A Playing Field without Control?
"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather… We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."
The vision proclaimed in this "Internet Declaration of Independence" during the run-up to the 1996 World Economic Forum in Davos and the facts on the ground in 2003 are realities apart. Success is often the result of a loss of innocence, and, in the case of the Internet, it followed a paradigmatic chain of consequences.
The appeal of the new cultural technology attracted commercial interests, which intensified success, in turn leading to scarcity and then conflict. The need for regulation became apparent and politics was brought into play. As the Internet knows no borders, the problem has moved into the realm of international relations, where the rules of power politics still determine what happens, even in the 21st century.
Controlling influence
Despite all the Cyberspace romanticism, the Internet was never truly independent from state interference and the American government always maintained its influence. The Internet, though, really does have its roots in the non-commercial realm. It started with computer specialists at American universities experimenting with new forms of digitally transferring information.
Supported by the American military, they searched for innovative ways to permit the shared usage of then scarce computer capacity from different geographic locations. The "anarchistic" ethos of these scientists, their fundamental aversion to hierarchical structures, worked its way unfiltered into the egalitarian design of the Internet’s architecture.
It was namely this openness of its technology that provided the Internet with its superiority over other solutions. The breakthrough for the web was ensured by the multitude of its users spread over the globe and not by the industrial-political strategies of any government, including that of the USA. Governments only began paying attention to the Internet sometime later, when commercialization had already been unleashed and the internationalization of the user base was well under way.
Governed by market forces or intergovernmental organizations
The various states, however, favored differing institutional arrangements for the administration of the Internet. During the boom phase of the 1990s, which was a period full of expectation, the incompatibility of the administrative strategies quickly grew into a symbolic conflict over who should influence Internet policies. The main point of contention was whether the Internet should be left to will of market forces or be placed under the supervision of established intergovernmental organizations.
Using cleverly staged rhetoric, the American government succeeded at the time in implementing a forward-looking strategy that put global Internet administration under the self-regulation of the private sector. This not only fired the fantasies of Internet activists wanting to keep the technology free from state interference, but also captured the euphoric mood of the New Economy.
Triumph of civil society over unpopular state control?
Soon afterwards, the private Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was founded with the blessings of the US government to manage and coordinate technical resources. Many regarded this as the realization of their dream – the triumph of civil society over unpopular state control. Nominally obliged to increase economic prosperity, the Clinton administration and its policy of renouncing state regulation succeeded in achieving one thing above all. It opened up the playing field for the up-and-coming American Internet industry, which was technologically and commercially superior to anything else the world had to offer.
In addition, the American government maintains to this day the right to declare any decision of ICANN invalid, should it so choose. The Europeans at first found this "hands off the Internet" model hard to accept, but the EU was brought on board with subsequent concessions from the Americans.
US-European alliance against Internet state control
Today, the Europeans together with the Americans have formed a closed phalanx against states such as China and Brazil, which would prefer to see the Internet come under national state control. Here one can observe the mechanisms of a unilateral or, at best, a bi-lateral American-European globalism (G2), similar to the way that the World Trade Organization (WTO) functions.
It is not difficult to comprehend why China, Brazil, or India would want to fight in Geneva to have the administration of the Internet transferred to UN hands. The decision-making procedure of the UN is "one state, one vote", allowing these countries to discuss matters eye to eye with their adversaries, although they are still far behind the Americans and Europeans in terms of technology, their economies, and the total number of Internet users.
Authoritarian countries such as China have an additional motive. They regard the overall management and coordination of technical resources of the Internet as a unique opportunity to control the transnational stream of data. Immediate access to the Internet’s technical infrastructure opens up undreamt-of regulation opportunities. For example, control over the Internet address system would allow for the permanent elimination of disagreeable web sites and the effective filtering of suspicious information. The fantasies of censorship know no bounds.
Taking stock
Contrasting recent developments with the romantic ideas of the 1990s, it is clear that governments are well on their way to subjugating the Internet. The reality of international power politics has finally succeeded in expelling the libertarian spirit of the computer geek that was so prevalent in the initial days of Cyberspace.
This transformation took place almost unnoticed with ever-subtle maneuvers, which allowed, for instance, the USA to globally promote its carefully hidden interests and implement its regulative positions, without waking the guard dogs of the rest of the world. Now it is a matter of preserving interests over an open poker game for power, as can currently be seen at the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva.
Civil society loses out
Civil society, once the great supporter of a self-regulated Internet, has walked away from the process, frustrated at its own irrelevance. The fantasies of a free, egalitarian, and fair web have been shattered along with many other fantasies of the 1990s. The realities of international power politics have caught up with the Internet.
Not much remains of the vision of a Cyberspace free of control structures. The digital information network is following the path of other media, which are free in some parts of the world and partially or fully controlled in others. The politically hued regionalization of Cyberspace is in full swing, energetically supported by commercial interests. These pose few if any questions and also equip authoritarian states such as China with desired censorship technology. Even the state of affairs at the once highly praised ICANN looks rather bleak.
The appointment of a new board of directors through a worldwide "e-democratic" election by Internet users turned into a farce. Various interests groups could barely hide their attempts at manipulation. Paradoxically, ICANN has since openly positioned itself alongside various governments, as it has not been able to control the international private sector.
It has become clear that the question is not whether one can achieve freedom, or even media freedom, with or without state intervention, but rather with what type of state. Here, the liberal state that internationally safeguards the principle of freedom is still our best bet.
Dieter Ruloff / Marc Holitscher
This article was first published by Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 12 December 2003
Translation from German: John Bergeron