[Seventh of eight commentaries in a sub-series on ICANN and Internet governance]

International discussions on Internet public policy beyond ICANN's purview have been percolating for years on issues such as the control of illegal and harmful content, privacy and data protection, security and identity theft, intellectual property rights, spam, cybercrime and others, in bodies like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. And talk about the need for an overarching international agreement to deal with some or all of these issues under one umbrella has been heard before. Most recently, the World Summit on Internet Society put the discussion firmly on the table, and linked it with issues that until now have been considered more technical matters, including the management of Internet names and numbers.

There are two points in particular that make achieving consensus on a global approach to the Internet governance tricky. First, the global nature of the Internet challenges concepts of traditional national boundaries and makes application of national jurisdictions difficult. Second is the question of whether the focus of policy -- and, effectively, government control -- should be on the senders and receivers of information who use the network, or on the network infrastructure itself as a channel for information.

The current system is founded on the notion of end-to-end connectivity, meaning that the Internet is a highly decentralized network that allows every computer on the network to talk to every other computer directly, worldwide. This makes the network unsuited to act as a control mechanism, and leaves governments to deal with the behavior of Internet users themselves. Many experts feel that this "neutral channel" approach to Internet governance has allowed the Internet to grow into the successful worldwide network we know today, and that this aspect should be preserved.

A move toward government control of the channel itself would dramatically change the Internet, allowing for the possibility of stronger and more comprehensive controls of the network. So the question is whether the appropriate focus for Internet policies on individuals’ behavior or on the infrastructure of the Internet.

[NB: These ideas borrow from the thoughts of many commentators disseminated during the last year. One worth mentioning in particular is Internet Governance: The State of Play, a paper by the Internet Governance Project in September 2004]

What Do You Think?

• Do you think that policies Internet governance should focus on control of individuals' behavior or on the infrastructure of the Internet?
• Does it make sense for the Internet to be considered a "neutral channel"?
• What are the risks if Internet policies focus on people? On the channel itself?

Please share your views with us via email or post them in the "comments" box under this commentary. (Email responses will be posted to the website too.)

Want to know more about ICANN and Africa?

See the CIPESA public briefing on ICANN, Internet governance and Africa, 7 October.

Acronyms Used Here

• ICANN = Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers