Rightank

In less than a week, the second World Summit on the Information Society “WSIS”) will be held in Tunis. Guised as a dialogue among nations, this consequential gathering is a blanket attempt by France, Iran, Russia, other technological allies to wrest control of the internet from the United States. Primarily, the other nations want to take away the Domain Name System or (”DNS”) authority:

The Domain Name System (DNS) helps users to find their way around the Internet. Every computer on the Internet has a unique address - just like a telephone number - which is a rather complicated string of numbers. It is called its “IP address” (IP stands for “Internet Protocol”). IP Addresses are hard to remember. The DNS makes using the Internet easier by allowing a familiar string of letters (the “domain name”) to be used instead of the arcane IP address. So instead of typing 207.151.159.3, you can type www.internic.net. It is a “mnemonic” device that makes addresses easier to remember.

Ignacio Ramonet, writing in the english version of Le Monde diplomatique, sums up why he thinks the United States should cede the internet:

Challenges to US control of the worldwide network are getting louder and stronger.

. . .

Though not always for the same reasons, Brazil, China, India and Iran all share the EU’s position in opposing the US on this. Some countries are even threatening to create their own national regulation bodies, which could lead to a disastrous fragmentation of the net. The disagreement has a geopolitical dimension. In an ever more globalised world, communication is a precious strategic resource. . . . Its role is fundamental in an economy so dominated by the non-material. So control of the net could put whoever holds it at a decisive strategic advantage. In the 19th century control of sea routes (“ruling the waves”) was at the heart of the British empire’s enormous power.

In theory, hegemony over the net gives the US the power to limit anyone’s access to any site in any country. It can also block emails anywhere in the world. So far, it has never done this. But technically it could, and a number of countries are worried by this potential. So this is the time to demand that ICANN cease to answer to Washington. Instead, it should be turned into an independent organisation under UN supervision.

According to Ramonet, because the U.S. is a hegemonic power (both in internet and political terms), could potentially block a European’s email communication with Santa Claus, and other nations are making noise like Iran and Russia, the internet should be handed over to an “independent” organization under the auspices of the U.N. (maybe they could get Kojo Annan to run it!). A mere possibility that the U.S. could block a electronic communication or world unity aren’t very convincing arguments for an overhaul of the internet governing structure.

Admittedly, the U.S.’s position of controlling the DNS is advantageous. However, we built it. It’s our government dollars at work. Moreover, I don’t want an international body of terrorist nations controlling the DNS because when you control one thing governmentally, you end up controlling ten things tangentially. Control fo the DNS is a precursor to control of the internet’s content. I sure as heck don’t want the Iranian mullahs controlling the political or social content of the internet. Do you?

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 10th, 2005 at 9:01 pm and is filed under Bashing Internationalism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.