Printer-Friendly Version

Page 2 of 2

The Paris-based organization also rejected the E.U. suggestion, calling it "too vague to be a credible alternative."

"It has to be admitted that the U.S. has managed to develop the Internet without major problems and that it broadly respects online freedom of expression," it said.

"So let us hope an acceptable compromise - that reduces government intervention to a minimum and guarantees freedom of expression - will be found at the WSIS.

"If not, it would be best to leave things as they are."

Support for retaining the status quo has come from other Europeans as well.

Former Swedish Prime Mminister and international diplomat Carl Bildt wrote in a recent op-ed that while not necessarily perfect, the current system of governance "has worked."

"It would be profoundly dangerous to now set up an international mechanism, controlled by governments, to take over the running of the Internet," he said. "Not only would this play into the hands of regimes bent on limiting the freedom that the Internet can bring, it also risks stifling innovation and ultimately endangering the security of the system."

Bildt criticized the stance taken by the E.U., saying "we Europeans should be as keen as anyone to preserve the essence of a system that has worked amazingly well."

"If that entails leaving some ultimate safeguard powers in the hands of the United States, that's certainly better than having theocrats or autocrats around the world getting their hands on the levers of control."

ETNO, the European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association, has also made its views clear.

"ETNO has reiterated its support to the current system based on ICANN, in accordance with its principles of transparency and geographical representation," the Brussels-based industry policy group says on its website.

"Any proposal likely to affect negatively global connectivity, security or reliability of Internet should be avoided."

ETNO also called for the role of the ICANN governmental advisory committee to be maintained and strengthened.

'A pivotal moment'

In the U.S., warnings about the struggle for Internet control have come from numerous analysts, commentators and lawmakers.

"Putting the U.N. in charge of one of the world's most important technological wonders and economic engines is out of the question," Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) said in a statement earlier this year.

Coleman has played a leading role in investigating corruption in the U.N.

Heritage Foundation scholars Brett Schaefer, John Tkacik and James Gattuso said last week the summit in Tunisia would be "a pivotal moment for the future prospects of economic and political freedom."

"Should the U.N. gain control of the Internet, it would give meddlesome governments the opportunity to censor and regulate the medium until its usefulness as a vehicle for freedom of expression and international competition is crippled," they argued in a web memo.

"As the overseer of the domain name system, the United States has taken a liberal approach in keeping with its liberal values," says technology writer and commentator Kenneth Neil Cukier.

"There is no guarantee that an intergovernmental system would continue on such a course, and so even committed internationalists ought to be wary of changing how the system is run," he wrote in the current issue of the Council on Foreign Relations' publication, Foreign Affairs.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in an article published last week that the world body had no designs to seize control of the Internet.

>> Back -- Page 1 2

Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service