OVER the past four years, members of the United Nations have been debating the future of the greatest technical phenomenon of our age: the internet. These discussions, which culminate next week in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis, Tunisia, have ostensibly been about ensuring that poor countries benefit from information and communication technologies. But behind the scenes a deeper battle of ideas has been taking place, between the age-old political model of top-down control and the 21st-century model of bottom-up cooperation and coordination. It is a clash of historic proportions that will determine how the internet evolves.
From its foundation, the people who built the internet have operated with a set of common values. These include ensuring that the internet works as a single interoperable system, that decisions are made from the bottom up, that anyone who wishes to can participate and that contributions are judged on their value rather than on the authority of their author.
These values were key to the 鈥済uerrilla鈥� development of the internet, which today is a vast collaboration of many components built on different layers by different combinations of business and technical skills. They are also in marked contrast to the values that defined the roll-out of other major technical networks such as electricity grids and telephone networks, all of which required government support and regulation.
Advertisement
Only in the past two-and-a-half years have governments started paying attention to the way the internet is operated. It is unfortunate, but perhaps understandable, that they have approached it with a 鈥渢op down鈥� mindset conditioned by those earlier industries. The question they often ask is 鈥渨ho is in control?鈥�. It is the wrong question: they forget that the internet operates in a completely different way.
Central to the discussion is the role of ICANN, the non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, of which I am president. ICANN coordinates 鈥� not controls 鈥� the unique identifier system that binds the internet together, including all the domain names and protocol addresses. ICANN works according to the existing internet model of cooperation and collaboration, and encourages all members of the global internet community to become more involved in its development. It has worked extremely well.
However, this 鈥渕ulti-stakeholder鈥� approach is still alien to many governments, or at least their diplomatic representatives. Their failure to grasp it is apparent in their often-heard refrain: 鈥淚CANN should not run the internet.鈥� ICANN, of course, does no such thing. Neither does it represent the interests of the US government, another common accusation. ICANN is under contract to the US Department of Commerce, which audits its work, but the department has never attempted to dictate the way ICANN operates.
So what does ICANN do? To use a loose analogy, if the internet were a postal system, the ICANN community ensures that the addresses on the envelopes work. What it does not do is determine what should be in the envelope, deliver the letter or decide who can read it. To give some idea of the scale of this task, ICANN鈥檚 work ensures that nearly 250,000 interconnected private networks act as a single internet in the eyes of a billion users.
鈥淚t is a clash of historic proportions that will determine how the internet evolves鈥�
The vast majority of governments taking part in the WSIS now recognise the technical coordination role played by ICANN, and aren鈥檛 seeking to have it replaced. But the philosophical battle continues about whether governments should be able to impose control or whether they should just participate in the internet鈥檚 development. Those who have called for an intergovernmental council to oversee the internet fail to appreciate that the internet is a system of networks that freely chose to interconnect, and that its success reflects the willing collaboration of many individuals and groups.
ICANN is aware of the important role that governments play in developing public policy. However, we are concerned that some still wish to impose 19th-century governance on a 21st-century technical reality. I urge governments to keep the following points in mind.
First, it is important not to threaten the system for assigning domain names and internet protocol addresses, which is internationally organised and has proved effective. Second, to reassure global business and the billion-plus internet users, the focus should be on stability, integrity and security. Third, the core operations of the net must be shielded from the heat of day-to-day politics and the slow grind of multilateral haggling. Finally, governments should recognise that the technical coordination of the internet is independent of any issues about the content it carries.
ICANN supports the continuing globalisation of internet governance. But it is important to understand that the collaborative way in which the internet developed makes it very different to traditional areas of inter-governmental dialogue. Governments alone cannot set the rules here.
