By Kieren McCarthy in Geneva for The Register
This article has been reproduced from The Register, with
permission.
The United States, which currently has overall control of the
internet, is refusing to allow other governments to take the lead
role, arguing instead that companies, organisations and individuals
made the Internet what it is today and they should continue to have
the biggest say.
On the other side, Iran and Brazil are determined that the
world's governments are the ones
who get to decide what is done. They favour pulling ICANN, the
existing body charged with overseeing the internet, into the United
Nations.
According to the US, this would stifle the flexibility and
energy that the internet feeds off. Iran and Brazil point out that
it is the United States and its companies that have the most to
lose by having their system pulled away from them.
The argument is proving a major stumbling block at the
conference, with half the time and an increasing number of
resources being dedicated to this question alone. Despite this, we
are seven days through the ten-day conference with significant
disagreement remaining.
Pakistan Ambassador Masood Khan, the chairman of the committee
charged with the issue, says this is "the most difficult question"
of all. But, despite that, and in the face of ongoing disputes, he
is quietly confident. Is agreement likely by the end of the
conference on Friday? "I think so," he told us. "We have positions
that are very rigid on both sides, but I think that they have also
signalled that they would be able to find common ground."
The two most controversial figures so far have been the United
States and China. US Ambassador David Gross has been forthright,
telling a meeting just prior to the conference that as far as he
was concerned: "The United Nations will not be in charge of the
internet. Period."
He reiterated the same line to us when we asked him about it at
the conference itself. "The UN ought not to be running the
internet that is a very firm position we have."
Unsurprisingly, this has ruffled a few feathers, especially
considering the fact everyone is sat at a UN meeting in Geneva
discussing this very topic.
But Ambassador Khan shrugged off such ill-will and said the US
stance had actually helped matters. "The US has taken a very clear
position and has enunciated it and reiterated it both inside and
outside the conference and that has helped the process
because now everybody understands what the US position is."
Besides, he told us, he's not so sure that there are many
countries that actually want the UN running the internet. Right
now, "the situation is fluid".
The situation *is* fluid. After much to-ing and fro-ing, we have
two basic positions. One put forward by the UK (also acting as
representative of the EU) calls for the creation of a forum that
works with the existing Internet organisations but not in an
oversight role.
The alternative model, put forward by Brazil and Iran sees a UN
body (with governments deciding matters) pulling in and effectively
taking over internet control, including identifying where the
Internet should be going.
The world's governments (and the other various organisations
invited) have split into three factions. Pro-UK, pro-Brazil and
sitting on the fence. The splits are fairly consistent. The US,
Mexico, New Zealand, Australia and Japan are with the UK/EU.
Whereas China, Cuba and parts of Africa and South America are with
Iran/Brazil.
Europe, Australasia and Central/North America versus Africa,
South America and Asia. Except the splits are forming on the
Iran/Brazil side. Not all of Africa is convinced, nor is all of
Asia. Some in South America are also playing a watching game.
Most significantly, China, despite a damning speech early on by
its Ambassador, Sha Zukang, in which he said the current situation
was "very undemocratic, unfair and unreasonable", has been oddly
silent and relaxed. It is possible, as one expert observer told me,
that China "reckons it can deals with things its end by itself". If
China signs up to a government-led approach, it can also be
prevented from doing as it wants. With a looser model, it has
greater leeway for running the internet how it sees fit within its
borders.
But as Ambassador Gross stressed, this whole conference "is not
just an academic exercise". The US is currying favour by
consistently offering to hold open discussions and hinting that it
will grant countries autonomy. And with the EU so far solid, it
looks as though the Iran/Brazil position may crack first and the
both longer-for and feared clean-sweep of the internet’s overseeing
bodies be discarded in favour of the "evolution" stance.
Gross isn't too concerned about the rapidly shortening time left
for agreement, arguing that at an earlier conference (the first of
the three) "we didn't reach agreement until the night before".
Khan is also realistic about progress: "I think we shall have
some text by the time we reach Tunis [the World Summit]. But there
will be some text in brackets. Which means that we have agreement
in some parts of Internet governance and continuing disagreement
over some other parts - particularly about the forum or about
future mechanisms."
How many parts and how big that disagreement will be decided in
the next three days.
© The Register
2005
