The response of the US to the WGIG and its discussions has not been that appreciative although the presence of Allen Miller, Executive Director of the World Information Technology and Service Alliance (WITSA) in the WGIG as a member and the representations of the Information technology Association of America (ITAA) to the deliberations, highlighted what the US industry was thinking about the whole UN efforts.

They were supportive of the UN efforts although they wanted the harmonious relations between the government and the private sector to continue.

However, just two weeks before the submission of the report, the US has come out with a statement of four principles wherein it has issued its official position on the Internet domain name and addressing system.

These principles clearly touch upon the WGIG's work and recommendations and the timing also raises concern that the US might have got scent of the impending recommendations and wanted to highlight its pre-eminence in the matter.

It also clearly shows how the whole efforts of the WGIG might fail at the WSIS-II if the US starts lobbying for its secured position. While the issue of stability and security of the Internet is recognised both by the WGIG and the US notification, there are clear differences in the way both look at the subject.

The US document has mentioned that it wants its historic role in overall control of the root zone file, which is the basis of the Internet addressing system, intact.

The WGIG had clearly recommended that governance function or oversight should not have the pre-eminent role of any single government and in all its four models has shown how the root zone file could be administered under an equally competitive body.

Presently, the root zone file is controlled by the US and there is lack of formal relationship with the root server operators.

The US highlighted its support for the ICANN job although it wanted it to remain as a technical manager only and wanted ICANN under its oversight. The interesting part is that the ICANN's dissolution is not called for in any of the four WGIG models, rather necessary changes to ICANN have also been offered so that it is more representative, has more teeth, and is yet technically competent.

Again, on the issue of the need for creating a space for continuing all ongoing Internet governance dialogue, there is difference in the possibilities.

While the WGIG has opined that such efforts should preferably be under a forum linked to the UN and should have the participation of developing and developed countries on an equal footing, the US document has clearly stated that there needs to be multiple fora for addressing such issues and the US Government would support a market-based approach and private sector leadership efforts.

The WGIG contention has been to give it a more socio-economic approach so that participation is maximal from all sections of the society. It has positioned the need for linking the ICT4D agenda and the MDG goals of the UN so that the four public policy areas are addressed simultaneously.

However, there is congruence between both the WGIG and the US on the need for national entities for managing their own Internet resources within the framework of the globally-defined domain naming system on which they are differing.

Another important factor that needs to be seen here is that there are already some efforts to see if a few new Internet naming systems can creep up in the face of continued US insistence.

In that case, there would be a lot of technical rewriting that has to be done and the very essence of the successful evolution of the Internet could be lost.

Now that nations prepare for WSIS-II, there would be a lot of analysis about the respective roles that nations should take.

The endeavour should be to see that the Internet grows in an equitable manner and remains stable and secure.

As of today, only 12 per cent of the total global population is connected to the Internet and so a lot of work is to be done. In the face of such a vast growth potential of the medium, there has to be consideration about all issues of infrastructure and usage. One hopes that all the efforts of the WGIG result in a positive path of growth of the medium.

The author writes on issues of cyber security policy and can be reached at subimal@hotmail.com

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page