US keeps control of internet, favors innovation over politics
Regional-USA, Politics, 11/16/2005

"Who controls the Internet?" is a question looming large over Tunis, Tunisia, as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) convene November 16-18.

The Washington Post reported that "an 11th-hour agreement that leaves the United States with ultimate oversight of the main computers that direct the Internet's flow of information, commerce and dissent."

Negotiators were spending the final hours before the opening of the UN General Assembly-sanctioned meeting to consider competing proposals on the future of Internet governance, and specifically the domain name system (DNS).

The DNS is the equivalent of a telephone directory for the Internet. It is a set of numeric codes that ensures an Internet user can send e-mail to the right place, or view a Web site of interest.

The DNS is maintained by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an internationally diverse, private group, originally established by the United States government.

US negotiators say that ICANN is the proper authority to continue maintaining the technical standards of the Internet. They oppose proposals from other nations that seek to establish an international governing body.

Speaking to reporters in Tunis, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Michael Gallagher said the DNS is designed like a compact car, and it does not need a multitude of hands on the steering wheel.

"If you look at the rate of innovation and the rate of growth on the Internet," Gallagher said, "and the need for the DNS mechanism to be fluid and stable and secure and nimble to meet the growth targets and fend off threats, it demands a very technical driver, not a political driver."

Gallagher cited information and communication technology (ICT) growth statistics as evidence that the creativity and innovation in this exploding sector should not be impaired by excessive governance. Internet users have grown from 16 million to 900 million over the last decade, he said.

The US representatives at the WSIS meeting want the energies of the conference to be directed toward ideas that will help take the benefits of ICTs to people in developing nations to improve their quality of life.

Here is what Michael Gallagher, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and a Senior Advisor to the United States Delegation to the World Summit on the Information Society on November 15, 2005 in Tunisia said:

GALLAGHER: It's a great honor to be here on the behalf of the United States and to speak with you. The World Summit on the Information Society is a wonderful opportunity for the world to come together to focus on the importance and the value of ICT Ð Information Communication Technology Ð in our societies today and the promise they bring for the future. ICT technologies are the foundation for the future of freedom and democracy for all the world.

A hundred years ago, it took weeks for ideas to move from one country to another or across oceans. Today those same ideas travel at the speed of light. It is valuable and instructive to show the growth of ICT's by comparing some numbers from just five years ago. In 1999, there were 375 million cellular subscribers in the world and today there are 1.4 billion wireless subscribers. The average cost of a personal computer was over $1500 in 1999 and today it is half that. And 13 years ago, the cost of Random Access Memory, or RAM, for your computer was 100 times more than it is today.

The United States has enjoyed much of the benefit of these forces in our economy and with our people. But the growth of the Internet and the promise for the future is what we see for the rest of the world. In 1995 there were 16 million Internet users and today there are over 900 million Internet users. So the forces of private sector innovation, freedom of expression, democracy, and markets are moving all of the world forward on the digital path. That is why we are here to celebrate and focus our efforts at the World Summit.

But just as we see a bright future, we also see hazards all around us in cyberspace and on the horizon. Viruses, malware and SPAM present significant risks to the individual users' enjoyment of the Internet. In 2001, the average number of virus incidents per day were 2; today they are 4. In 2003, 3% of e-mail was viruses; in 2004, it was 6%. And in the face of these darker forces in cyberspace, the United States brings a message of strength and security, strength and stability, to the rest of the world relative to the Domain Name System, or DNS. And with opportunity in front of us and stability to support our move forward, we look forward to the entire world benefiting from e-commerce and distance learning and tele-health; all of these are the future of high-speed broadband networks and what they can bring to the world as a community.

And so it is with this message of optimism that we come to the World Summit, and I look forward to answering your questions.

QUESTION: (translated from the French) In regards to the Summit and Secretary of State Rice, why did she not participate?

