WSIS: US envoy faces hot debate

Many governments, including the influential European Union, are demanding more say in the way the Internet is managed. The U.S., which gave birth to the Internet, appears determined not to hand over its baby.

One of the possible outcomes of the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) is that governments break with the U.S. and form their own root file system to manage core Internet components, such as IP (Internet Protocol) names and addresses. Phase two of the WSIS runs from Wednesday to Friday in Tunis, Tunisia.

In a telephone interview from his office in Washington D.C., David Gross, ambassador of bureau of economic and business affairs at the U.S. Department of State and the person leading the U.S. delegation, fielded questions about the continued role of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the growing demands by the world’s governments for a say in the Internet and the possible outcome of the WSIS talks.

IDGNS: Wouldn’t you say the U.S. today is really controlling the Internet?

Gross: For important historic reasons, the U.S government has played a very important role in the Internet. It was U.S. government investment that created the Internet in the first place. The U.S. continues to play an important role, such as its MOU [memorandum of understanding] with ICANN and authenticating changes to the authoritative root zone file. But this role shouldn’t be confused with control of the Internet as most people think of that term. The fact that you have a say in one thing doesn’t necessarily give you control or say over everything.

IDGNS: But the U.S. say is pretty significant, wouldn’t you agree?

Gross: The Internet has many important parts, such as technology, standards associated with this technology and interconnection agreements between these carriers. All of these are virtually private-sector driven.

All governments play an extraordinarily important role in the Internet. In each of their countries, they are fundamentally responsible for establishing policies that either promote the use of the Internet and other technologies or retard it. This is far and away the most important aspect of governmental control.

IDGNS: Some say the U.S. stepped out of bounds by intervening to block the .xxx domain for adult content. Was this the case?

Gross: Read the letter written by Assistant Secretary of Commerce Michael Gallagher. In that letter, he was careful not to stake out a position on the merits of .xxx. All he did in that letter was to remind ICANN of its responsibilities to follow its own procedures in making determinations about these types of issues. Other governments did much the same thing, reminding ICANN of the need to follow its own procedures. The U.S. government did not stake out a position one way or another. But we do believe that all institutions, including ICANN, should follow their own procedures.

IDGNS: There are proposals from the Working Group on Internet Governance [WGIG] to create a two-tier system: ICANN would continue to be responsible for managing the Internet at a technical, infrastructure level; and a council of governments would assume responsibility at political level, dealing with issues such as spam and cybercrime. What do you think about this proposal?

Gross: We have tried to be very clear that we don’t think that any of the WGIG models are particularly helpful in this area. We want and need — and are determined to see — that the Internet be able to change and evolve technically with minimal governmental interference and oversight. This is one of the great powers of the Internet — the fact that it has been able to change in such a way. It’s a bottoms-up and not a top-down approach. What you’re describing is a classic top-down approach. We think the Internet is best served by the bottoms-up approach.

IDGNS: Why not let ICANN do what it’s been doing, but instead of allowing just one government to rule the roost, the U.S., let other governments have a say at a more political level but with no ability to interfere in any day-to-day activities?

Gross: First of all, there is an incorrect premise about the role the U.S. government plays today; for example, authenticating changes to the authoritative root zone file. The number I have seen is around 875 changes. We have never once not approved of one of these changes. It is an important ministerial function; it is not a policy-making function. So replacing that with a group of governments, from a policy perspective, would be almost the complete opposite.

IDGNS: What is your major concern of giving all governments a say?

Gross: It depends on what they should have a say about. They really need to be working hard on creating an enabling environment for technology and the Internet in their countries, and in working together in appropriate forums internationally. But what we don’t think would be helpful to the people in the world, especially those in the developing world who can benefit so greatly by the introduction of this technology, is greater governmental interference in either the technical changes and innovations associated with the Internet, or with the ability of people being able to use technology and the Internet for freedom of expression.

IDGNS: So you’re concerned about possible censorship?

Gross: This should be a concern to all people.

IDGNS: Until the last prep-com meeting in Geneva in September, the EU was an ally, basically agreeing with the U.S. on maintaining the status quo. Then the EU changed its position, agreeing with other countries for the need to have more say in the Internet. Could this about-face weaken your position?

Gross: I’m always looking ahead and not backward. I’m an optimistic guy. There is a lot of common ground between not only the U.S. and the EU positions, but also among many other countries’ and regional groups’ positions. So I’m feeling, perhaps wrongly, upbeat that we will find good and important common ground that we can use to fashion an agreement of benefit to everyone in Tunis.

IDGNS: What happens, however, if some countries say they will no longer except the status quo? What recourse do they have?

Gross: The summit’s documents are nonlegally binding documents but they do have importance because they become the discussions for further discussions internationally. We don’t approach any of the meetings as a sort of take-it or leave-it type of thing, but rather we really try to focus on finding common ground.

IDGNS: But what happens if some countries say they’ve had it, and are going to break away and establish their own root system?

Gross: I’m told by my technical experts that it’s never been really hard to establish a new root system. Having said that, I’ve not heard any government officials tell me that they are interested in creating a new Internet, a parallel system that wouldn’t be interconnected and interoperable with the existing Internet.

The Internet is an interconnecting group of networks. As long as these networks are interconnected and interoperable, then we all benefit. We continue to hope and expect that the Internet will continue to change. A new, more efficient and effective system benefits everyone. We’re not trying to keep technical innovation from occurring. Quite the opposite, we’re trying to facilitate new technical innovation.

IDGNS: So you’re saying no to a system that would mirror or run parallel to ICANN?

Gross: I really don’t know what benefits anyone gets from a free-standing, non-interconnected, non-interoperable system.

IDGNS: But what about a system without the central control we have today?

Gross: I don’t know the technical details but I do know that we’re always seeking technical change and innovation and not trying to keep the status quo. The Internet today looks very little like it did a couple of years ago. I’m sure that Internet in the future will look little like it does today. I just don’t know in what ways.

IDGNS: The U.S. Department of Commerce’s MOU with ICANN expires in 2006. What happens? Could this be an opportunity for change?

Gross: Yes, the MOU expires by its terms later next year. The good news for me is that responsibility for all of that is the Department of Commerce, and not mine. So I can’t comment.

IDGNS: What happens if no one agrees on Internet governance in Tunis? Could governments break away?

Gross: I’m really focusing on trying to find and work on common ground. I’m not spending any time thinking of all the various what-ifs. The simple answer is, we’re going to see how things go and I certainly hope and expect that the world will not miss this unique opportunity to advance everyone’s interests. I think that’s what we’re all going to be focusing on.

IDGNS: So for you, what would be a successful WSIS?

Gross: A successful WSIS for the U.S. would be one where the focus is on the use of technology to bring economic, social and political benefit to the world’s people. That almost sounds like a platitude but it really is at the heart of what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is something truly historic. Our hope is that governments, private sector, civil society and the likes will be able to use the summit to refocus themselves and rededicate themselves to achieve these very important historic goals.