Annan Fudges the Facts about U.N. Control of the Internet

Once, in a fit of spontaneous candor, President Reagan famously declared, “Facts are stubborn things.”

Well, that may be true if you’re an ordinary citizen or even if you’re the President of the United States. But, apparently, if you’re the Secretary General of the United Nations, facts no longer need be stubborn at all.

Consider, as an example, a recent opinion column, penned by Secretary General Kofi Annan, that appeared in the Washington Post. The column was written to reassure Americans ― and, given its venue, anxious members of the U.S. government ― that the world body’s motives for holding the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society are as pure as snow.

The Secretary General’s central point is helpfully presented in the second paragraph:

“One mistaken notion is that the United Nations wants to ‘take over,’ police or otherwise control the Internet. Nothing could be farther from the truth.”

The piece goes on to make a series of misleading statements that are belied by the facts and common sense.

Let’s start with the headline: “The U.N. Isn’t a Threat to the Net.” The untruth of that assertion is so laughably obvious that it’s hard to believe anyone could take it seriously.

Of course the U.N. is a threat to the Internet. Major forces within the U.N. ― especially China ― would very much like the world body to take charge. Here’s the statement of the Chinese representative: “We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework … For instance, spam, network security and cyberspace ― we should look for an appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent body.” China, like many of the other governments that argue for U.N. control, made clear that, in least in part, they are motivated by a desire to restrict content.

More broadly, the U.N. is increasingly a threat to itself and others. If it were a person, it would have long since been institutionalized to protect society. It has presided over the largest financial scandal in world history and the most disgusting pedophilia ring in memory. The catalogue of corruption and failure is so long that it’s impossible to even summarize it here. But in short, the world body is a major and direct threat to anything it involves itself in.

So let’s turn to some of the specifics in Annan’s column. (Because Annan focused primarily on Internet governance, you might want to learn more about the issue and some of the terminology by reading “Just Say No to U.N. Control of the Internet.”)

The Secretary General spends most of his column inches, after asserting that the U.N. has no interest in the Internet, trying to distract us from that central point. Instead, he endeavors to explain why many nations are pushing the world body to seize control. His major thrust is that, because of the importance of the Internet for developing nations, “efforts to make the governance arrangements more international should continue.”

Finally, Annan offers a handful of specifics to support his claim that the world body isn’t interested in taking over the Internet. And here, his attempt at deception truly manifests itself.

First, he explains that the proposals for the U.N. to take control of Internet governance were all offered by the Working Group of Internet Governance (WGIG), which “presented its findings in a report that reflects the view of its members, but not the United Nations.”

Uh huh.

The very first paragraph of the report in question helpfully provides the truth: “This report has been produced by the [WGIG], which was set up by the Secretary-General of the United Nations…” So, after establishing the WGIG, the U.N. is now going to disregard its findings? Not a chance. After all, the U.N. almost never speaks for itself. It’s a membership organization. It does what its members want. And what do its members want to do with the Internet?

Here’s what Annan says:

The group … offered several options for oversight arrangements, with varying degrees of government involvement and relationship to the United Nations. None says that the United Nations should take over from the technical bodies now running the Internet; none proposes to create a new U.N. agency; and some suggest no U.N. role at all.

Not so much.

Prior to the section which presents “several options for oversight arrangements,” the WGIG outlined a consensus recommendation that an international “forum” be established. “The forum should preferably be linked to the United Nations…” Three paragraphs later, the WGIG outlines its consensus findings on Internet governance:

• No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance.
• The organizational form for the governance function will be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of Governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.
• The organizational form for the governance function will involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations within their respective roles.

So, just to be clear, the U.N.’s WGIG recommended a new international forum “to address Internet-related public policy issues” to be affiliated with the U.N. Then, the WGIG suggested that Internet governance not be allowed to continue under the control of a “single Government.” Of course, that’s a swipe at the United States, where the private organization that oversees Internet governance is now headquartered.

As to Annan’s suggestion that none of WGIG’s recommendations suggest the U.N. take custody of the technical aspects of Internet operations, that’s just plain false. Currently, the “technical aspects” are handled by a private company called ICANN which operates under a contract from the U.S. Department of Commerce. The first of WGIG’s “several options” for Internet governments suggests that creation of a Global Internet Council. “The GIC should be anchored in the United Nations,” the recommendation says. And further,

The relationship between the GIC and technical and operational Internet institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, should be formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. [Emphasis added.]

Later, the third model suggests establishing an “International Internet Council (IIC)” to have the “pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance.” It goes on to suggest that the IIC would oversee ICANN.

The final model is even more forthright. It recommends creating the World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number (WICANN) “linked to the United Nations.” In this body, governments will have an “oversight function.”

Only one of the four models for Internet governance advanced by the U.N.’s WGIG suggests that “There is no need for a specific [international] oversight organization.”

The bottom line: Annan’s specifics are as misleading as his general point.

Not surprisingly, his conclusion strays from the truth as well. Annan writes: “Everyone acknowledges the need for more international participation in discussions of Internet governance.”

There are countless organizations, here in the United States and abroad, who have vehemently rejected suggestion that more “international participation” in Internet governance is necessary. These include groups like CFIF that are dedicated to freedom, as well as more technically focused organizations. Even the major technology companies recognize the danger of U.N. involvement and have spoken out strongly against such suggestions.

Sadly, the U.N.’s attempt to wrest control of the Internet springs from an organizational philosophy that has long since proven a failure. Specifically, the U.N. remains strangely committed to the idea that a bureaucratic, top-down approach can “enrich and empower all people.” Among many other things, the Internet itself has proven this theory to be false. Indeed, the Internet has shown that simply allowing individuals to communicate freely with each other is the best route to freedom and prosperity.