US claims victory in Internet fight but others not so sure

A simmering dispute over control of the Internet received a late-night resolution but several officials and delegates at a United Nations technology summit on Wednesday questioned United States claims that it held the high ground.

The lingering and vocal struggle over the domain names and technical issues that make the Internet work was resolved late on Tuesday after delegates from the US and European Union wrapped up nearly three days of heavy talks that left oversight of the main computers that direct the Internet's flow of information, commerce and dissent to the US.

Those computers control Internet traffic by acting as its master directories so Web browsers and e-mail programs can find other computers.

David Gross, the US State Department's top official on Internet policy, said he was thrilled by the last minute deal, noting that it neither created the multi-country body that some had sought nor shunted responsibility to the UN.

"It reaffirmed the role of technology to the world and preserved the unique role of the US," he said on Wednesday as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) opened.

Negotiators from more than 100 countries agreed to leave the US in charge through a quasi-independent body called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

In doing so, it averted a US-EU showdown that threatened to derail the summit and detract from its focus on narrowing the digital divide.

Publicly, officials were positive on the agreement, noting that it brought together private industry, the public and governments to help work out issues regarding Internet governance.

Privately, others fumed, noting that the secretive talks, which had been expected, seemed to take away from the focus of the summit and that the US was grandstanding.

Martin Selmayr, an EU spokesman, said it was the 25-nation bloc that broke open the champagne bottles after the deal was reached.

"What we see here is a clear indication that what they [the US] said in June is not the last word and that we are back on track towards internationalisation, we are back on track to what has been agreed with the Clinton administration already some years ago," he said. "We are back to co-operation and you see this in the very first words of paragraph 62 when it talks about a multilateral approach."

Others remained adamant that US involvement must be tempered if the Internet is to truly reach its potential. Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe, who spoke to the more than 10,000 officials attending the summit, warned that the US and its allies "insist on being world policemen on the management of the Internet".

That had to change, he said.

"We must allow for a more transparent and multilateral approach to Internet governance. Why should our diverse world be beholden to an American company?" he asked.

ICANN chief Paul Twomey said that while the company was based in California, it had a large international staff and locations abroad.

"If the Internet had been developed in Australia, I don't think we would have had so much heat on this discussion," Mr Twomey, an Australian, remarked of the tension surrounding the US control.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, however, nixed any idea of a UN-backed agency.

"Let me be absolutely clear: the UN does not want to take over, police or otherwise control the Internet," he said. "Day-to-day running of the Internet must be left to technical institutions, not least to shield it from the heat of day-to-day politics."

Although Pakistan and other countries sought a takeover of that system by an international body such as the UN, negotiators ultimately agreed, as time ran out, to a create an open-ended international forum for raising important Internet issues. The forum, however, would have no binding authority.

Frank Pasquale, a law school professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey, called the deal a compromise at its heart.

"The US has done a good job making the Internet safe for robust political discussion and commerce, but will gradually need to start recognising international norms," he said.

Regardless of who claimed victory, delegates and officials involved in the talks said the new forum would give nations a stronger say in how the Internet works, including perhaps spurring the availability of domain suffixes in Chinese, Urdu and other languages.

"They want a seat at the table and they have a forum at which to have a seat," said Paul Kane, chairman of the Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries.

Currently, though names partially in another language are possible, the suffix - the ".com" part - remains in English.

The group also could address issues not currently covered by ICANN, threats like spam and cybercrime.

The new group, the Internet Governance Forum, would start operating next year with its first meeting opened by Mr Annan. Left unsettled, however, was whether the UN would ultimately administer that forum, Mr Gross said.

Dayanidhi Maran, India's minister of communications and information technology, said he was examining the new accord.

"The institution is a good beginning," he said, adding that no decision had yet been made on whether to take part in the first meeting, which could be in Greece. "We would participate, if we were asked."