Getting segmented

A meeting in London this week organised by the body in charge of UK domain names, Nominet, has highlighted the fact that the future of the Web is not assured. In fact, it seems the Internet, as we know it, may not be around for that much longer.

Considering the Web is becoming an increasingly important global resource, this is more than a little worrying. However, in the absence of any governing body for the Internet or accessing the World Wide Web, it is also hardly surprising.

Yes, sure there is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), but it merely co-ordinates the assignment of unique identifiers on the Internet and not much more. There is also the UN`s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) set up in November last year, but it does not have any power to govern the Internet either.

The IGF meets for the first time at the end of this month. Consequently, the IGF is yet to prove that it is more than just a high-level talk shop. Unfortunately, this is not very likely as the IGF is not allowed to change the status quo in the governance of the Internet.

What was the UN thinking?

There seems little point in setting up a global, multi-stakeholder forum to discuss policy in the field of Internet governance, but not giving it any power to change existing governance mechanisms.

Warwick Ashford, portals editor, ITWeb

There seems little point in setting up a global, multi-stakeholder forum to discuss policy in the field of Internet governance, but not giving it any power to change existing governance mechanisms or interfere with operations of the Internet.

Discussion alone is not likely to avert the looming crisis highlighted, by the IGF chairman himself, at this week`s Nominet meeting in the UK. Nitin Desai warned that the Internet could be broken up into separate networks around the world.

According to Desai, the rapidly exploding number of Internet users in Asia will lead to the demise of the Internet as we know it, because there will soon be many more Chinese Web pages than English. He said this was inevitable if the matter was not addressed with "sufficient vigour".

Desai clearly sees segmentation of the Internet as an undesirable thing.

But why?

Surely he does not believe that the domination of the Internet by the US and Europe is a good thing? Would the creation of a "Westnet", "Eastnet" and even "Africanet" be such a bad thing?

Apparently the push for a separate Chinese Web is coming from the Chinese government because of concern that users still have to type Web site addresses using unfamiliar Roman characters even when the pages are in Chinese. Following this line of thinking, African representatives to the IGF should also push for African domain names to reflect the language and culture of the content on Africa-based Web sites.

Why pretend there is no link between culture and technology?

Instead of resisting change, supporters of a US-led and dominated Internet should get real about the inevitabilities and make a positive contribution to effecting the change. They need to get real about the fact that the Internet has already started to segment and we can no longer work on the assumption that there will be a single Web in the future that uses current technology.

Perhaps the solution lies in developing a multi-lingual domain name service that will allow cultural segmentation and segmentation in terms of protection, functionality and speed without creating islands of connectivity that have no inter-connectivity between them. This would go some way to accommodating the world`s main cultures without destroying the global interconnectivity the Internet has already achieved.

Hopefully, this will be the more realistic way this issue is tackled when the IGF meets for the first time in Athens at the end of the month to discuss Internet governance. The agenda includes issues such as freedom of expression, security, collaboration, diversity and connectivity.

Indications are that this first and many subsequent meetings of the IGF will centre on tensions between supporters of the Internet`s traditionally decentralised policy making approach and the more formal decision making approach of governments.

Unfortunately, no matter what is discussed or even resolved at the highest levels, the IGF remains yet another powerless international forum. Desai is the captain of a ship without a rudder.

Given this reality, can any positive outcome be expected?

It can only be hoped that as the tensions escalate and a larger number of stakeholders come to accept the inevitability of change, the IGF will evolve into an Internet Governance Authority with some real decision making power and in which all cultures are fairly represented.