GALLAGHER: Secretary Rice is not here because she has important business in the Middle East and is accompanying the President to APEC. One other thing is the United States representation at this World Summit is the same as it was three years ago at the last World Summit.

QUESTION: I note that Mr. Gallagher concluded his remarks on an optimistic note, which paradoxically contrasts with the general impression that is more pessimistic as most of the world notes that the American position is extremely different from the various positions of Europeans, who demand a much more active participation in the management of the Internet, and that of other countries such as China and Iran who call for the creation of an international organization that participates in the management of the Internet. So there is a contrast between the optimistic position you have presented and a certain pessimism. So I have a simple question. The ICANN is tasked with managing the Internet. The argument advanced by the Americans, and by Mr. Gallagher today, is that the Americans have assured since the creation of the Internet two things: technical stability of the network -- the network works very well and there are no real problems Ð and the liberty of expression. So I ask: are the decisions of ICANN purely technical or have they become political. The second part of the question: do the decisions of ICANN reflect the tension that exists in the American society? I cite as an example the fact that ICANN had installed the domain name for pornographic sites, and this decision was invalidated by the American government. Can we say that the American government, in invalidating the creation of a domain for pornographic sites, reflect a political and cultural position. So are ICANN's decisions purely technical?

GALLAGHER: It is certainly a very long-winded question. I will be much briefer in my answer. We absolutely bring a view of optimism about, not only how far we have come in the last ten years, but the next ten years to the rest of the world. The view of pessimism that you say you are hearing from other countries extends only to the political distraction of the focus on the phone book of the Internet, or the DNS (Domain Name System). Computer prices are continuing to fall, memory prices are continuing to fall, speeds of networks are going up and every day more fiber is laid around the world and that will happen no matter what the outcome of what will happen in that room. The private sector innovation and the private sector leadership that have brought us to this stage will continue after the World Summit, and that is a very strong reason to stay optimistic.

ICANN is the current manifestation of the private sector's role around the DNS. The decisions that ICANN has made and is expected to make in the future will continue to be very focused on private sector innovation. ICANN does its job best when it stays out of politics. ICANN does its job best when it focuses on the technical role that is the core of its mission. And as for the communication that came from the Department of Commerce to ICANN about.xxx, that communication was one that was very much open to the world. It was very public. And the focus of the letter was very much on requesting time and a fairness of process from ICANN so that all in the Internet society could be heard. And that call was echoed by the GACC, the Government Advisory Committee Chair, as well as half a dozen other countries that expressed similar concerns. And we understand that subject will be taken up at the Government Advisory Committee of ICANN in early December; that discussion will be had in that forum where it belongs. And so I would conclude that the United States has not politicized the issue, but that the politicization has come from those who are critical of the path that we are on.

QUESTION: Aren't you afraid that the rigidity of the ICANN position will cause the creation of a parallel Internet by the countries that control the Internet? Wouldn't that situation exclude a certain number of countries from the resources and the potential about which you just spoke?

GALLAGHER: The US position is much more clear than it is rigid, and it is a message of clarity as to stability and security of the DNS. That stability and security message incents ICT infrastructures around the world and is to the benefit of all. And today the value of the Internet is in the ability to connect to all of those that are on it today, all the current users today. The creation of a parallel Internet would deprive that country of connection with the rest of the world and is not one that has serious attention from other foreign leaders. Foreign leaders have explained to us that they have looked at the issue and dismissed it as an alternative. And it is easy to see why when you look at the robustness and the growth and the excitement of the current Internet, and the growth path that we see for its future, it is easy to see why people want to stay with that, and the strength and stability that the United States offers behind it, instead of going it alone.

QUESTION: I'll try to make it brief as my question is similar to ones that have already been asked. Can you briefly present us with the United States position during the Summit, especially as far as the European point of view is concerned about dealing with the Internet and about United States insisting on having the control of the net? My second question Ð this Summit is supposed to try to bridge the gap between North and South, between poor and rich people, and is there anything you are proposing to this Summit? Thank you.

