[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19181-19182]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 19182]]

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 cyberter-
rorists. 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 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.

                          ____________________