WASHINGTON — This month, the U.S. government announced that it would block any proposals from other countries to surrender control of the Internet to the United Nations.
The issue of control over the Internet will most likely surface at the UN’s World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, this December. The purpose of the WCIT is to review the International Telecommunications Regulations, or ITRs, a treaty-level agreement that monitors international telecommunications exchanges.
A lot has changed since the last revision of the treaty in 1988. Technology has expanded significantly, and competition for new services and advancements continue to multiply with the growing technology sector.
Some countries, notably China and Russia, have expressed interest in transferring control of the Internet, which has been predominantly associated with the U.S. in the past. This has raised concern about governments trying to further censor Internet content for its citizens and remove anonymity on the Web.
Who controls the Internet now?
Currently, a nonprofit organization headquartered in the U.S., the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, oversees Internet protocol numbers and domain names. The private organization, founded in 1998, has been monitoring Internet-related tasks that were previously run by the U.S. government.
The purpose of ICANN is to maintain a unified authority over IP addresses and domain names to promote one global Internet. Its bottom-up, consensus-driven structure means that no one is excluded from discussing Internet policy issues, from governments to advocate groups to the private sector.
But there has been a lot of talk regarding the International Telecommunication Union, the UN’s telecommunications agency, taking over ICANN’s responsibilities. The ITU is currently responsible for assigning radio frequencies and satellite orbits, as well as improving telecommunications in developing nations.
Terry Kramer, the U.S. ambassador to the WCIT, maintained the U.S. would stand behind the current system, which leaves ICANN in control.
“The United States believes that the existing multi-stakeholder institutions, incorporating industry and civil society, have functioned effectively and will continue to ensure the health and growth of the Internet and all of its benefits,” Kramer said in a release.
What would the Internet look like under UN control?
There are serious concerns regarding ITU expanding its power over the Internet sector. Jason Healey, director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative of the Atlantic Council, said the UN’s practice of exclusivity would become an issue.
The structure of the UN would only permit governments to have a voice, excluding advocacy groups, individuals, and technical experts. Limiting the amount of expertise engaged in Internet conversations could limit efficiency.
“Refusing to let other people in the room by denying non-states is not a good way to run a technical organization,” Healey said.
Healey also expressed concern over some countries, like China and Russia, exerting influence over others to manipulate national votes in their favor. He said they could exchange support for foreign aid in order to further their own agendas regarding Internet structure. In the UN, resolutions are passed with a two-thirds majority, and each member state has one vote.
“If we go down that route, the Internet is going to look much more like the Internet in China than the Internet you and I are used to,” Healey said. “Instead of monitoring and blocking being rare exceptions, they will be built in to the fundamental structure of the Internet. Privacy and anonymity that is currently built in to the Internet probably won’t be there.”
Are there compromises to be made to keep control with ICANN?
The U.S. State Department has said it will firmly strike down any proposal to transfer control to ITU. But that doesn’t change the fact that some countries believe the current system is too U.S. centric, since it did have control prior to passing the torch to ICANN, which is also based in the U.S.
When asked if there were feasible compromises that could be made, Healey said that while he’s not convinced the U.S. hand is all that heavy to begin with, there are steps that can be taken to make other countries “feel better.”
“We could set up a second headquarters in Singapore or Tokyo, where there are lots of techy people around,” Healey said. The current headquarters is based in Los Angeles.
The mere presence of ICANN in a country other than the U.S. may be a good start to distance the organization from its current country affiliation. Healey also mentioned compromises that might appeal to countries specifically against U.S. influence that are not directly related to Internet control.
He said China has been concerned about not having its own DNS root server, which holds lists of names and addresses for top-level domains. There are 13 in the world, but China is not one of the locations.
“They don’t necessarily need one, but if it appeases them, why not?” he said.
The WCIT will convene Dec. 3-14.
