The question so many people ask is "who should control the internet?", whilst the correct question is "Why should anyone control the internet"?

Would you tolerate people asking "who should control your ability to make mobile phone calls?" or "Who should control pens and writing paper?"

It is simply a freedom of speech issue, plain and simple.

For us in Africa, the Internet has become the most useful tool for academic research and information on global happenings since we do not have modern books in our libraries and our teachers are very reluctant to use the Internet.

I see the governance idea as playing into the hands of bureaucrats who will not only restrict it s a medium for sharing knowledge (especially when they perceive certain websites as being critical of them) but will also see it a money making avenue by imposing high taxes on usage. Already many parts of Africa, Ethiopia especially makes it difficult for Ethiopians to subscribe to a land line paying almost $100 to get connected. In Ghana it could take months and could cost you almost three times Ethiopia’s if you want a land line through the back door.

So there are some real bottlenecks to crack not to mention the idea of controling the Internet as being ethical or moral

Yeah, I agree with Perry that it is ignificantly a question of freedom to speak and must be defended.

Franklin,

When I was in Tunis several weeks ago, an African journalist told me he was uncomfortable with the anything-goes nature of the Net -- that perhaps governments should jump in to make sure that what's posted is true.

We agreed to disagree...

Governments own or tax telecom companies around the world. I suspect a lot of the motivation for controlling the Net locally is worry about lost revenues.

Control is probably not the best word for this given how loaded that term is. Governance is the better word. The internet needs governance in the same way that the most critical things in our lives need governance--air, water, traffic, education, healthcare, etc. Look at how we are communicating. We have to coordinate our time, how we type, what we type. If there is no coordination--a form of governance--we cannot get this blogjam going. All we would have is a jam.

Obviously, keeping the Internet free allos for innovation and remains a medium to express creativity which can only thrive in a free society

Peng, we must be careful useing the word governence, . Bureaucrats do not understand that the power we give them can be regulated.

Dan,

It si only governmnets who keep watching their backs who fear that wrong information can be put on the Internet. All they need to do is to strengthen thier PROs and spin doctors to respond to evry single allegation and prove otherwise

There's a big difference between governance with a light touch, which is the current situation, and the kind governance that sets up barriers to speech and commerce -- and innovation.

Putting intelligence at the edge of the networks has been the main reason we've seen such innovation on the Net over the past 15-20 years.

Dan is right. One of the prime movers behind the governance debate is the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). It's an open secret: the members of the ITU are worried about the loss in revenue from such things as Skype and instant messaging and other substitutions of their traditional voice telephony. Also, these members had dissed the internet in the early days of the public internet (about 1994on) but had a change of heart when they saw the internet boom (after Netscape went public in the mid-1990s). They felt they had missed the boat and so they were trying to catch up. Hence WSIS.

How to kill the open Internet: Give governance to the ITU.

Franklin, I think bureaucrats understand too well that the power we give them can be regulated. In fact, the WGIG Report specifically mentions a "light weight" structure with no decision-making power for the proposed forum to discuss internet issues. Bureaucrats understand power too well. It's their currency. Or perhaps I'd misunderstood you?

So, ITU and all the governance blocs should learn to compete.

Governance is NOT being given the ITU.

Peng,

See, there is a huge deficit between what is put on paper and pledged and the reality. I have seen how governments in Africa play upon words, twist simple constitutional language to mean thrid terms for the Presidency. Same thing with business laws.

Is there any evidence that nations can't exercise the control (call it governance) they want already? Look at China, Saudi Arabia, etc.

I'm not in favor of the heavy-handed ways they handle things, but I don't see any lack of their ability to do so for the most part.

Very soon we will be having all manner of interpretations to Internet language. If these governmnets understand that their power ia limited, how come Egypt, China and Iran expelled private bodies that were party to the discussion on Internet Governance at the Tunis meeting? Rememebr these governmnets have not s yet been given that mandate the UN wants so oo badly..

Add Cuba and Zimbabwe to the tall list...

Peng, correct, governance is not being given to the ITU. The Tunis summit helped prevent that.

But according to at least one report from the final press conference, Mr. Utsumi said that in a few years "the role that the ITU plays for the international telephone network will be called upon" on the Internet.

We are talking in the abstract here. We need to get down to brass tacks. The issue that WSIS talked about are threefold:
(1) who should have ultimate say of the root zone system--the ccTLD and existence in cyberspace? Currently, it is no longer entirely in the hands of the USA
(2) whether there should be one forum to discuss all internet law and policy issues (YES, so WSIS decided) or multiple fora (the original position endorsed by the USA and
(3) should there be a fund to help developing countries.

