[governance] interesting interview with Larry Lessig on IG

[Veni Markovski]

www.isoc.bg/ig - Resources and Links (also thanks to Darius Cuplinkas):


Seven Questions: Battling for Control of the Internet
Should the United Nations control the Internet? 
That▓s the subject of a heated debate slated to 
take place at the World Summit on the Information 
Society in Tunis later this month. The European 
Union is pressing for a U.N. role in governing 
the Internet, which is currently in the hands of 
a U.S. nonprofit. Lawrence Lessig breaks down the debate and offers his views.

FOREIGN POLICY: What is causing the rift between 
the United States and Europe over control of the 
Internet and what do you think will be the outcome of the summit in Tunis?
Lawrence Lessig: The largest cause of this rift 
is European distrust of the United States. It▓s 
not particularly related to the Internet. The 
Europeans are eager to stand up to the Americans, 
and that I think has been produced by the last 
five years of U.S. foreign policy. It▓s not really a cyberlaw problem.
 From what we know right now, three different 
things could happen [at Tunis]. The Europeans 
could get it together and actually invoke the 
authority to exercise control over Internet 
governance, displacing the [Internet Corporation 
for Assigned Names and Numbers, or] ICANN 
position. The Americans could find a way to buy 
them off. Or, there could be a stalemate. But 
what▓s interesting is, in 1998, there was no 
question of the Europeans taking over because 
there wasn▓t the level of skepticism of the U.S. 
government, even though there was a lot of skepticism about ICANN at the time.

FP: The EU and several countries say that their 
⌠nuclear option■ would be to set up a rival 
ICANN, resulting in two standards for the 
Internet. Do you think that▓s a realistic scenario?
LL: Let▓s talk about what that would mean. Right 
now, there is a limited number of root servers 
that point to the primary root server from which 
you get propagation for everything in your 
general top-level domain (TLD). So there▓s a .com 
server that serves 13 other servers that then 
propagate all changes in the .com name. And the 
same thing is [true] for every other TLD╜.org, .ing, [.edu, etc.]
 From the beginning, people have talked about 
building an Internet that wouldn▓t depend upon 
the TLD hierarchy. It doesn▓t mean there would be 
two or three Internets, but that you would have a 
domain name system that wouldn▓t depend upon 
hierarchical naming. As long as there▓s 
coordination across hierarchies about ownership 
of domain names, you wouldn▓t necessarily produce 
any destructive results. One could query a 
hierarchy for the answer to the question ⌠Who 
owns Lessig.com?■ and then ask another hierarchy 
if we don▓t get an answer from the first one. So 
it is possible for different systems to evolve 
that would allow the Europeans to control one 
part and the Americans to control another without 
destroying the ability of the Internet to 
continue to function the way it does now.
What people are afraid of is that there will be a 
split within the single hierarchical system which 
would result in two different populations of the 
dot-com domain name system existing out there. 
Then there would be a real conflict. My view is 
that if in fact there is a separation like that, 
there are a lot of incentives for these two 
separate roots to figure out a way to coexist. 
There would be lots of anger [when] you realize 
that you▓re not getting the IBM.com you expected. 
But there▓s no reason why you couldn▓t have multiple root systems.

FP: Some say a shift away from ICANN would 
empower countries such as North Korea, China, and 
Iran to censor or control the Internet. Is that an accurate criticism?
LL: The ability to facilitate censorship is 
independent of the question of who owns the 
roots. Say we have the system we have now and 
China wants to censor it. It builds a list of IP 
addresses it won▓t serve content to or won▓t 
allow to be shown on its servers, and then it 
basically uses that list to filter all IP packets 
that come across the Chinese network. If the 
world had two roots, one China-controlled and one 
U.S.-controlled, then it would be one step 
simpler for China to censor because it could 
filter its own root. But it would still have to 
do the same things it does now with regard to the 
U.S. root content. The technology you▓re using to 
censor is not necessarily tied to the architecture of the root name.

FP: Do you see international governance of the 
Internet having an impact on the free flow of ideas and commerce on the Web?
LL: I▓ve been a critic of ICANN for a long time, 
especially in its early stages. But I think what 
it▓s trying to do now is pretty close to what it 
ought to be doing, which is just trying to serve 
technical functions in the narrowest possible 
way. They▓ve resisted a lot of policy work that they could have been doing.
Right now, I hope that ICANN continues to 
exercise control. It▓s not because I have any 
affection for the U.S. government▓s control over 
ICANN, but because I think that they▓ve developed 
an internal norm about making as light a 
regulatory footprint as they can. I would be 
worried about transferring authority because I 
think that some other body coming in might 
imagine it can use its power over the domain 
names to try to regulate all sorts of policy 
objectives. We▓d all be worse off if that happened.

FP: Are the biggest challenges and questions that 
face the Internet right now essentially social 
and political, or are they more technological?
LL: I don▓t think there▓s an ⌠or.■ The 
fundamental point I▓ve conveyed in my writing and 
teaching╜apparently no policymaker has yet 
learned this╜is that policy is a function of 
technology. You can▓t do policymaking in 
cyberspace without thinking about the interaction 
between technology and policy. It▓s as ridiculous 
to be a policymaker and believe that you can make 
policy without thinking about the technology as 
it is to be chairman of the Federal Trade 
Commission and think that you can talk about 
competition policy without thinking about the 
economic consequences of the rules you impose. A 
smart policymaker asks, ⌠What technology will my 
policy produce?■ and ⌠Will the net result of that 
technology in my policy be the policy result I want?■

FP: Are there any decisions that will be taken at 
the summit in Tunis that you see as being 
overshadowed by the EU-United States conflict?
LL: I question whether the [summit] is 
considering all the issues it needs to be. I was 
a speaker at one of the preparatory committees 
and, before my speech, I was asked about what I 
was going to talk about. I said I was going to 
talk about the need for balanced intellectual 
property rules in order to produce the best 
information society [possible]. The chairman of 
my session said I was not allowed to talk about 
intellectual property. She said that▓s a problem 
for the World Intellectual Property Organization. 
It was ridiculous. It revealed a way in which the 
deal was struck to establish the World Summit on 
the Information Society, which was as long as you 
don▓t touch intellectual property you can talk 
about whatever you want. The insane thing about 
that position is that there▓s no way to strike 
the right balance unless you consider 
intellectual property. [For example,] database 
rights are going to fundamentally affect the 
future of the information society. The question 
remains whether the [summit] will be allowed to 
develop any coherent policy position about the 
proper balance for intellectual property. My 
skepticism suggests that they won▓t. This issue 
will be negotiated off the table by those who 
want to keep control over that policy.

FP: What impact, if any, will recent changes to 
the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court╜Roberts and 
possibly Alito╜have on information technology, 
intellectual property, and the Internet?
LL: No idea. I don▓t know anything about Alito▓s 
views about technology. I don▓t think he▓s ever 
said anything interesting about it. I think 
Roberts, just based on the kind of work that 
Jeffrey Rosen did in his recent New York Times 
piece, will be smart and eager to understand and 
do the right thing. But I don▓t think we have any 
good information about how they think about these issues.

Lawrence Lessig is professor of law at Stanford 
Law School and a columnist for Wired magazine.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051110/67932715/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance