Obama's Panama

Next year the U.S. Commerce Department plans to surrender its oversight of the non-profit Icann, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, to the "global Internet community." Who that will be is uncertain but the U.N. says it is available. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the telecom branch of the United Nations, has been demanding rules governing the Internet be rewritten. Among other things, it proposes inspection authority that would allow it to monitor and censor otherwise encrypted content on the Internet. Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the ITU, released a report in May 2013 outlining groundwork for Internet governance and regulatory topics. The report calls for the creation of "global principles for the governance and use of the Internet" and proposes the resolution of issues pertaining to "use of Internet resources for purposes that are inconsistent with international peace, stability and security." One can only wonder whose security.

In 2008, the Internet trade journal Cnet reported the ITU was quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous. Regimes in places such as Russia and Iran also want an ITU rule letting them monitor traffic routed through or to their countries, allowing them to eavesdrop or block access.

 

The move to relinquish Internet oversight is the "multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance," according to Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information. "We look forward to  Icann convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan." As if the "global international community" were a bunch of guys in pajamas and some fragrance shops. In fairness, Mr. Strickling has said a main objective for the U.S. is to make sure that NTIA isn’t replaced by the U.N. or another governmental organization. But why do it at all?

 

It almost seems the aims of the First Amendment-free international community are more in line with our own government's thinking.