U.S. lawmakers back retaining control of the Internet

[bascule]

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-10-21T171310Z_01_ROB160456_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-INTERNET.xml

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives called on Friday for the Internet's core infrastructure to remain under U.S. control, echoing similar language introduced in the Senate earlier this week.

 

The resolution, introduced by two Republicans and one Democrat, aims to line up Congress firmly behind the Bush administration as it heads for a showdown with much of the rest of the world over control of the global computer network.

 

"Turning the Internet over to countries with problematic human-rights records, muted free-speech laws, and questionable taxation practices will prevent the Internet from remaining the thriving medium it has become today," said California Republican Rep. John Doolittle in a statement.

 

Doolittle introduced the resolution with Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte and Virginia Democratic Rep. Rick Boucher.

 

Countries including Brazil and Iran want an international body to oversee the addressing system that guides traffic across the Internet, which is currently overseen by a California nonprofit body that answers to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

 

The European Union withdrew its support of the current system last month, and the issue is expected to come to a head at a U.N. summit meeting in Tunisia in November.

 

The Bush administration has made clear that it intends to maintain control.

 

If a settlement is not reached, Internet users in different parts of the globe could potentially wind up at different Web sites when they type an address into their browsers.

 

U.S. lawmakers have backed the Bush administration's stance, arguing that a U.N. group would stifle innovation with excessive bureaucracy and enable repressive regimes to curtail free expression online.

 

Top Republicans and Democrats on the House Commerce Committee sent a letter of support to the Bush administration earlier this month. In the Senate, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman has introduced a resolution supporting the administration's stance.

 

"The United States is uniquely positioned in the world to protect the fundamental principles of free press and free speech, upon which the Internet has thrived," Goodlatte said in a statement.

 

The United States has not always taken a hands-off approach to Internet regulation. In August the Commerce Department asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the California body that oversees domain names, to postpone action on a proposed .xxx domain for sex sites.

 

I can't help but read U.S. lawmakers have backed the Bush administration's stance, arguing that a U.N. group would stifle innovation with excessive bureaucracy and enable repressive regimes to curtail free expression online. and be reminded of this story

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Some people say that the UN would levy taxes on the internet and e-mail. Others say "the US did all of the hard work, why should we let THEM control it?!"

 

Frankly, I think the best approach would be to seperate ICANN and other associated internet groups from the US Government and make them completely independent. Maybe we could make the W3C have authority to kill websites that use non-standards-compliant code... just kidding.

[Pangloss]

I don't know what that story is supposed to be telling me. Perhaps you could clarify?

 

It's bad enough with US bureaucrats in charge, Bascule, but can there be any question that it would be worse under UN control? The Bush ADDministration is bad enough. Why would anybody in their right mind hand the Kof-it-up administration control of *anything*?

[bascule]

Attempts at democratizing ICANN have been a joke (I'm an ICANN@Large member... a lot of good that did!) They have been slow to add TLDs to keep up with demand and bow to a sort of puritanical ethos present in the US but noticibly absent from the EU and elsewhere (hence no .xxx TLD)

 

The bottom line is that the Internet is an international network and being as such I believe that control should be leveraged by an international body.

[Pangloss]

You be nice, or I'll use my secret American Internet power to erase your IP from all historical existence! Everyone will be like "bascule who?" ICANN do it, too! ;-)

 

Just trying to add a little levity since I don't think this discussion will be going far. I agree with you (kinda dull, I know) -- internationalization of the Internet is far more likely to ensure happy and free computing over the long haul than absolute (such as that is) American control.

 

I just don't think the UN is the answer. Maybe in a few years, if they can get their act together. In the meantime, some sort of independent consortium with representation based on the G8 (and their FTA-related friends; say ~20 countries) would probably make more sense at the moment. Such would be focused on commerce and freedom, and less likely to be influenced by geo-politics. Give them a freedom/commerce charter, add in a few watchdog incentives to deal with things like the military-industrial complex, and you have a winner.

 

Hand it to the UN, and what you'll end up with is some African or South American official who's never used a computer, couldn't worm his way onto the Olympic committee, and is more interested in getting his friends and relatives into Cadillacs than whether or not you can surf the web without being observed.

 

Be careful what you wish for, huh?