Recently there have been various stories in international media about
Ethiopia shutting down VOIP Services including Skype, Google Talk etc.
The international press has been awash with stories and scenarios about
how this development in Ethiopia will play out.
Which brings me to the subject of Internet Governance and Freedom from an African
Perspective.
A lot has been said and bandied around about this subject.
So what is Internet Governance & Freedom from a business and layman’s perspective? And why should you care about it? To explain this exhaustively we must go to the beginning. To the rise of the Internet itself as a mass media tool of choice. Most of us may not appreciate this but the fact is that without Government and Private Sector Partnership the Internet as we know it today will not exist.
According to Wikipedia Internet Governance is the development and application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.
We will now examine how the Internet was and is currently governed, some of the controversies that occurred along the way, and the ongoing debates about how the Internet should or should not be governed in the future.
The Internet is a globally distributed network comprising many voluntarily interconnected autonomous networks. It operates without a central governing body. However, to maintain interoperability, all technical and policy aspects of the underlying core infrastructure and the principal namespaces are administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), headquartered in Marina del Rey, California. ICANN oversees the assignment of globally unique identifiers on the Internet, including domain names, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, application port numbers in the transport protocols, and many other parameters. This creates a globally unified namespace that is essential for the global reach of the Internet. ICANN is governed by an international board of directors drawn from across the Internet technical, business, academic, and other non-commercial communities. However, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, continues to have final approval over changes to the Domain Name System (DNS). This authority over the DNS makes ICANN one of a few bodies with global, centralized influence over the otherwise distributed Internet (extract from Wikipedia)
On 16 November 2005, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) held in Tunis, established the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to open an ongoing, non-binding conversation among multiple stakeholders about the future of Internet governance. Since WSIS, the term “Internet Governance” has been broadened beyond narrow technical concerns to include a wider range of Internet-related policy issues.
The current controversies about Internet Governance have its roots to that date. The foundations of this can also be traced way back to 1988 when the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) signed an International Telecommunication Regulation agreement that covered Telephone, Radio and Telex Traffic. The ITU is the specialized agency of the United Nations which is responsible for information and communication technologies. ITU coordinates the shared global use of the radio spectrum, promotes international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, works to improve telecommunication infrastructure in the developing world and establishes worldwide standards) member states signed the first of a series of International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). These agreements have by and large not changed since that day to encompass the new realities of Global Communications and the demise of National Telecoms Monopolies. Here in lies the genesis of the current jostling for control of the internet.
So why now? Why are governments across the world, Non-Governmental Organisations and businesses (from Telcos to pure ISPs to Internet Intermediaries like Google, Facebook & Microsoft) all involved in this intricate dance for Internet Dominance? The answer I am afraid is not a simple one. It is multifaceted and replete with specific interests that suit their specific goals. In other words it is the age old fight for resources, for make no mistake about this – the internet is as important a resource as any that is available for control. For control of the Internet, Governments profess their interests to be one of National Security (it doesn’t matter that sometimes these ‘National Security’ interests are in total disregard to the very citizens that these Governments confess to protect); Telcos want a bigger share of the pie (The fight for Net Neutrality in the US has pitted Google and other internet intermediaries against the big American Telcos fronted by AT&T (see http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101); The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was proposed by the UN in “(t)In order to strengthen the global multistakeholder interaction and cooperation on public policy issues and developmental aspects relating to Internet governance we propose a forum. This forum should not replace existing mechanisms or institutions but should build on the existing structures on Internet governance, should contribute to the sustainability, stability and robustness of the Internet by addressing appropriately public policy issues that are not otherwise being adequately addressed excluding any involvement in the day to day operation of the Internet. It should be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues and make known its findings, to enhance awareness and build consensus and engagement. Recognizing the rapid development of technology and institutions, we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to determine the need for its continuation.”
The IGF is possibly the closest the world has come to in forming a body that is supposed to get stakeholders to talk shop, interact and discuss myriad issues concerning the internet. However what is clear is that it DOES NOT have the mandate of day to day management of the levers and facets that make up the operational framework of the internet. Most of these levers fall under the purview of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
The ‘beef’ of many players worldwide in my opinion is the governance and control of ICANN. According to The Hindu, a daily newspaper in India, (see http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426292.ece). American Hegemony in all things Internet is the major bone of contention and if not addressed will continue to fester within the Internet Community. This article in a nutshell proposes a more balanced mechanism for managing this valuable resource. I have found the reading refreshing and I believe that with a few tweaks here and there Africa should adopt that model and push it with India as our own.
This could be the start of a Non-Aligned Movement in Internet Governance. And this is what we should be pushing.
Oh, and the issue on Ethiopia? The Government has denied that it has banned the use of VOIP despite the fact that there is a bill in the Ethiopian Parliament that is clear on this. This is exactly why we all should be aware of the issues that pertain to Internet Governance. Only then can we be vigilant enough to fight for its freedoms and multi-stakeholder nature.
--Ali Hussein|Managing Partner
Telemedia Africa
Azania Technology Group
Chaka Court, Argwings Kodhek Road
P O Box 14556-00100
Office: +254 737 751409
Cell: +254 773/713 601113
Nairobi, Kenya
Twitter: @AliHKassim
Skype: abu-jomo
"You generally hear that what a man doesn't know doesn't hurt him, but in business what a man doesn't know does hurt.". - E. St. Elmo Lewis, member, Advertising Hall of Fame