Don't give UN control over Internet
It seems that governments around the world have found another reason to despise the United States This time it's the Internet -- specifically, the Internet's ''root servers," a critical network of computers that makes everything else work. America invented and built the root server system, and still manages it. But now the whole world depends on it, and wants a say in how it's run.
Sounds fair -- but not to the Bush administration, which has flatly stated that the root servers are ours, and we're keeping 'em.
Some see the US position as another example of arrogant unilateralism, but I'm down with Dubya on this one.
To understand why, you need only consider that the international talks over the future of the root server network, to be held next month in Tunisia, are sponsored by the United Nations. That's right -- there's a plan afoot to put critical Internet infrastructure under the control of the UN -- the same outfit that has given us the Iraq oil-for-food scandal and a child prostitution ring in Congo. It's hard to see why an agency so steeped in corruption should be given oversight of the computers that serve as the Internet's chief traffic cops.
Say you visit the Globe website, at www.boston.com. The site's true address is a clump of numbers up to 12 digits long. The same is true of every other computer on the Net. But people find it nearly impossible to remember long numbers. So some clever Americans invented the Domain Name Server concept, or DNS. Computers are assigned names that can be remembered, like www.boston.com. Then a network of DNS computers keeps track of the numbers behind the names. When you type in a Web address, a DNS machine looks up the correct numerical address and hooks you up.
DNS is a network of thousands of computers, layered on top of the Internet. But all DNS machines ultimately report to 13 root servers, which hold the most basic Internet routing information. These 13 servers are run by a variety of organizations, ranging from the US military, to private corporations, to a European nonprofit group based in Amsterdam. Lots of the servers are located outside the United States. But all of them are overseen by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which in turn is overseen by the US Department of Commerce.
Ten years ago, nobody objected to American domination of the Internet. Now that it's vital to the world's communications, it's understandable that foreign governments might want a say in how it's run. But David McGuire, a spokesman for the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, said that nearly everything ICANN does involves technical management of the domain name system, and there's no compelling reason for any government to interfere. ''To me, honestly, it seems like a power grab," McGuire said of the campaign to internationalize the root servers.
What kind of power? Well, imagine a UN member with a lot of clout, and a very low regard for freedom of speech -- China, say. ICANN accredits the companies that sell domain names to Internet users like you and me. Suppose a democracy activist wants to register domain names like downwithchina.com. If China had a say in ICANN affairs, it could push to have such domain names prohibited.
Even the United States has flirted with this temptation. The Commerce Department recently urged ICANN to rethink a plan to create an Internet domain exclusively for pornographers. To be sure, the US request was just that: ICANN may still approve the domain. But the move set off alarm bells with Internet activists worldwide. Up till now, America has scrupulously avoided any hint of political manipulation of the Internet. This is no time to start. But a critical letter from the United States is nothing next to the arm-twisting and log-rolling that will result when politicians worldwide are given a say.
Then there's the prospect of an international Internet tax, with money going to fund technology development in developing countries. The UN has been pushing this idea since 1999. A UN-controlled ICANN might dramatically jack up the cost of Internet addresses in affluent countries like the United States to raise money for its development fund. And Americans would have little say over how this money is spent.
Some Bush administration critics warn that a refusal to bend will cause other countries to set up their own separate versions of the Internet, thus creating a fragmented, unreliable global data network. So what? Say China sets up its own Internet. If it doesn't connect to the ''real" Internet, it's useless. If it does connect to the ''real" Internet, who cares?
ICANN has its share of sensible critics, who say it works too slowly and hasn't provided enough Internet addresses for developing countries. Still, there's nothing wrong with the current system that the UN can repair. So here's hoping the Bush administration stands firm in defense of a tax-free, censorship-free, politics-free Internet. Much of the ''international community" will despise America no matter what we do. So we might as well do right.
Hiawatha Bray can be reached at bray@globe.com. 
