{"id":129,"date":"2005-10-20T12:19:34","date_gmt":"2005-10-20T18:19:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/wp\/?p=129"},"modified":"2005-10-20T12:19:34","modified_gmt":"2005-10-20T18:19:34","slug":"americas_intern","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/?p=129","title":{"rendered":"America’s Internet"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the United Nations today, the United States is expected to stand virtually alone in voting against a treaty, sponsored by Canada and France, aimed at protecting “cultural diversity.” In a preliminary poll on the pact, 151 countries voted yes, two countries abstained, and the U.S. and Israel voted no. The U.S. opposes the treaty because it sees it as being not about culture but about trade. Other countries, it fears, will use “cultural diversity” as a shield to block imports of U.S. movies, magazines, TV shows and other such products. As the U.S. ambassador to UNESCO told the Financial Times<\/a>, “The main proponents of this convention seem more interested in control over international trade flows and the lives of their citizens than in promoting freedom and cultural diversity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Without question, the U.S. has a point here. It’s hard to look at these kinds of measures (particularly if you’re an American) and not see them as cynical ploys to put up barriers to U.S. goods. But the American view is also flawed. The reason that so many nations reject the U.S. position can’t be dismissed as purely mercantile. Many countries genuinely fear that the brute force of the marketplace, and America’s dominant role in it, will destroy their local cultures and even their national identities. Trade and culture are, in other words, closely related. For America to ignore the connection is to misread, and mischaracterize, the motives of its opponents, many of whom are also its allies. In the end, such blindness simply weakens the American position.<\/p>\n

Which brings me to the Internet. A few days ago, I wrote about the growing geopolitical divide<\/a> over Internet governance. More and more countries, including, now, the members of the European Union, want to shift toward a more international governance structure, perhaps under the auspices of the United Nations. At the center of the controversy is Icann, the Internet rule-making body that, among other things, doles out top-level domain names. (For useful background, see this article<\/a> by Andy Oram.) Though it has an international board, Icann operates under the auspices of the U.S. government (and under the laws of California). Other countries want greater international oversight of the functions carried out by Icann.<\/p>\n

The U.S. is dead-set against any change. It sees “internationalization” as a way to give authoritarian regimes, which traditionally have been the strongest critics of the status quo, the means to put further restrictions on the Internet. And it points out that the U.S. government, despite its ostensible control over Icann, has largely stayed out of the body’s decision making. A different governance structure would inevitably lead to the politicization, and then the balkanization, of the Internet.<\/p>\n

As with the “cultural diversity” debate, there’s much to be said for the American position. The U.S. government does deserve credit for letting Icann operate at arm’s length, and, whatever Icann’s flaws, it’s hard to imagine a rule-making structure that would have worked better. But, again, the U.S. position too easily dismisses the concerns of other nations. This debate isn’t just about authoritarian states shutting down the free flow of information. It’s about fears of American hegemony. The fact that the U.S. hasn’t meddled with the Internet in the past does not, after all, guarantee that it won’t start meddling in the future. Under the current structure, other countries fear, there would be little control of such meddling.<\/p>\n

It’s not hard to see why other nations might be antsy about American control over what’s becoming the world’s commercial and communications nervous system. Recently, for instance. the Bush administration lobbied Icann<\/a> to postpone the scheduled introduction of the .xxx domain for pornography. Other countries also objected to setting up a virtual red-light district, but it was the announcement of U.S. opposition that seemed to push Icann to back off its plans. It doesn’t seem strange that countries might ask, What’s to stop such pressure from being exerted, publicly or privately, in the future?<\/p>\n

Consider as well the resolution opposing any change in Internet governance now before the U.S. Senate. In introducing the resolution three days ago, sponsor Norm Coleman<\/a>, of Minnesota, said, \u201cMany aspects of running the Internet have profound implications for competition and trade, democratization, and free expression. We cannot stand idly by as some governments seek to make the Internet an instrument of censorship and political suppression. We must stand fast against all attempts to alter the Internet\u2019s nature as a free and open global system.\u201d There’s little to object to here. Most people would agree that the politicization of the Internet is something to be resisted. But then Coleman went on to use the issue to attack the United Nations: \u201cIt is irresponsible to expand the U.N.\u2019s portfolio before it undertakes sweeping, overdue reform. If the U.N. was unable to properly administer the Oil-for-Food Program, I am afraid what the Internet would look like under U.N. control.\u201d Coleman, in other words, is politicizing the Internet even as he argues against the politicization of the Internet.<\/p>\n

By reflexively dismissing other countries’ concerns about Internet governance, the U.S. will only amplify those concerns. The best way to resolve this debate is not to try to close it down, but to engage in it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the United Nations today, the United States is expected to stand virtually alone in voting against a treaty, sponsored by Canada and France, aimed at protecting “cultural diversity.” In a preliminary poll on the pact, 151 countries voted yes, two countries abstained, and the U.S. and Israel voted no. The U.S. opposes the treaty […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}