On (1), the USA has defused the tension by allowing all countries to have a say in their own respective ccTLD. The previous position was simply politically untenable: the USA actually had a say in the .IQ of Iraq even before the war.
(2) It makes sense to have one forum to coordinate on matters such as spam, consumer fraud, copyright, etc.
(3) It make sense to help developing countries.

Who should we trust with these issues? As I've noted in my write-up: for Most of the Rest of the World (MRW) it is the UN over the USA.

The Internet has been most successful since it remained free from governmnet control and it must be allowed to stay that way.
governments who want to control it can also compete to do so but then innovation, however cowered can't be kiled and so even notorios China is being out classed with blue tooth technology. You bet the Chine authourities will find an antidote but soon they will get tired and words like democracy and falungong will be all over.

Dan,
The ITU came out poorly in WSIS. The Internet Governance Forum, like the WGIG, is being under the UN Secretary-General, not an agency of the UN. This is to prevent a grab by an agency such as the ITU. I would not give credence to what Utsumi said. Before WGIG started its work, he said that internet governance refers to ICANN-related issues. He said it to WGIG and he said it to his membership. This is on public record. Both WGIG and his membership rejected his views.

Having faild in WGIG and WSIS, he was making a desperate attempt at the press conference.

developing countries need help- but they have to sort out their own barriers to innovation-excessive taxes, barriers to starting up businesses,bureacracy and corruption before tackling the issue of internet goverance.

Better to reform instituionally first before we cn trust our governmnets with controlling what has becoem the most potent challenge to their unbridled power-

On (3) I think there's no disagreement that it's vital to help developing nations.

The forum mentioned in (2) is not a bad idea as long as it doesn't turn into a WIPO-like group. If the forum has no powers but those of persuasion I'm all for it. If it has wider powers, where it effectively imposes treaty obligations, I'd be very skeptical.

Franklin,

I'm really puzzled at your stance, especially as you come from Africa.

WSIS was motivated by a developing country bloc--the Arabic-speaking folks--who felt left behind. But in the course of the discussion of using the internet for development, it became very clear that the US Government is dominant in controlling the internet. Worse, how it exercised that control is not transparent nor democratic--at least pre-WSIS 2005. For evidence of this now, one need only look at the budget for development, the Digital Solidarity Fund.

Not to support the WSIS outcome is also not to support the Digital Solidarity Fund.

Peng, I'll defer to your interpretation of the ITU's performance at WSIS. I hope that Mr. Utsumi's wishes don't gain any traction later on.

I have to say that I'm not particularly concerned about what MRW (most of the rest of the world)--because I'm not confident that those who speak in the name of MRW actually represent the considered views of those who they purport to represent. The government of China may say it speaks for 1.2 billion Chinese, but why should we take them at their word? The fact is that we don't know what those 1.2 billion people would think, if they were free to acquire information--which, thanks to the Chinese government, they're not. The current situation provides both a sufficient degree or order (the traffic cop function) and a wide degree of freedom (unless governments clamp down). I don't see any need to change.

Dan,

You're agreeing with 1.5 or 2 out of 3 with me. I always thought you were a reasonable guy. :)

The debate on (3) re developing countries was very muted within the WGIG Report as well as at WSIS. This is cause for concern. The debate has been on governance, which is essentially a political issue, important though that may be. Solving that political issue does not solve a practical day-to-day issue, which is that developing countries need help.

The Digital Solidarity Fund needs some serious money. It's not getting that.

Peng,

Please dont be surprised at my stance even though its correct that I live in a developing country. My point is Im very skeptical of giving governments, no matter how saintly, the power to detremine how we communicate now and how will communicate in the future.

Setting up funds to bridge this kind of divide is welcome but then we are alos guided by how wasteful such interventioins have been in the past-the Global AIDS funds can be called in here.

Giving the opportunity to choose between receiving free funds to sort out our problems, I will rather we dealt with the corruppt and non-transparent instituins that will supervise how the Internet should work for us.

What assurance do we have that Third World countries will spend this money usefully?

I do not see the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) forcing treaty obligations. As envisaged, it would be coordination and exchange of best practices. In fact, that we have spam is an indication of how far we are along in treaty obligations.

