Who Rules the Web?

The following editorial comes courtesy today's newsletter from Info Economy.

<<<

Who rules the web? "No-one", answer some. "Google", say others. "The US", say a growing group of nations around the world - who are set on doing something about it.

At next month's World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the European Union, backed by many other countries, is seeking to take formal 'control' of the Internet away from the US and give it to the United Nations.

The proposal has US bloggers and columnists fuming, even if the US government itself seems untroubled: it has simply said it will not happen.

In practice, it is not clear what the move would mean. Certainly domain name registration, IP addressing and the overall routing architecture remain under US control. But apart from that, the US has little more power over the Internet than any other nation - except by dint of the many privately owned US companies who contribute so much. In fact, the Internet is largely privately owned, and control points are deliberately and effectively distributed - in accordance with the original US military design back in the 1960s.

At first sight, the moves by the WSIS seem laudable: they want to close the digital divide, enshrine free speech, and attempt to secure some consistency over electronic trade. For example, it might be possible to legislate on where taxes should be paid, or on what rights governments have to tap digital conversations.

But there are several problems with this approach. On most matters - say, libel, or freedom of speech - there is a huge gulf between any governing body's ability to legislate over these matters, and their power to actually impose these on the ground. The task of bringing centrally controlled electronic order to some 190 countries, with their plethora of laws about tax, trade, freedom of speech, surveillance, privacy and copyright is beyond the ability of the UN in its current form.

And where would the UN's new responsibilities lie? Trade, for example, is already handled by the WTO, by parts of the UN itself, and by various multilateral or bilateral agreements. It is doubtful where any new controlling bodies could add much. The same is true in many other areas, whether it is privacy, or intellectual property, or even high level electronic trading formats.

Meanwhile, the US has not - so far - used its limited powers in order to use the Internet as an economic weapon (by denying access, for example), and it is unlikely that it would get away with it at the UN if it tried.

The UN has many big problems, and at the moment, the Internet is not one of them. For the time being, at least, it should leave the Internet alone - as unregulated and privately led as it can possibly be. Where deeper problems exist, these should be dealt with by the governments concerned.

>>>

On Friday I got dragged along to the Ideal Home exhibition in London to look at mass-produced interior design. Very boring. However, I got an hour or so to myself at the end and took a look at gadgets and Xmas gifts. So here's an unashamed plug for something that really caught my eye.

It's a game called "Cirondo" and it combines some of the more basic moves of Chess with a new circular playing board. Strategy is in theory simpler than Chess, but the reality is far more complex with the mind being challeged by this new, less-linear environment. For example, diiagonal moves which take place in a straight line on the traditional chessboard, here move along a spiralling sphere with obstacles far from obvious.

The game sells for around £30 but the really good news is that you can play it online for free. Go HERE and expect to stay a good many hours.

Later.