GALLAGHER: Thank you for your question in English. I'll answer your question in reverse order, because that is where the priority really lies. The purpose of the World Summit and the true focus of where our energies should be applied is to extending the promise of the Internet to the developing world and the promise that it holds for education and health care and productivity for the worker. The ability to bring health care and education and freedom of expression to the world is much, much more important than the phone book for the device that brings it to them. And you see the clear expression and support of the United States for those goals by the participation outside these doors. The American private sector very much wishes to bring the promise of the Internet and broadband connections to all the world. And indeed the United States is not dominating the Internet. As I mentioned, there are over 900 million Internet users. There are only 300 million Americans, and only 200 million of them are online. So again domination is not our goal, clarity and a sense of optimism is our message. The Internet is not given to control by international organizations like what we see in this other room. No bureaucrat is going to solve the problem of SPAM, and no bureaucracy is going to solve the challenge of viruses on the Internet. Those solutions will come from the genius and the innovation of the world's private sector, and so the desire to internationalize or insert government into the management of the Domain Name System is ill-advised because it would slow the wonderful pace of innovation that we are enjoying today. And the United States stands for optimism, for the growth of the Internet and for innovation for all the world.

QUESTION: Recently, we noted that 72% of the Internet is in English language. What are the possibilities of liberty of expression for those countries who do not speak English?

GALLAGHER: I had one other comment on the previous question, and then I will answer your question. During the discussions in the ministerial room, what you hear is strong support for the US position from Canada and from Australia. We also know that Japan and New Zealand are also very much supportive of the United States' position on the importance of the private sector in its contribution to the growth of the Internet.

The diversity of language is a particular challenge for the growth of the DNS and the growth of the Internet. And the technicians are the best to address that, the engineers, because they are able to adapt the Internet system to handle different character sets and the different challenges posed by foreign languages. And I would offer two other points on that. It is a problem not just for the Internet; it is a problem for software in general. And that ICANN is focused on working with the world on solutions so that the Internet can expand lingually as well as geographically.

QUESTION: We all know that, at the end of the day, the negotiations will be more or less over. The Summit will start tomorrow with the speeches, etc. Now that you have followed the debates in the ministerial, what is the objective that is most likely to succeed, whether it be governance, or the digital divide?

GALLAGHER: I would say that it is very difficult to predict because the options are many and the discussions are very fluid. There are approximately four key paragraphs and for each one of those four paragraphs, there are multiple options and the options are then interlinked. The negotiations are also very fluid so it is difficult to pick which solution set will ultimately be the one chosen. But all are still very committed to working as hard as possible up to the last moment.

QUESTION: The United States seems determined not to give in on the issue of Internet governance. Mr. Gross has repeated also that the internationalization of the Internet is unacceptable. Mr. Utsumi, the Secretary General of ITU, said that the negotiations are working towards a consensus for the creation of an international forum to discuss this subject. This information seems to be somewhat contradictory. We have heard about 90% of objectives attained. Can we see, in regards to the US position, and with precision, in which spirit you have come here? Will you maintain this position on ICANN or are you ready to cooperate on some kind of international organization?

GALLAGHER: As an initial proposition, and this may be the translation, it is important to understand that no one controls the Internet. The Internet is simply computers linked to one another using a common protocol to speak to one another. The applications that you see on the Internet today, whether it is Google, whether it is listening to music, whether it is talking through skype, this is the richness of the Internet, this is the value, and it is beyond the control of any single country or a single entity. And so the focus of the discussion and of Ambassador Gross' comments, that have been very consistent with my own over the last several months, is on the DNS, the Domain Name System only, because we both understand that the Internet is beyond the reach and control of any single government or individual. And the DNS is designed much like a compact car. There is room for one to drive. It is not designed to have dozens or hundreds of hands on the technical steering wheel. If you look at the rate of innovation and the rate of growth on the Internet, and the need for the DNS mechanism to be fluid and stable and secure and nimble to meet the growth targets and fend off threats, it demands a very technical driver, not a political driver. The United States' clear position is in favor of the private sector driving that vehicle through ICANN than the alternatives that have been offered here. And over the last seven years, since 1998, the international community has benefited substantially from that position of the United States. And so again, the position is clear. The position is one of optimism for what the technologies mean to the rest of the world, the true focus of the World Summit. That position is clear. It is also clear that the stability and security message from the United States, as with the DNS, is that we should continue on the path we are on and look forward to the future together. And ICANN will continue to evolve, just as it has since it was born in 1998, to meet the growth and the challenges of the future.

