The more governments gripe about an internet governance reboot, the better it looks. Several countries and US lawmakers oppose a plan for stripping Uncle Sam of control over domain names. Yet American cyber spying and the web's global reach mean international oversight makes sense. The proposal's strength is in granting more power to users - not bureaucrats.
The internet was largely organised by enthusiasts - the volunteers and groups that received US government contracts to run a system of assigning website names and numbers, the various .com, .org and .edu addresses. By 1998, however, applications for domain names exceeded 200,000 each month. That and complaints about fuzzy rules and government-created monopolies prompted Washington to transfer oversight to the non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN.
Uncle Sam kept control over the master internet protocol address file, creating a check on ICANN's power. The aim all along, however, was to move the system to a global body. International outrage over US internet snooping has accelerated the process.
The new proposal would preserve ICANN's role in doling out domain names but subject the organisation to complex checks and balances. Any change to its bylaws would need a unanimous board vote and, in some cases, approval from a diverse group of technology experts, internet users and corporations that depend heavily on the internet. An independent appeals panel would hear complaints about ICANN actions. And the organisation's books and records would be widely available for inspection.
The plan is far from perfect. A committee of governments would still play a big role in ICANN policy, though its decisions would have to be unanimous. The organisation's board remains powerful, and the arcane process of assigning internet addresses is essentially unchanged.
Some 16 countries have objected to the unanimity requirement and other provisions. And keeping ICANN's corporate home in California has created some global angst. Meanwhile, the likes of Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz complain that allowing Russia, China and other authoritarian regimes a say jeopardises free speech online.
Their concerns are understandable, and the plan is a work in progress. The internet, though, is a global resource that no country should control. That so many diverse interests are squawking is a good indication that the proposal has real byte.
