intended to thresh out the other remaining problems concerning the information highway. It has not in any way indicated any means to press the issue of Internet management, correct its current flaws, and initiate a equitable sharing of the revenues between rich and poor countries. At the most, the option is to continue discussing. More talks over anything tangible.

Is there a way to reverse the situation? Is there a way to force the US to give up its control of the Internet and share its management with the rest of the world?

Experts have said that the Internet management is part and parcel of US global policy. It is tied down to US national security interests. In the wake of its current fight against global terrorism and other security concerns, the US will not give up such control easily; it would even take the bull by its horns just to keep a tight control. It would take more than plain political will to wrest such control. A parallel Internet is the likely the option although this is almost close to impossibility.