Who.Will.Win.Com

Most of the over one billion global Internet users who regularly surf the wide and varied land of Cyberia are unaware that the US indirectly controls the Net. And that the other governments are engaged in a high-stakes battle to end this near-monopoly. In any case, why should one country rule one of the most important vehicles of globalisation? Leading the charge have been China, Iran and Cuba—countries not exactly famous for promoting free flow of information. But now, even the European Union, most of the African continent, India and other Asian nations have joined the call for "democratisation" of the Internet, and are even pushing for a regime change.

"Other stakeholders must be included in the decision-making process. There should be some democratisation," says an Indian diplomat in Geneva. Brazil is blunt in its statement: "On Internet governance, three words come to mind: lack of legitimacy. In our digital world, only one nation decides for all of us." Global negotiators are hoping for an agreement before a UN summit in Tunis this month because the alternative would be nothing short of net anarchy, a Balkanised virtual world with multiple and incompatible Internets. The losers will be the people who have come to enjoy the endless possibilities of a world at their keyboards.

The worldwide web rebellion was sparked by the Bush administration's U-turn in July this year when it declared its intention to indefinitely retain control of the Internet's "root servers" or master lists. Washington, which had to relinquish control in September 2006, said it would "maintain its historic role" so that the Internet can "remain stable and secure". The US governs the Net through the 13 root servers where almost all the website names are generated. These root servers are controlled by the US-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) which, till recently, was the sole body for registering Internet names and regulated the world's cyber traffic. But the US control over the Net has been diluted a bit in the last five years.

A proliferation of the Internet sphere has helped the Asian nations to establish their own Internet exchanges as well as clone (root) servers that replicate the work of the ICANN's servers. A few developing countries also realised that it made ideological sense to have their own servers. Apart from the 13 root servers in the US, there are over 100 clone or mirror servers in other countries. India has three servers and its own Internet Exchange, Nixi (National Internet Exchange of India), and a lot of traffic is now being routed through them. However, the US-based root servers still control most of the traffic, owning the power to block the mirror or clone servers anywhere in the world.

Last month, the talks in Geneva ended in clashes as the US seemed unrelenting. David Gross, the lead US negotiator, indicated recently that there was "no give" in the US position. "We want to ensure we keep the recipe for the Net's success. If you modify it, the risk is that you come out with something far worse," he said. Both Democrats and Republicans have assured the Bush administration of full support in case there's a head-on fight on the issue.

The Americans' chief argument, according to a senior diplomat in Geneva, amounts to: "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" Some experts contend that the reason the Internet has functioned well is because Uncle Sam's hand has been light and because the ICANN is professionally run. The private sector largely agrees and western companies don't want governance in the hands of bureaucrats from the so-called undemocratic countries.

Chris Nolan, a columnist for eWeek.com, wrote the latter countries are more "interested in figuring out if the Internet can be controlled in a way that allows their governments to keep 'undesirable' information away from their citizens. And some, of course, would like better surveillance capability of dissidents and other troublemakers." Human rights activists too prefer US control. But the US also earns billions of dollars in revenues. US officials add that the Pentagon created the Internet when it funded a project in the 1970s to link computers. The Americans are also concerned about terrorists using the Net. With multiple masters, the Internet would be easier to abuse and tougher to monitor.

Other countries fear the US (through ICANN) can deny and thwart access to the Internet if it so desires. So far that hasn't happened but it doesn't mean it never will, say some diplomats. They want either the UN or an intergovernmental body to have supervisory power and make public policy related to the Internet. No doubt, the global scenario forms the background to this US vs The World bout as the EU and several developing countries wish to send a loud message that America can't run the web world alone anymore.

There are other objections fuelled by concerns about national security. Iran, Cuba and China are worried that issues like the US invasion of Iran, defeating China and bringing Cuba "online" once Fidel Castro meets his maker are subjects of discussion in American chatrooms. Developing nations have another grouse: the west has gobbled up most of the IP addresses. Diplomats say "democracy" is necessary and other experts add that once a global technology has been adopted universally by all countries, it can't remain the property of any any single country.

Will the opposition against the US lead to a change? Not really, as it is not easy to snatch control of the Internet from a country which has invested in establishing it, maintained and developed it for the last 35 years. "As the Net has become the de facto mode of communication for subversive elements, it is unlikely the US will relinquish control," says Nixi ceo Amitabh Singhal, also a member of the government advisory committee that represents India in ICANN.

In addition, the criticism against the US is fragmented and there are no clearcut alternatives. The main obstacle is that developing countries are not serious Internet economies. China has 75 million subscribers but there are doubts about these figures. Brazil and India have only 5.5-6 million subscribers each, which is nothing compared to the usage levels in the US. "I feel it is difficult for any country or body to keep the Internet open and free the way the US has kept it. It's more of a power game," adds Singhal. Therefore, there's a growing feeling among some developing nations that the best alternative is to somehow increase the non-US members base of ICANN in a bid to ultimately upstage America. A higher representation through new members would also dilute the US control over the root servers and the Internet traffic.

One shouldn't forget that while the Bush administration may not be an example of the best that America has to offer, a Communist China, a theocratic Iran or a fundamentalist Saudi Arabia might be worse. As former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt wrote, the Americans have the "reluctant support of most of the global Internet community, which sees America as the least bad" option.