More thoughts on internet governance

Continuing the issue of internet governance, you may find it interesting to read this article by John Markoff (but only if you have a subscription to online version of NY Times, I got it through one of my mailing lists).

The article argues that centralized governance of the internet is virtually impossible and that the argument over Icann is shifting the argument to the wrong direction. Here are a couple of quotes:

The network designers believe that the very structure of the Internet makes it anathema to the top-down control that governments have traditionally exercised over earlier communications networks.

Unlike centralized networks with a single point of failure and control, the Internet was designed to suffer damage and continue to function. That same quality makes it exceedingly difficult to control or filter.

"The idea of Internet control is an oxymoron," said Robert Taylor, who as a director at the Advanced Research Projects Agency in the Pentagon during the 1960's initiated the development of the Arpanet.

"Everyone seems to think that the D.N.S. system is a big deal, but it's not the heartbeat of the Internet," said Leonard Kleinrock, a computer scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who did pioneering research in data packet switching, the fundamental technique underlying networks. "Who controls the flow of the ocean? Nobody controls it, and it works just fine. There are some things that can't be controlled and should be left distributed."

Although the ocean metaphor is nice, I find a difficulty accepting it. Unlike oceans, Internet is a human, technological invention and as such, it would be really problematic if there was no way to control it. Particularly, when we talk about 13 root domain servers that construct the backbone of the internet, the political argument over the physical control over them becomes more understandable (at least in my eyes). Thus, arguments such as:

Icann was founded with the intent of becoming an independent or "denationalized" group. But in June, the Bush administration backed away from that plan, saying in a "statement of principles" issued by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that the United States had the right to maintain oversight of Icann indefinitely.

Are really worrisome. Last year I was at a conference dealing with tools to “fight terror in the internet”. Its main focus was on data mining and online surveillance tools. Pretty horrifying for social science person. However, most of the ‘solutions’ presented were still dependent on local legislation, which didn’t imply global threat from the US intervention. What I am trying to say is that maybe the system is not perfect and there is great room for improvement. Moreover, as you could see in the Kofi Anann’s article I sited in the previous post, the main official motivation behind the proposal to change the current system is developmental. However, when you read a phrase like:

In recent years, Icann has become a lightning rod, focusing opposition to American political and economic power. A group of countries, led by developing nations like Iran, China and Brazil, has put forward a range of proposals calling for Icann's management to be made international; most call for a shift to a group like the United Nations.

you come to doubt that the main motivation is bridging the divides between the developed and the developing world. Neither Iran, nor China, excelled in promoting the personal freedom of their citizens (unless I am really deeply in false consciousness).

Well, maybe it’s just me being paranoid, but the debate over internet governance really bothers me and I am skeptical of the embedded durability of the system against centralized control. Although the internet has a seemingly grassroots structure and certainly grassroots associated culture, I think it is important to keep it a civil society organized platform, rather than allowing either governmental organization/s controlling it. It seems to me the responsible governments would look for a way to build on the existing system, improving its openness and accessibility by unprivileged groups and societies, rather to look for a way of fitting it to the old-fashioned boundaries (which seems not to work that well anyway – poverty rates keep on raising worldwide). But this is where the politics get in and I wonder what will be the final result…

Another interesting question that comes to mind is what simple people, particularly those who already use internet and utilize it for doing good, can do to express their opinion on the future of internet governance? And if they want to do anything, how can they (dare I say “we”) carry that out? What do the netizents want?