ICANN has been serving the Internet community as an honest broker, and U.S. oversight has been loose at best, with America standing in the wings as a guardian of online freedom. With international oversight of ICANN, we do not have any guarantees that we will be free of the heavy-handed abuse that has characterized other increasingly politicized and balkanized international forums. We have given a blank check to faceless international bureaucrats.
The world has become heavily reliant on the Web for commerce, social interaction, communications, and command and control of both governments and infrastructure. It also serves as a tool for free expression in oppressive societies, as recently seen to great effect in Iran in the aftermath of the disputed Ahmadinejead re-election. What will an internationalized ICANN do under pressure of an oppressive Iranian regime that ties the Internet to oil? Will Internet domains of any countries be shut down? For instance, will an internationalized ICANN decide that Israel should be excluded from the Internet, or that the Internet will not be available in Israel's disputed territories? Will ICANN decide which government should control the Web in a country like Honduras where there is a power dispute?
These concerns are not idle speculation. Internet freedom is essential to modern life. Tinkering with the governance of the Internet can undermine freedom itself, the issue of American responsibility for governing the Internet has not ended with the ICANN agreement negotiated by Commerce. The next major test will be deciding the fate of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) -- the nuts-and-bolts Internet administrator that runs the protocols that allow the Internet to function. IANA works in the background like the air traffic controllers who ensure that planes don't run into each other traveling between myriad points across the world. The contract with the Commerce Department under which ICANN has administered IANA will expire in 2011.
IANA's predecessor had been the University of Southern California, operating under a contract from the Defense Department, which had created the Internet infrastructure. With ICANN under loose supervision of Commerce, this arrangement worked just fine, Now that ICANN is under supervision of who-knows-who, we simply can no longer be so sure that this trusted operation will continue.
The Internet is a crucial part of the world's economic and national security infrastructure. America, and the rest of the free world, cannot afford to trust the Web's future to the international community, where Libya and Iran get the same vote as the United States as if the world were a democracy. We cannot trust that we will continue to have a Web of the free if it is ultimately subject to the control of tyrants with no interest in shepherding freedom.
Before the ICANN mistake is compounded by IANA also being abandoned to international control, it is time for Congress to explicitly condition any IANA contract to Congressional approval, at least approval by the Senate as is required for a treaty.
When the United States ceded control of the Panama Canal, it was by treaty, with full discussion, transparency, and review. There was a debate, not a quiet fait accompli. This time, the United States ceded control of the Internet quietly, without a treaty, without a full discussion, without transparency, and without review. This was a dead-of-night and unilateral decision of government policymakers in the Executive Branch, and they might be turning ICANN from a trusted arbiter into something with as much integrity as the International Olympic Committee.
Even if the ICANN decision cannot be undone, American oversight of IANA in implementing Internet protocols must not be abandoned in order to maintain the security and honest enforcement of liberties that is assured by the United States as an honest broker. As any smart engineer would tell you, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Rep. Ed Markey: Time for Net Neutrality
Since its earliest days, the Internet has been guided by the principles of non-discrimination and freedom. And as it continues to evolve, we are now faced with a choice.
Besides, I've heard we're working on new, more secure protocol that isn't as flawed as the original. We can roll that out if the foreign hordes try to interfere with our business. Let them come begging for access when they realize we were far more trustworthy - and clever - than they.