"Digital Munich"

I'll have to ask contributing editor Mike Godwin whether this one constitues an oblique violation of his infamous law: Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) compares this month's World Summit on the Information Society, which will take up proposals to place the Internet under international oversight, to the 1938 conference at which Britain signed off on Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland.

Hyperbole aside, he's right that this would be a bad move. But as I wrote last month, it would be a lot more credible if Coleman's clarion call to avoid "allowing Internet governance to be politicized" included a commitment to renouncing the U.S.'s own veto power—with a greater indirect chilling effect power, as evidenced by the hubbub over .xxx domains—rather than simply defending the status quo.

Addendum: As long as I'm pimping my piece on this from last month, I might as well note that I made there the same point Jon Zittrain makes today in a Politech post: There are some real concerns to do with U.N. oversight, but the actual leverage for censorship involved in control of the TLD root servers isn't nearly as great as you might infer from a lot of the discussion of this issue. We should oppose U.N. control of the root, but with a realistic sense of what the worst-case scenario there looks like.

Comments

[Shem]

Reductio ad Hitlerum

I can't wait to use that one.

[Eric the .5b]

What would be a less inflammatory, but very easily recognized, metaphor meant to indicate a foolish surrender? Just as an example.

[SR]

No, it still clearly involves Hitler. I think you pretty much need to back your analogies up to the Kellogg-Briand Pact or earlier to be in the clear. Or, alternatively, your analogies must be dated from the murder of John Birch forward (August 25, 1945), which makes it an unregulated Cold War analogy. (A special exception to that chronology is if your analogy specifically relates to the Nuremberg Trials or Spandau Prison, in which case Godwin's Law still applies.)

[R C Dean]

They can have my unrestricted internet when they pry it from my hot, sticky fingers . . . .

[thoreau]

A month or so ago, the Economist remarked that the US has basically referred the issue to a committee that's been charged with issuing a report. They seemed confident that this will result in nothing actually changing.

[Toxic]

Well sometimes the status quo is pretty acceptable, and easier to keep than some negotiating towards midly superior alternative.

The .xxx thing is silly. Granted. However, the whole planet, at this point, has some degree of 1st amendment protection because the internet is a semi-government entity under the US constitution. To control a countries internet, censors are reduced to setting up gigantic firewalls. If you can work around those firewalls, you can set up a website on US soil and have de facto 1st amendment rights. What's going to happen when countries that are not bound to protect freedom of expression have control over the root servers, some of which are actively hostile towards free expression? My guess is that a lot of undersirable (hate sights, political dissent sites, etc...) websites will be simply deleted from the root servers, leaving htem totally unaccessible. Basically, UN or other international control compounds the choice of law problem inherent in the internet, and does so in a way that militates against freedom of expression in a very serious way. And basically, other than to gain the power to censor, there really is no legitimate interest in controlling the root servers. It's just not a big deal in any other respect. Even opening negotiations on the issue is an invitation to failure, since in every negotiation you have to give something up. I think liberty is sitting about as pretty as it can get, as far as this goes. No reason at all to mess with it.

In light of that, the DoC being prudes as to the .xxx doman name is, well, de minimis.

[Shannon Love]

If I was looking for a historically analogy I think it would be the Ottoman empires outlawing of the printing press circa 1550. Like the Ottoman's, those seeking "international" control of the internet will most likely end up blowing their own brains out.

I think the major driver for this is national prestige. The internet is this generation's sexy thing and nationalistic governments chafe when they can't pretend they have a say in it. It's the same as with national airlines in the 60's when every little nation thought it had to have its own national jet airliners even though the vast majority had no economic need for them.

I predict that there will be a big hoopla about governments setting up their own servers. Those servers will be carefully synchronized clones of the ICCAN servers. Everything will continue to work pretty like it does now. Local politicians will declaim loudly that their country now controls its own internet and everybody can go home dumb and happy.

[R C Dean]

I think Shannon hit it out of the park on this topic.

[Ruthless]

I'm not the techie, but isn't cyberspace a refuge for anarchists?
Bureaucrats can bitch and moan, but they will always be on the outside looking in because techies and anarchists are in league with one another.
Gee, I hope I'm right.

Take a techie to lunch.

[bigbigslacker]

"...of a plan favored by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Cuba..."

Imagine the censorship this cabal would engage in. I see a future where googling Taiwan, human/women's rights, religious freedom, and freedom of the press returns no hits. Shit, I wouldn't be suprised if they outlawed political commentary 30 days before an election.

[bigbigslacker]

make that "election"

[Eric the .5b]

the actual leverage for censorship involved in control of the TLD root servers isn't nearly as great as you might infer from a lot of the discussion of this issue

Well, sites like the hypothetical WeHateTheUN.org or NailKofiToTheWall.org might face some hassles. But the point is that giving the UN any authority over this matter means the strong possibility of it taking further authority down the line. The UN as an institution has no interest in free speech (point me to the Rights of Man and I'll suggest you actually read the silly thing), and many prominent members of the UN have every interest in suppressing it in some manner. I see no reason why the trend wouldn't be to the lowest common denominator of freedom - which would be rather low. Nor do I have any interest in seeing some third-world dictatorship chairing the Internet Free Speech Committee.

[Sandy]

Eric the .5b:

I share your concerns about it (anybody remember the ITU in the 70s? *crickets*), but technically, anybody who started monkeying around could be ignored.

In fact, countries like China could start doing this today if they wanted--but then nobody else would peer with them and there'd go their supply chain integration.

So even WeHateTheUN.org would probably be fine.

But you're right--down the line they might start mandating protocols or worse. So it's a bad idea.

[Hakluyt]

Eric the .5b,

You must mean the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The Rights of Man and Citizen are part of the French Constitution.

[Eric the .5b]

I would like to clarify and say that I mean the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Long day.

[Douglas Fletcher]

We should oppose U.N. control of the root, but with a realistic sense of what the worst-case scenario there looks like.

I think it would probably look like Kofi Annan, not a good start.