Internet hegemony and the digital divide

Nov 16th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

A squabble over who controls the internet had threatened to overshadow the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia. But a “compromise” deal was reached just before the meeting opened, under which America will retain its hegemony for the time being. This leaves delegates free to discuss bridging the digital divide between rich and poor countries

NOTHING has done as much to hasten the spread around the world of fact, fiction or rumour as the internet. The rapid dissemination of information from a wide variety of sources, from reputable news organisations to lone bloggers, has fostered an openness unforeseen when the internet was created as part of an American military-research project in the 1960s. And the web is widely accepted as a key component of the technological revolution that has boosted global productivity and wealth.

It is therefore ironic that the United Nations’ World Summit on the Information Society, which began on Wednesday November 16th, is being hosted by Tunisia. Discussions on the future of a technology that derives much of its success from the fact that it is decentralised, unregulated and largely uncontrolled will take place in a country reluctant to embrace political freedoms and human rights.

Nevertheless, the host country’s poor rights record is unlikely to cause much of a stir among the gathered cyber-throng in Tunis. The main theme of the summit is the “digital divide” between rich and poor countries. In the run-up to the event, it looked as if this might be overshadowed by squabbles over America’s internet hegemony. But a last-minute deal before the summit opened leaves the way clear for the delegates to focus on how to make the internet available to half the world’s population by 2015, compared with just 14% online now.

The web’s vital role as a global communications tool has evolved mainly without either the help or hindrance of governments. But although its decentralised nature keeps it beyond the control of politicians for the most part, its infrastructure requires some management. And the system in place is predominantly American-run, to the irritation of many other countries.

The internet is managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private-sector body that operates under contract from America’s government. The technical matters that it oversees may appear dull. But co-ordination of the domain-name system (such as .com and .net), national addresses (such a France’s .fr) and routing numbers (which identify traffic on the internet) carries wider significance. For example, many countries were scandalised when ICANN considered the .xxx suffix for pornographic websites. (It has suspended implementation for the time being.)

Many countries had wanted to relieve America of its unilateral role in the governance of the internet and hand power to a new body under the auspices of the UN’s International Telecommunication Union. Brazil, China and Saudi Arabia had called for a new intergovernmental forum with real powers and a policy-making mechanism for the internet.

America had contended that this should be little more than a talking shop, devoid of formal powers, since existing mechanisms to co-ordinate the underlying infrastructure of the internet’s addressing system are sufficient.

The American point carried some weight. Although nominally under the authority of America’s Department Of Commerce, ICANN’s directors hail from all over the world, and it already has a governmental advisory committee (though this is largely toothless). Technical issues are thrashed out in the open and America’s government has refrained from direct intervention. The private-sector solution may not be perfect, but it is at least workable. Under the eleventh-hour deal, details of which emerged on Wednesday, this aspect of the running of the internet will stay under American control.

The United States has long argued that handing control of the internet to the UN or a separate intergovernmental agency would invite slow-witted bureaucratic meddling, which could hinder the internet’s development. In September, the European Union surprisingly withdrew its support for the current arrangements and proposed a governmental approach intended as a compromise between those favouring UN oversight and the Americans. But those countries hoping to reduce America’s role in running the web will doubtless be disappointed by the compromise that has been adopted. From next year an international forum will convene to discuss internet issues, but it will have no binding powers.

This is something of a relief. Many of the countries that have called loudest for America to give up its role in the running of the internet are those that are most keen to stop their citizens accessing “undesirable” material. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and a host of other nations are guilty of censoring the content available to web users, their aim being less to protect the population from depraved content than to deter nascent democratic movements.

The involvement of such repressive regimes in overseeing the internet would have been at best distasteful to more assiduous guardians of human rights, and at worst seriously damaging to its workings. Tunisia is among those countries that have suppressed websites and jailed activists who have used the internet to criticise the government, according to Human Rights Watch, a pressure group.

Now that delegates have put an end to their bickering over control of the web, for the time being, they can focus on ways to narrow the digital divide. The merits of ensuring that the world’s poorest have access to the internet are questionable—some say it can help lift them out of poverty, others that the impact is marginal. But one thing is clear: as devices such as mobile phones and personal-digital assistants (PDAs) become more pervasive, they are poised to infiltrate developing countries to a degree that few appreciate. Allaying a poisonous spat over who runs the internet has ensured that the summiteers can concentrate on the equally important task of helping the world’s poor get access to telecommunications and technology.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.