After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish
control of the internet to a coalition of governments
You would expect an announcement that would forever change the face of the
internet to be a grand affair - a big stage, spotlights, media scrums and a
charismatic frontman working the crowd.
But unless you knew where he was sitting, all you got was David Hendon's slightly
apprehensive voice through a beige plastic earbox. The words were calm, measured
and unexciting, but their implications will be felt for generations to come.
Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations
and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European Union at the third
and final preparatory meeting for next month's World Summit on the Information
Society. He had just announced a political coup over the running of the internet.
Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat just feet
away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon explained the
EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral control of the internet
and put in place a new body that would now run this revolutionary communications
The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely divisive issue,
and for 11 days the world's governments traded blows. For the vast majority
of people who use the internet, the only real concern is getting on it. But
with the internet now essential to countries' basic infrastructure - Brazil
relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the question of who has control
has become critical.
And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. In the early
days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and funded expansion
of the internet. And when it became global, it created a private company, the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) to run it.
But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had always
feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the internet's foundation
- its "root servers", which act as the basic directory for the whole
A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba,
Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused.
The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a
bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public
policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would
be in overall charge.
Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative
hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that
went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top
level of the internet.
But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's
governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control.
It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and,
faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do
But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that "even
on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set policies,
No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet governance.
"There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned
with the technical and operational management of the internet. Standards are
set by the users."
Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU doesn't
want to see this change as bringing new government control over the internet.
Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only on issues setting
the top-level framework."
But expert and author of Ruling the Root, Milton Mueller, is not so sure. An
overseeing council "could interfere with standards. What would stop it
saying 'when you're making this standard for data transfer you have to include
some kind of surveillance for law enforcement'?"
Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for filtering content
from the net within its borders. Tunisia - host of the World Summit - has also
come under attack for silencing online voices. Mueller doesn't see a governmental
overseeing council having any impact: "What human rights groups want is
for someone to be able to bring some kind of enforceable claim to stop them
violating people's rights. But how's that going to happen? I can't see that
a council is going to be able to improve the human rights situation."
And what about business? Will a governmental body running the internet add
unnecessary bureaucracy or will it bring clarity and a coherent system? Mueller
is unsure: "The idea of the council is so vague. It's not clear to me that
governments know what to do about anything at this stage apart from get in the
way of things that other people do."
There are still dozens of unanswered questions but all the answers are pointing
the same way: international governments deciding the internet's future. The
internet will never be the same again.