UN Internet?
by Wes Vernon

The Internet has been a godsend for citizen expression. It has served as a means whereby "We the People" have held to account those who affect our lives--- public officials, the media, corporate boardrooms, labor hierarchies, international organizations, and others.

But not everyone is happy with the people having so much power. In particular, some foreign nations and United Nations bureaucrats would like to impose "international control" on all of this unregulated freedom.

A Senate Resolution by Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, notes that "some nations in support of transferring Internet governance to an entity affiliated with the United Nations or another international entity, might seek to have such an entity endorse national policies that block access to information, stifle political dissent, and maintain outmoded communications structures."

The resolution further adds the structure and control of the Internet "has profound implications for homeland security, competition and trade, democratization, free expression, access to information, privacy, and the protection of intellectual property." This is not an idle concern. China, Cuba, Iran, and several African states with questionable records on freedom of expression have insisted that the U.S. give up control.

China has decreed that only "healthy and civilized" news will be allowed on its websites. News sites "must be directed toward serving the people and socialism and insist on correct guidance of public opinion for maintaining national and public interests."  Already, reportedly with the help over 40,000 computer experts, postings that criticize the government or address sensitive topics are quickly removed.

This month, the UN-sponsored world Summit on the Information Society is meeting in Tunisia to discuss this issue. It will spark a prolonged international debate and a "grave threat" to the Internet, says Senator Coleman, who adds, "There is no rational basis for the anti-U.S. resentment driving the proposal. Privatization, not politicization, is the Internet governance regime that must be fostered and protected."

Such "governance" falls under the wing of the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Created by the U.S. Commerce Department, it administers the "root zone file"-which is the list of web addresses throughout the world. This is the process by which a given address or name is assigned to just one website.

The "root zone file" accredits entities to assign domain names such as ACU's website's www.conservative.org.  ICANN manages the domains such as .com and .org. Some are specific to single nations. This would include .ca for Canada, for example. ICANN works with authorities in each nation to make sure everything works smoothly. Beyond that, there is no real "governance," in terms of content.

If China and other countries already block their own people from viewing "unhealthy" news websites, what is their problem with free countries taking advantage of ICANN's hands-off policy as to content? What is it that they don't want the rest of us to see?

The UN working group that set up the November conference says the new international Internet body would respect freedom of expression. Its goals are defined as "respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, tradition, [and] religion..that translates to multicultural, diverse and culturally appropriate content."  By whose standards? Beijing's? Tehran's? Havana's?

Our friends in the European Union have turned against the U.S. on this issue. Perhaps they would like to tell us who would define "culturally appropriate content."  Brussels?

Sweden's former Prime Minister Carl Bildt says, "This is not where Europe should be on this issue. The Internet is vital to our future, and we Europeans should be as keen as anyone to preserve the essence of a system that has worked amazingly well."

Milton Mueller, author of "Ruling the Root," believes an international overseeing council could interfere.  "The idea of the council is so vague," he says that "it's not clear to me that governments know what to do about anything at this stage apart from getting in the way of things that other people do."

Then there is the issue of global taxation. No publicly revealed plan to pay for this new bureaucracy is apparent as of now. But many, including Richard Lessner's GIGAlliance, anticipate that international control of the Internet could lead to a back door tax worldwide.

President Bush has said this country has "no present intention of relinquishing the historic leadership role the United States has played" in the Internet. No doubt international bureaucrats will do a replay of the president's opposition to the Kyoto "global warming" treaty" and the International Criminal Court (ICC). i.e.- claim "Unilateralist" America is going it alone. But the Internet was invented and developed in the United States and, as Bildt says, it works.

The U.S. has brought forth a medium that is leading to a better worldwide information exchange than ever before and offers others the opportunity to share in the blessings of this uncensored vehicle of expression. Should one not be suspicious of nations that block content to their own people claiming to want to fix something that is not broken?

 Wes Vernon in a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.

Email the Editor