Internet Governance and Censorship

Abstract

The argument I will make in this paper will outline a firm belief that multi-stakeholder governance, as has been strongly pursued by the United States for more than two decades, is the smartest way forward for the Internet. This argument will primarily carry with it the weight of two guiding principles: civil liberties and equal access, with a focus on global gridlock as an unmistakable variable in failing to move the conversation forward.

The crux of my case will be made on the premise that the Internet is an internationally uniting, unprecedented tool by which to extend individual freedoms and democratic accountability.

Over the long arc of history, as we zig and zag in every which direction, the one constant in human history is the pursuit of improvement in governance and interpersonal communication. With the potential to support the broad expansion of such an institution, while propping up individual liberties, it is absolutely imperative that we lay bare the trade-offs at stake in this debate.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified writer

Proficient in: Internet Censorship

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

This paper will proceed as follows. In the next section, I will introduce my argument and the trade-offs at stake in greater depth. Then, I will outline competing explanations to my own in order to present what is truly at stake in this discussion. I will then examine the most significant international player in driving this discussion - China. Finally, I will wrap up my argument that multi-stakeholder governance is a necessary, even essential compromise if we want to protect the liberties we hold dear on the world’s newest, most sprawling public square.

Introduction

Since the inception of the Internet, through its rapid growth and development, and culminating in its present global utility, the question of how and by whom it will be governed has loomed large. First commissioned by the United States government in the 1960s to build fault-tolerant communication with computer networks, the original network, the ARPANET served as a backbone for regional academic and military networks throughout the 1980s. Then, upon the funding of the National Science Foundation Network as a fresh centerpiece in the 1980s, plus significant private funding for other commercial extensions to the project, the Internet ultimately blossomed into the multi-network, globally-participated public square. It is through this federal funding on behalf of the United States that the debate on the Internet’s global governance was borne. Thus, the question at the center of my research becomes pivotal to answer: what method of global governance is most likely to protect the aspects of the Internet that its users most hold dear, and why is this problem so difficult to solve?

Beginning in 1988, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) was administered by one individual - Jon Postel - under the University of Southern California, overseeing global IP address allocation, root zone management, autonomous system number dispersal; it essentially managed the Internet’s address book, a tall task for one individual but just barely feasible given the narrow scope of the network at the time. That is, until 1998, when the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was organized under a U.S.

Department of Commerce contract, tucking IANA functions under ICANN’s banner and effectively moving the Internet to an officially American-centric oversight model. American-centric oversight is self-explanatory, but multi-stakeholder governance is as follows: a diverse mix of businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and academics work alongside governments to help them make decisions. This is a distinct veer away from more conventional multilateral governance, a more equitable arrangement that allows multiple nations with similar economical stakes in the Internet to get a seat at the table with the same or similar authority. Given the lack of feasibility of American-centric oversight as a long-term solution, this divide is the focus of the question at the heart of my paper: Is multilateral or multi-stakeholder governance a more prudent path forward for governing the Internet?

Alternative explanations to this phenomenon are far-reaching, but generally tend to espouse a slightly more cynical view of the future of the Internet. These narratives began to bubble to the surface upon the Obama administration’s relinquishing of sole American control of ICANN in 2016. By relinquishing this power, hardliners say the U.S. willingly forfeited control of the Internet to America’s’ most formidable economic competitors. Alternative explanations on the other side, however, emphasize cyber sovereignty - the right of each nation to govern the Internet within its own borders (directly at odds with the U.S.’s centrist vision of a globally accessible, multi-stakeholder Internet).

Many of the world’s most powerful governments fear the free flow of information that the Internet fosters, and in pushing for multilateralism, would then have the ability to weaponize censorship within a multilaterally governed Internet. They could block basic services, disable websites that contribute to spreading information hostile to certain regimes and ultimately attack political opposition, a staunchly undemocratic activity.