UN Internet Takeover Rumours Mask Bigger Governance Shortcomings

In recent months the Internet has been buzzing about the prospect of a United Nations “takeover” of the Internet, including responsibility for governance of the domain name system. The concern hit a fever pitch late last month when the U.S. Congress held hearings on the issue. A steady stream of technology companies and consumer groups expressed fears with potential U.N. and foreign government involvement and members of Congress pledged to take a strong stand against the takeover.

While a U.N. takeover would indeed be cause for serious concern, my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the reality is far more complex and somewhat less ominous. This issue has been festering for over 15 years and is less about whether there will be efforts at governmental control and more about which government controls.

The U.S. government established the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private, non-profit entity based in California in 1998, granting it responsibility for Internet governance leadership. ICANN was created with a vision of an open, transparent and multi-stakeholder approach, where Internet users, companies, interest groups, and governments could all participate in the development of policies such as the creation and management of new domain name extensions, the privacy rules associated with registration information, and the development of dispute resolution policies for contested domain names.

The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a U.N. body, was never happy with U.S. leadership and the ICANN model, embarking on several efforts to assert greater influence over Internet governance issues.

In 1996, it attempted to take control over the management of the domain name system but failed to do so (leading to the creation of ICANN). Several years later, it was the engine behind the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which raised the prospect of dramatic change to the Internet governance model and a far more assertive role for national governments.  The ITU-backed WSIS initiative had support from many countries around the world, but the U.S. and its supporters (which included Canada) were able to keep the existing system largely intact.  

The latest concerns arise from the World Conference on International Telecommunications, scheduled for Dubai later this year. The ITU is rumoured to be ready to take another shot at Internet governance control, a fear fueled by the notorious secrecy associated with the conference documents (the actual proposals were leaked on the Internet last week).

Given past history, there is little reason to believe the ITU will succeed. Yet the issue is likely to recur for as long as the U.S. treats the Internet as its own.

Successive administrations have regularly pressured ICANN on various policy matters, including efforts to get it to drop plans to create a dot-xxx domain (after years of global consultation and the development of a neutral process for approval) and expressed serious reservations with the introduction of hundreds of new domain name extensions. While a multi-stakeholder approach means that governments have an opportunity to express their views on policy issues, the U.S. seems to believe that some views count more than others.

In fact, some of the same U.S. politicians who expressed outrage over the ITU plans only months ago were supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act, the now-defeated controversial anti-piracy bill that included provisions that meddled with the domain name system.

The current controversy misses the bigger point that Internet governance still lacks a strong, universal commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach that includes governments, business, and civil society groups working together to develop policies that best reflect the views of the global Internet community.

Developing such policies is frustratingly time consuming and difficult – as any policy that implicates billions of people and the world’s most important communication system would be. Yet an inclusive and transparent system offers far more than the current unappealing alternatives of either secretive U.N. involvement or U.S. assertion of greater control whenever challenging policy issues arise. 


  1. Devil's Advocate says:

    Don’t underestimate this one!
    “While a U.N. takeover would indeed be cause for serious concern… the reality is far more complex and somewhat less ominous.”

    This is more than just a serious concern…

  2. 1700 New Top Level Domains?
    Surprising MG’s article doesn’t mention this mass sale of TLDs recently announced. Is it a preemptive strike of some sort by ICANN?

    “The new top-level domains, or TLDs, will start to come online in the first quarter of 2013, said Rod Beckstrom, the chief executive of Icann, who unveiled the list of 1,930 applications for 1,700 different new TLDs at a press conference in London. [At $185,000 a pop]

    “‘This is an historic day for the internet and the two billion people around the world who rely on it,’ Beckstrom said, ‘The internet is about to change forever.'”

    American Eagle Coupons 2012
    Subway Coupons 2012
    Joann Coupons 2012
    Body Shop Coupons 2012
    Aeropostale Coupons 2012
    Blockbuster Express Codes 2012
    Taco Bell Coupons 2012
    Victoria Secret Coupons 2012
    Jcpenney Coupons 2012
    Dsw Coupons 2012
    Papa Johns Coupons 2012
    Michaels Coupons 2012
    Macys Coupons 2012
    Sports Authority Coupons 2012
    Diary Queen Coupons 2012
    Mcdonalds Coupons 2012
    Staples Coupons 2012
    Great Clips Coupons 2012
    Tide Coupons 2012
    Lowes Coupons 2012

  4. LessThenNever (aka Don't Tread On Me) says:

    We are still making this.
    Maybe it’s the chocolate milk talking, but when I’m feeling sad about the state of the network, I remind myself that TLDs, DNS, and the Internet are stupid. Kind of cool, but still stupid.

    Anyone else remember Dotto on Data? Anyone remember sitting around for hours in the 90s thinking of “unique” domain names to register? Those were optimistic times on the “Information Superhighway.” Now a domain name is “property.” It’s a corporate “asset” not a way to get from A to B. People get sued over DNS. We made this.

    We spend hours writing Wikipedia and will surely blame them for taking it away (which they inevitably will, because everyone is a corrupt arse). The lesson: keep your own copy. Copies are like guns. Don’t let anyone take that away your right to copy.

    They’re all packets. It’s all copying. Copying is as necessary as air.

    We can step out of this. They filter DNS? DNS just provides the names. The highway works fine, and you can still travel from A to B. In fact, it works better than ever, when you bring your own map since you’re the only one travelling on it.

    Anyone remember Internet YellowPages? Run your own DNS or equivalent.

    If you can do it better, do. People will use it and eventually laugh at the dinosaurs using the “Internet” (that thing we made when we still thought it was possible to have one network without facism). A single network is the definition of centralized. It’s the definition of controlled.

    What if they spy on the wires? Own the wires.

    We can make this system over more than once, and very likely will. Admittedly, not without an ocean of laughing and crying and politics.

    Your bank has a front door. Use it. Email works fine on a private network. Use I2P. Don’t give your email address to your bank. Facebook is not your friend. If you don’t like the “Internet” because it has become Hitler’s wet dream, walk away. Pay less and feed yourself first. It’s all a joke anyway. 🙂