No Joke
Cukier's update to his November/December 2005 essay "Who Will Control the Internet?"
Kenneth Neil Cukier covers technology and regulatory issues for The Economist
- previous
- Page 2of 2
- next-disabled
Foreign governments want control of the Internet transferred from an American NGO to an international institution. Washington has responded with a Monroe Doctrine for our times, setting the stage for further controversy.
At the same time, technological advances are changing the very nature of the debate. The current domain name system is no longer as sacrosanct as it once was. For instance, many users do not rely on the system to find Web sites anymore; they use search engines instead. Some addresses are entirely outside the ICANN system, such as instant-messaging names and Internet-telephone addresses, like Skype's. And peer-to-peer file-sharing systems for downloading music and programs, such as BitTorrent and Gnutella, do not rely on domain names. Some countries, such as China, are even piloting systems that allow languages other than those based on the Roman alphabet to be used for Internet addresses. Taken together, these developments mean that the primacy of ICANN-sanctioned names may not last forever.
At the same time, however, the importance of Internet addresses will increase. Tomorrow, they may include not just computers but people (through Net-enabled phones), vehicles (through the global positioning system), and objects (through radio-frequency identification tags). In such a world, the public policy concerns over things such as privacy will surely grow, and governments will be called upon to play a greater role.
It all points to the idea that questions over what techies call "Internet governance" resemble issues of governance more broadly. Kazakhstan's repression of free speech and the media within its own borders is bad enough. But a poorly constructed framework for Internet governance could open the door for many countries to extend their control over other aspects of the Internet's infrastructure, which historically they have been unable to do. This could encumber the network with political squabbles and bureaucratic red tape.
As the Internet invades more aspects of everyday life, its addressing system is not just a matter of free expression, but also a matter of freedom of assembly and ultimately, freedom of thought. That is why the deletion of one comedian's Web site and other small skirmishes in cyberspace are as troubling as they are funny.
- previous
- Page 2of 2
- next-disabled
