Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
Anyone really want the government, any government, control the internet?
Internet governance: In praise of chaos | The Economist
Some governments are pushing to be more than mere stakeholders and instead to have the final say in important matters. China and Russia want the United Nations General Assembly to adopt an International Code of Conduct for Information Security. India, Brazil and South Africa have called for a new global body to control the internet. Other countries want to give a UN agency, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a supervisory role. The upcoming renegotiation of the treaty that defines the ITUs competences is regarded as an opportunity to push this agenda. Even Western governments, which usually favour the multi-stakeholder system, would like to rein in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), whose board decides which top-level domains to add (such as .com or .biz). ICANN has just started the process to introduce a lot more high-level domains (expect to see .pepsi and .lawyer), which is why governments are increasingly nervous about the bodys sometimes opaque decision-making processand why some would like to have a veto over controversial new domains (such as .jesus, .gay and .tibet).
Governments have a role to playsuch as defending their citizens interestsbut they should not be allowed the final say over such matters, for creeping state control would suffocate the internet. Imagine if the ITU, a classic example of a sluggish international bureaucracy with antiquated diplomatic rituals, or indeed any other inter-governmental organisation, had been put in charge of the nascent global network two decades ago. Would it have produced a world-changing fount of innovation? We think not.
Internet governance: In praise of chaos | The Economist