It is the developed world--USA, EU, OECD--that has more such coordination re the internet. MRW are just clueless. Hopefully, the IGF will further raise the profile of these issues on their respective radar screens.

Having said that, the Tunis Agenda allows each country to go their own way within their borders. Within limits. Countries still have to abide by international codes and norms.

Exactly Michael! I saw how the Ghana Aids Commission struggled to call back funds they have received from the Global Aids Funds, but which they dissipated wantonly without due diligence on the credibilty of the organizations they gave the monies to.

Even some directors of the fund were alleged to have set up their own NGOs to benefit from the funds. Im afrid the Digital Divide funds wil lgo that line-into a black hole.

Dan is correct that authoritarian/totalitarian states really can control the internet within their nations but that requires both resources and will to implement. China can do that but other nations might lack the knowledge and determination to do so and so would like a cheaper 'political' solution rather than something like the Great Internet Wall of China.

Much of the talk you hear coming out of the UN is, once you decode the language, about preventing unrestricted free speech. The usual canards about racism, child abuse and fraud are trotted out (sure they happen but...) but those are the excuses, not the real reasons.

Inevitably we hear complaints about US 'control' of the internet whereas in reality "the US" does no such thing and what really annoys various members of the political class in many nations is the idea of an increasingly mass media system that, unlike newspapers or TV/radio channels, cannot not be easily controlled by either co-opting or intimidating a proprietor or board the way they are used to dealing with their existing old media outlets. In truth it is the underpinning American assumptions that spring for their First Amendment that really annoys so many people and they see the internet as a way that this ethos may get imported into their country and that is really what gives so many in the UN hives is the idea the prevailing culture in their neck of the woods may change in ways they cannot control.

Oh sure, all sorts of excuses are used why more control is needed to prevent "bad things" happening on-line, but it is really just about the rights of individuals to express themselves freely. Everything else is a smoke screen.

We may not really need a huge Digital Solidarity Fund in any event. Moore's Law -- the exponential improvement of technology hardware -- pretty much assures that the gear will be affordable almost everywhere before too many more years go by.

How it's deployed is another question. So is whether the people in a given country are preoccupied with such things as having enough food to survive, as opposed to getting online.

Michael,

There is no 100% watertight locked-down money-back-guarantee that some money will not be wasted.

Does it mean one does not help?

I have made the point in othe fora: Internet Governance is more about governance than the internet. WGIG said that the process of arriving at decisions re the internet should be--to use the language of WGIG--"democratic, multilateral, transparent and multistakeholder". That is, they must incorporate the views of other countries, of private sector and civil society and they must be done in a manner that is accountable.

I'm very much inclined to agree with Perry's comment #32.

Just a quick note from your friendly tech monkey -- the time for this blogjam has been extended to 1:30 pm PT, because we're just beginning to get into the real meat of this topic.

Dan,

I agree with you. The UN mostly supervises white elepahnt projects. Whats the use for intance in getting nations to sign up to treaties to proved laptops for poor children in developing countries when they need energy and vitamins, the very things their governmnets most often deny them, before they can use the lap tops. I thought a radio was most imporatnt.

I'm not anti-UN, just pro-transparency and free speech. The UN has, on balance, been a force for good in the world.

Dan,

I do not think it is a fair question to ask whether funds can be better allocated for water vs internet connectivity. Life is a matter of priorities, not a question of all-or-nothing. It's a difficult situation and I think that while water is essential for the short-run internet connectivity is essential for the long run.

That such a debate even exists shows the desperate situation of the African continent.

I also agree with Perry's comment here. It's key to the question, namely whether regimes, working through some centralized governance mechanism, will try to clamp down on what makes the Net so powerful: openness to speech and innovation.

Franklin,

I'm with you on the $100 laptop. My issues with the $100 laptops are:
(1) with all the greatest of due respect to Nicholas Negroponte--having we heard it before, circa 1998?
(2) who is going to pay for the cost of educating the users on how to use the laptop and
(3) who is going to pay for the connectivity, which will be more than $100 a year?

But like I said earlier, it is question of short-term vs long-term. Betting only one is suicidal.

I think if we want to veer into the issues of 'public goods' such as water and their preference over the Internet, there obviously are clear property rights issues that can link both- so the question is should the government determine how much water one should drink or how much information one can access? Can't the private sector deliver both goods very well with very minimal regulations?

Peng, I don't mean to imply it's an OR situation; it's AND.

