[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 106 (Friday, July 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9438-S9439]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND THE UNITED NATIONS
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, on July 14 the United Nations' Working
Group on Internet Governance, WGIG, issued its final report. WGIG was
formed following the December 2003 U.N. World Summit on Information
Policy with the intention of simply developing a consensus definition
for ``intent governance'' and identifying relevant public policy
issues. Ultimately the task force exceeded its mandate and laid out
four policy recommendations for the future of Internet governance. One
unifying theme for all these options is that there should be ``a
further internationalization of Internet governance arrangements''
because of WGIG's belief that ``no single government should have a pre-
eminent role in relation to international Internet governance''.
In other words, this U.N. task force report suggests that the
historic role of the United States in overseeing the Internet's growth
and shepherding its development should be terminated and that Internet
governance should be politicized under U.N. auspices. The most extreme
of the options laid out by the WGIG would transfer the authority and
functions of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
ICANN, a respected nonprofit organization which is currently overseen
by the U.S. Department of Commerce, to a new body linked to and
controlled by the United Nations. This would put international
bureaucrats in charge of the Internet and relegate the private sector
to a mere advisory role. And it raises the very troubling possibility
that the United States would have no more say over the future of the
Internet than Cuba or China.
I am firmly opposed to any proposal to hand control of Internet
governance over to the United Nations. The continuing investigation of
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations into the scandal-ridden
Oil-for-Food program has revealed management of the U.N. to have been
at best incompetent and at worst corrupt. Any suggestion for a greater
U.N. role over the Internet is hopelessly premature. The first priority
for the United Nations must be fundamental reform of U.N. management
and operations rather than any expansion of its authority and
responsibilities.
The Internet was created in the United States and has flourished
under U.S. supervision and oversight. The United States' fair and
lighthanded role in Internet governance has assured security and
reliability. While the roots of the Internet lie in the ARPANet project
launched by the Department of Defense in 1969, the true birth of the
modern Internet began 10 years ago, in 1995, when the National Science
Foundation opened the Internet to commerce, and the Netscape browser
became available so that the general public could ``surf'' the World
Wide Web. The explosive and hugely beneficial growth of the Internet
over the past decade did not result from increased Government
involvement but, to the contrary, from the opening of the Internet to
commerce and private sector innovation. Subjecting the Internet to the
politicized control of the U.N. bureaucracy would be a giant and
foolhardy step backwards.
The Internet today is an unprecedented and tremendously beneficial
avenue for the free flow of information and commerce. Why would we want
to even consider turning any degree of Internet control over to a
politicized and failure- prone multinational bureaucracy that cannot
possibly move at ``Net speed''? Some of the nations involved in the
WGIG deliberations have established pervasive Internet censorship and
monitoring systems to suppress the ability of their citizens to access
the truth, and to stifle legitimate political discussion and dissent.
Others maintain a state monopoly over telecommunications services, or
subject them to excessive taxation and regulation. Allowing such
nations a voice in fundamental Internet governance would be dangerous
and imprudent.
The WGIG report also contemplates an expanded U.N. role on
cybersecurity matters. This is also deeply troubling. We simply cannot
risk a disruption of the information economy by cyberterrorists. One
thing we have learned at the start of the 21st century is that some
organized groups hate democracy and wish to inflict grave injury upon
the people and economies of freedom-loving nations. It would be naive
and foolhardy if we did not assume that some of the individuals active
in these terrorist organizations possess the technical expertise to
plan and execute crippling attacks on the Internet, and that they are
pondering how to crash the net with the same diligence that Osama bin
Laden gave to bringing down the World Trade Center. The Internet
assumes greater economic importance with each passing year, both in the
value of the commerce it facilitates as well as the functions it
performs. Today, for example, traditional telephone service is making a
rapid migration from dedicated proprietary circuits to Voice Over
Internet Protocol, VOIP. It is true that the Internet was designed to
be resilient against outside attacks, as ARPANet was conceived as a
communications system that could survive the exchange of nuclear
weapons. But we have learned in recent years that the greatest threats
to Internet security are generated from within. The vital national
security interests of the United States and our allies demand that we
maintain an Internet governance regime capable of taking effective
preventive measures against any attack that could wreak havoc upon us.
The continued assurance of competent and depoliticized Internet
governance is clearly a matter of strategic importance to the security
of the
[[Page S9439]]
United States and to the entire world economy. I was therefore pleased
that the Bush administration announced on June 30 that the United
States would maintain its historic role over the Internet's master
``root'' file that lists all authorized top-level domains. The U.S.
Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System issued
last month are: (1) The U.S. Government will preserve the security and
stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System, DNS. It
will take no action with the potential to adversely affect the
effective and efficient operation of the DNS. (2) Governments have a
legitimate interest in the management of their own country code top
level domains (ccTLD). The U.S. will work with the international
community to address these concerns in a manner consistent with
Internet stability and security. (3) ICANN is the appropriate technical
manager of the Internet DNS. The U.S. will continue to provide
oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus and meets its core
technical mission. (4) Dialogue related to Internet governance should
continue in relevant multiple fora. The U.S. will encourage an ongoing
dialogue with all stakeholders around the world, and in the ensuing
discussions the U.S. will continue to support market-based approaches
and private sector leadership in the Internet's further development.
I applaud President Bush for clearly and forcefully asserting that
the U.S. has no present intention of relinquishing the historic leading
role it has played in Internet governance, and for articulating a
vision of the Internet's future that places privatization over
politicization. At the same time the administration has recognized the
need for a continuing and constructive dialogue with the world
community on the future of Internet governance.
I intend to closely monitor further U.N. actions in this area,
especially the upcoming November meeting of the World Summit on the
Information Society, WSIS, in Tunisia. I also plan to consult with
experts and stakeholders regarding Internet governance, and will assess
whether a legislative approach is needed to ensure the principles laid
out by the administration remain the basis of discussion on this
critical issue.
The growth of the Internet over the past decade, under the leadership
and supervision of the United States, has been extraordinary. Over the
next decade we can expect to see the global population with Internet
access grow far beyond the 1 billion persons who presently enjoy that
ability. The population of the developing world deserves the access to
knowledge, services, commerce, and communication that the Internet can
provide, along with the accompanying benefits to economic development,
education, health care, and the informed discussion that is the bedrock
of democratic self-government. Inserting the United Nations into
Internet governance would be a dangerous detour likely to hinder, if
not cripple, the fulfillment of the full promise of the most dynamic
and important communications infrastructure in all of human history. We
simply cannot afford the delay and diversion that would result from
such an unfortunate deviation from the path that has brought the
Internet to its present and almost miraculous state of success.
____________________