Internet Studies

Here is what I submitted for this assignment:

From its inception, the Internet was designed and created as a network that could not be centrally controlled. Since then, its astonishing growth rate made it even harder to control. The Internet cannot be governed from physical, logical and social standpoints.

Firstly, what is Internet governance? Law professor Yochai Benkler (2000) proposed to divide information architecture such as the Internet into three layers: infrastructure, logical and content layers. In other words, the physical, logical and social aspects that should be addressed when governing the Internet.

With regards to the infrastructure layer, the inability to govern the Internet lies in its past and its architecture. The Internet was developed by academics as a network of separate networks in order to withstand a nuclear attack. These scholars developed a decentralised peer-to-peer network with no hierarchy structure. All the network’s nodes are equal to access and contribute to the network without precedence. That is, there is no one single network, but decentralised network of networks with no central server. Thus, there is no one central authority to control and exert its rules over the Internet (Maslen, 1996).

The Internet protocols suite uses a packet based data transfer protocol. This protocol divides the content into individual packets of data and sends them to their destination through the shortest available route without any regards to their actual content. There is no gatekeeper along the way to verify legibility of the content. Therefore, within the infrastructure layer, at the moment, there is no means of exercising control.

Many of the Internet administration duties in the logical layer are currently being overseen by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and do not represent the shift to internationalisation of the Internet. ICANN responsibilities include management of Domain Names registrations, IP address space allocations and management of generic and country code Top-Level Domains to name a few. Even though ICANN roles are mainly technical, they still have political, economic and social ramifications. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is registered as non-profit public benefit corporation acting under US law and not a global one (King, 2004).

The problem is the difficulty in creating international cooperation and a balanced representation. Even though the Internet is primarily an American invention, it continues to spread world-wide. It is important that all the countries involved receive adequate representation. Many wish that the Internet Governance will be passed to the UN, or any other apolitical body without hidden motives of political or capital gain. Despite this, the reality is that developed countries are represented far more than developing countries and that intergovernmental cooperation may still be a utopian dream (Kapur, 2005).

One of the more comprehensive aspects of the three is the content layer where the actual Internet users interact. This layer involves issues of content access manipulation as well as legislation boundaries and jurisdiction. There are a few suggested models for governance such as the benevolent dictator, centralised democracy, peer production or community node-based user governance (Goldmann, 2006), none of which deals effectively with the most prevalent nature of the Internet; a decentralised network of networks encompassing the globe.

Content regulation and censorship need to be integrated into the Internet infrastructure in order to be utilised. One of the Internet qualities that aided its remarkable growth was its liberating ability to broadcast from every node. Conventional broadcasting mediums must abide by censorship regulations, as opposed to the Internet where every individual user can express their views openly and freely. Various governments would like to exert some level of content regulation and some countries practice it more than others. China’s scheme of Internet censorship and surveillance is the most advanced in the world. The Chinese government built its censorship technology into the Internet infrastructure in order to be able to block user access to politically sensitive and objectionable content (Human Right Watch, 2006). Nevertheless, China is not a democracy and therefore should not be considered as a model for Internet governance. Increased governmental oversight and regulation of content on the web could hinder its openness and endanger its prospect development. However, at the present time—unless the technology has been developed intentionally, as in the case of China—there aren’t any technical mechanisms to practice censorship on the Internet.

Continuing with the content layer, traditional legal doctrines and national jurisdictions cannot be applied to the Internet due to its international nature. The Internet has developed as an open, free, possibly democratic medium but which comes with a price—Internet pollution and Cybercrime. These encompass such troubles as spam emails, spyware, viruses, identity theft and frauds as well as copyright and intellectual property rights infringements. Legal laws are linked to physical locality whereas the Internet is not limited by geographical or physical boundaries. This creates a problem with “off-shore” legislation. When the offender remains out of existing real-life legal boundaries, which local law will be implemented? (Johnson, Crawford & Palfrey, Jr., 2004)

A centralised government is not a possibility because of diversity in values in different countries. Different regulations and legal issues make it impossible to create one set of rules to fit all on a global scale. It also raises questions about what physical powers will this suggested body have to enforce its laws across the cyber space? Or how could it implement its regulations on a local basis? In “The Accountable Internet” (Johnson, Crawford & Palfrey, Jr., 2004), it was suggested that just like our real world, in our virtual world, we should exercise relevant and necessary practices of self-governance. Still, to go beyond this suggestion and assume that one set of laws will fit all is not a reality.

When we talk about governing the Internet we actually talk about control. Who and how can control the Internet? The medium in itself does not allow for its suppression. A centralised body with complete international cooperation to exert its rules on every country that connects to the network might be a utopian dream. Existing legal regimes are not suitable across the cyberspace. The inevitable answer to this question is the Internet cannot be governed.

References:

Benkler Y. (2000). From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access, New York University School of Law. Retrieved March 30, 2007.

Goldmann A. (2006). Community Node-Based User Governance (CNBUG): Applying Craigslist’s Techniques to Decentralized Internet Governance, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Retrieved March 30, 2007.

Human Right Watch, (2006). “Race to the Bottom” Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship. Retrieved March 30, 2007.

Johnson D., Crawford S. & Palfrey, Jr., J. (2004). The Accountable Internet: Peer Production of Internet Governance, Virginia Journal of Law & Technology, University of Virginia, vol. 9, no. 9. Retrieved March 30, 2007 .

King I. (2004). Internet Governance: An Analysis of the Need for Change School of Law, Languages & Social Sciences.

Kapur A.( 2005). Internet Governance - A Primer, United Nations Development Programme–Asia-Pacific Development. Retrieved March 30, 2007.

Maslen P. (1996). Control, Change and the Internet. Retrieved March 30, 2007.