I'm not sure I understand Perry's comment that--Inevitably we hear complaints about US 'control' of the internet whereas in reality "the US" does no such thing.

As I've written in the reply to Rosset: it is a fact that that Iraq did not exist in cyberspace before the war. If that is not control of the internet I do not know what is.

To be sure, it has been defused in WSIS in the Tunis Agenda in paragraph 63. But that paragraph acknowledges the control the US Government had.

Peng, what do you mean? I am sure there are many companies outside the US who would have been happy to take Baathist money if Saddam thought it was important to be on-line... but as no biz venture of national importance happened without Saddam or some member of his extended clan were involved, I am not really sure what point you are trying to make.

I think he means control over the root server and the .iq domain...

Peng,

I think in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq, here has been a plethora of complaints about heavy-handedness in US' efforts to retain control of almost everything on earth-. Much as I did not believe in the war, I think reducing the arguments to the discussion of Internet governnace is a non-starter. The point is I will feel more comfortable for ICANN to retain controil over very sensitive aspects because they are not like to harmful with the Internet as it would be with regimes like Cuba, China, Iran and Suadi Arabia or Zimbabwe.

I've had some people email me that they would (a) not trust the UN to watch over $5 much less my/our internet and (b) if they want their internet go build "their own damn internet".

I happened to meet Bob Kahn walking about the resort town of Sidi Bou Said near Tunis and he said that it is quite easy to set up a parallel internet universe aka "their own damn internet".

My replies have been that (a) the UN is made up of governments and forced to make a choice most people trust their own governments--and therefore the UN--than the USA and (b) building "their own damn internet" is the worst possible outcome for everyone because everyone loses, with the USA being the biggest loser should that happen.

Dan is right. I'm referring to the root zone system. In fact, for Iraq, Saddam had no control over the .IQ domain name.

The point is I will feel more comfortable for ICANN to retain control over very sensitive aspects because they are not likely to be harmful with the Internet as it would be with regimes like Cuba, China, Iran and Suadi Arabia or Zimbabwe.

Franklin,

>The point is I will feel more comfortable for ICANN to retain controil over very >sensitive aspects because they are not like to harmful with the Internet as it would >be with regimes like Cuba, China, Iran and Suadi Arabia or Zimbabwe.

This position is politically unacceptable. No EU country--we can accept they are democratic, yes?--will allow a company incorporated in California, USA, under the authority of the US Department of Commerce to have a say over their own ccTLD.

Having said that, privately, governments acknowledge the "generosity of the USA" (some people attribute ulterior economic motives, hence the quote marks) in sharing the internet.

My worry is what motivates the UN to even think of such an idea? If many trust their governmnets, do they include 'wayward' governmnets such as Chavez's or Mugabe's?

ICANN's powers may be overestimated in any event. But I do think the Paragraph 63 language, at least as I understand it, takes care of the strongest objections.

Pen writes, "Most people trust their own governments--and therefore the UN--than the USA."

I seriously doubt that that's true. Do Chinese trust their own government? Do Africans trust their own governments? Taking it closer to home, do most Mexicans trust their own government more than the United States government? I seriously doubt it. Mexicans trust the U.S. government to pay them money if they are owed it more than they trust the Mexican government to do so.

Moreover, does it follow that if people trust their own governments, they therefore trust the UN more than the USA? Again, I'm very dubious.

Anonymous is me, Michael Barone

I believe it is an issue of intellectual property rights, a mechanism that developed in the United States. Other can share in it-that I belive is the reson why the US allowed others to benefit from the technology. Why do we need a world governmnet to control how much its citizens will have?

To sum up where I'm coming from:

1. The internet needs governance for its next stage of development. That is, it needs coordination, exchange of best practices, laws and policies (and other expressions that substitute for control if one does not like it) to bring it to the next level. There are mischiefs to be cured. Hence a need for a forum.

2. The process, especially at the international level, has to be open and inclusive. That is transparent. And inclusive of countries (multilateral) and inclusive of diverse groups (multistakeholder).

3. Developing countries also need help and some serious money into the Digital Solidarity Fund--managed in a transparent way--is essential

The clock has run out, but I'll leave it open for a few more minutes, in case anyone wants to make a closing remark.

Maybe I'm just a paranoid free-speecher, but I tend to read "control" when I see "governance." Some governments' ideas of constitutes mischief are my idea of basic human rights.

But we do need to find ways to spread this medium in a more universal way.

Thanks all -- this has been fun.