The much discussed topic of last 6 years among many stakeholders and yet to reach anywhere near to consensus is Internet Governance. It sets out to answer questions that bother the minds of many.
Some of the pertinent questions that continues to be debated are:
· What is this Internet Governance all about?
· Do we really need it? Who will govern it?
· What is going to be the scope of Governance? And, last but not the least, Whom do we need Internet Governance for?”
The Controversy
The position of the US Department of Commerce as the controller of the Internet gradually attracted criticism from those who felt that its control should reflect its international nature.
When the IANA (the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) functions were handed to a new US non-profit Corporation called ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), controversy increased. ICANN decision making process was criticised by some observers as being secretive and unaccountable. When the directors' posts which had previously been elected by the "at-large" community of Internet users were abolished, some feared the worst. ICANN stated that they were merely streamlining decision-making processes, and developing a structure suitable for the modern Internet.
Other areas of controversy included the creation and control of generic top-level domains (.com, .org, and possible new ones, such as .biz or .xxx), the control of country-code domains, recent proposals for a large increase in ICANN's budget and responsibilities, and a proposed "domain tax" to pay for this.
There were also suggestions that individual governments should have more control, or that the International Telecommunication Union or the United Nations should have a role in Internet governance
Definitional difficulties
These much-heated discussion points, introduced first in 2003 in WSIS Geneva, led to the need for outlining the proper “Problem Definition” before actually discussing these points. The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) came into being soon after, and the definition given to help understand the first question, “What is IG?” goes like:
Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.
The definition however doesn’t define the process, the actual scope or outline the complex and undecided issues. It was thus not a consensus definition, and received the criticism from many.
Several attempts were made to understand the scope of IG and the issues involved such as, control over the basic infrastructure and standardization of Internet, socio – cultural issues like content control, privacy protection, cultural values, education and also the development aspects such as digital divide, technology transfer and many more. I am going to delve only upon the socio–cultural and development aspects of IG with a learning perspective.
Keep watching for more...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So does WGIG become the "independent" body which makes the plan and defines the processes? Also, do these 'critical' issues have separate committes and also since the Internet has been more or less "english" aka US dominated does the developing world have a reprsentation or is this process also skewed in favour of the english speaking majority...
WGIG is a UN body, was set up by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with the mandate given to him during the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), held in Geneva. WSIS Plan of Action adopted in Geneva set the parameters for the WGIG and contain its Terms of Reference and work programme. The WGIG has been asked, to “investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of the Internet by 2005”, dealing with the following issues:
· Develop a working definition of Internet governance
· Identify the public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance
· Develop a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of Governments, existing international organizations and other forums, as well as the private sector and civil society in both developing and developed countries
The report was out in June 2005. There is no separate committee so far to address different issues.
There is a whole need to understand how developing world is going to be benefited from the consensus over this whole issue? Many are not even the part of any of the discussion forums and groups; they have not been involved, not been informed either and hence are not even aware of the complexity of the issue. According to the latest World Internet Usage And Population Statistics, the total penetration of Internet users is only 16.7% of world’s population. With less than a fifth of the population yet having access, the opportunities for emerging markets are very much in the developing countries. In order for participatory policy making and raising the voices to become a reality, first and foremost, there is need for massive awareness programmes in developing countries, as well as for the masses in developed countries. The primary philosophy of a more equitable access needs to be understood in developed world, as the developing countries are beginning to be connected and becoming part of the Internet.
Post a Comment