By Susan Harris
On March 14, it was announced that US will renounce its control over ICANN or Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers by September 2015. ICANN assigns the Domain Name System (DNS) such as .org and generic top-level domain (gTLD) such as .gov or .info. Evidently spurred by the NSA fiasco, it also brings up a host of other issues including what is to take place of ICANN and if any agreement can be reached to satisfy global powers as internet users have grown and spread widely outside the US. Angela Merkel, furious that she was spied on has said that she will back the creation of a European-based Internet. The US has declared that it will support an independent body but not a group of different countries or the UN.
People who see this as an unnecessary and superficial move which will only hinder the smooth functioning of Internet as we know it, argue that internet security is a separate issue such as a division made between internet content and internet functioning. The complexity of the problem stems from the nature of the internet. Technologies stabilize after years or decades of newer models and configurations and it is only when the model is stabilized or outmoded that the social and political implications will become clear. There is also the fact that the functions of internet also differ according to the type of user or approach. The three models; information model, consumer model and community model also reflect the three primary purposes of the internet whether you are using it to acquire or disseminate information, whether you are a consumer whose choices have expanded exponentially or if internet use reflects a community act of social interaction and cohesion. Add to this the various social groups and types, and it is easy to see why any kind of monopoly must be disturbing to a layman.
The internet community is hoping for something along the lines of a global multi-stakeholder accountability process even as detractors argue that it is going to take so much time and that one must leave internet as it is. The new reality of the political internet changes this idealistic level-playing field of innovation and information that is associated with the internet. In Technology and Politics, Langdon Winner argued that even artifacts have politics and one of the ways is through control of technological arrangements and policies and design that it becomes the de facto mechanism for controlling the country and through political relationships which might not be its primary function but in the interactions between the technological environment and the sociological system surrounding it. This is one reason why countries are pushing for dismantling ICANN and having something more democratic in its place as it is simply not a question of nomenclature anymore.
To understand this further we have to look at the recent controversy around cyberweapons as well.
Cyberweapons can be a graver threat than lack of internet security itself.
The need for a good organization is important especially in the light of the government sponsored cyber weapons such as Stuxnet which was used by the US and Israel jointly against Syria. Deactivating nuclear powers or wiping out the entire power a la alien movies can mean that the country will have no modern line of defence in the face of the enemy. Therefore it is not an unlikely possibility that there will be a cyberweapons arms race in the near future, and that is why a regulatory body must take control of the internet and frame regulations and laws to cease creating more cyberweapons.
[su_pullquote align=”right”]The moment where we could have left internet to a world where smooth functioning and innovations are quickly provided and programmed updated by nerds and computer geeks who have no ulterior political internets has passed. [/su_pullquote]
The dictum code is law, where internet is mediated by a coterie of technological experts is flawed because the potential of internet has grown enormously, and a censorship-free internet is something to strive for. For example in India as the Henderson Brooks Report about the 1962 debacle was uploaded on the website of the journalist, Neville Maxwell, it was blocked by invoking provisions of the Information Technology Act in India. Thus it is safe to conclude that political agendas will always try to exploit the vastness of internet to defend or attack and further their own interests even as the individual will lose the privacy of his singular connection to the internet perhaps leading to its ultimate institutionalization. In such a scenario we might be able to explore alternatives to the internet as well, as modern technologies tend to cause under determination of alternatives because they seem ubiquitous in their function and appeal.
The interpretive flexibility of internet to exist independently, as if in a vacuum can also mean that this new organization or body need only ensure that there is minimal interference in its growth or aims. If not made subservient to political ends, such a body can also be a representative pooling of codes and technologies that will add to the diversity and innovation in the internet.
Susan Haris is currently pursuing Masters in English Literature from Delhi University. She is interested in world affairs and Indias place in global politics. She enjoys film noir and science fiction.