Veículo: APC.org
Data: 15/11/2007
Assunto: IGF
Rio de Janeiro -- One of the themes discussed at the second Internet
Governance Forum relates to something called the critical internet
resources. Critical what? That’s what many people tried
to figure out in Rio de Janeiro on November 14, starting with
the speakers themselves.
Even though there is no agreement on what critical internet resources
refer to, most internet specialists would agree that they include
the internet’s country-code top level domains such as .in
(India), .ca (Canada) or .za (South Africa) and the IP addresses
system. The sole administrator of this domain name system is
called ICANN, a California-based non-profit acting as the ultimate
regulator of the internet’s core components.
Toned down at this year’s IGF, the controversy around whether
or not this organisation is legitimate, still lives on. If most
speakers in Rio de Janeiro seem to agree that ICANN is in need
of a reform, becoming more international and bottom-up, participants
are at odds when it comes to how to go about it.
And that’s precisely what’s given internet thinkers
headaches. More so after a high-level minister from the Brazilian
president Lula’s entourage opened the IGF with a bombastic
statement. He insiste that the governance of the internet should
be an anti-hegemonic project first and foremost, in reference
to the current dominance and control of ICANN by the United States.
Although picked up on during the four days of the IGF, ICANN-bashing
didn’t quite materialise in the end. Instead, academics,
people from internet organisations, governments, non-governmental
organisations and companies rather focused on identifying paths
of solution.
But sensibilities were quite high. When a participant from the
USA wanted to insist that the current structure (with ICANN)
promoted the growth of the internet, Milton Mueller, professor
at the School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, exploded.
“ICANN has nothing to do with the growth of the internet
market. It is a facilitator of competition,” he specified, “but
it has acted as a cartel structure. Even ten years before ICANN
even existed, the internet was growing.”
Willie Currie, policy manager at Association for Progressive
Communications, drawing from literature by Daniel W. Drezner,
put the different views on international regulatory regimes (such
as ICANN) in context. He explained that from what from his understanding,
international regulatory regimes are largely influenced by great
powers.
“At present, there are two great powers, the US and EU,” Currie
said. Citing the example of the TCP/IP debate as an example,
he made the point that governments of the USA and the EU took
active steps to advance their interests.
“Great powers prevent private sector firms from acquiring
power in setting the agenda,” he also said. The same goes
for non-governmental organisations.
“I would suggest that China and the USA will neutralise
each other,” he stated, before pointing to the fact that
India could be temped to act in concert with the EU at times,
or siding with other great powers, in defining the agenda of
the internet governance. He’ll be keeping an eye on shifting
power dynamics and the positions taken by India in particular.
“We might start finding that out at the IGF next year in
Delhi,” he concluded, referring to the ambitions of India
in internet governance.