QUESTION: We can see that you came to the Summit with very well-defined concepts. What are your expectations? And my other question is what can we really expect from this Summit? What will it really change in the daily lives of people? Looking all around, if you have been downtown in the city today, everyone is asking the same questions: What will change in our daily lives? What will it change for those who live in the third world countries?

GALLAGHER: We are in the midst of the dawning of the broadband age for the world. The World Summit brings together world leaders to learn about the true impact of broadband Internet technologies on their societies. Commerce Secretary Evans, who preceded our current Secretary Gutierrez, said "The greatest path towards peace is through trade." My addition to the Secretary's vision is that the fastest path towards peace is through the Internet. E-commerce and the freedom of expression can happen at the speed of light. And those are very powerful forces for all the world. And so what does it mean to the man or the woman or the child on the street of the developing country? What it means is the growth of networks that they have not had built in their countries yet. And those networks can come via fiber optics, via satellite, via cable, via telephone copper wires. And today we see explosive growth in new wireless technologies. Last summer, Vodafone did a study of the adoption of wireless communications in Africa and concluded that, in fact, for most of the world, their first computer and their first exposure to the Internet will be over a wireless device. And those connections enable farmers to know what the price is at market for their goods directly from the market place and not through a middleman. Those same networks allow a doctor to diagnose an ill child from a thousand miles away. Those same networks allow the finest knowledge, the richest compilations of knowledge, at world-leading universities to be available to students around the world. And that exposure to freedom and that exposure to innovation will lead the youth of today to a brighter, more peaceful world tomorrow. So basically it comes down to text-messaging and ring tones.

QUESTION: It is rather optimistic on your part to say stability where others say rigid. It is also amusing for an Assistant Secretary to note that bureaucracy has never solved anything. Don't you think that another structure, where there are private entities, NGO's, universities, could not produce a multilingual DNS, with Arabic, Chinese, etc? Couldn't they resolve such a problem?

GALLAGHER: The point you reach is a good one, especially that the bureaucrat criticizes the bureaucracy. I appreciate that very much. But I am very much a product of the private sector. My history is very much one of working with world-leading companies on very interesting technologies. President Bush and Secretary Gutierrez expect me to put that DNA into the US bureaucracy, and not have the DNA of the bureaucracy going into me. And the structure that would best address your concern is, instead of balkanizing the technical management of the day-to-day traffic, which would be a great risk to the ability of packets to get to and from their destination quickly, the better alternative would be for the academic and technical excellence in the university systems around the world, especially in the linguistic area, to interface with ICANN and help them achieve the objective faster. The outreach that ICANN has with the world goes beyond just governments. It should encompass the leading minds of universities as well. And that would hopefully accelerate a more rapid adoption of more languages into the Internet itself. Thank you.

Previous Stories:
  Internet governance, funding of technology at UN summit   (11/16/2005)
  State's hughes outlines US public diplomacy vision   (11/5/2005)
  State's hughes outlines US public diplomacy vision   (11/5/2005)
  US government jailed scores of Muslims without charge: Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties   (6/27/2005)
  US government jailed scores of Muslims without charge: Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties   (6/27/2005)
  Arab states mistreat free press   (5/4/2005)
  US report predicts terrorists will thrive, but in new ways   (1/15/2005)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search