From: Mustafa Akgul (akgul@Bilkent.EDU.TR)
Date: Sun 06 Nov 2005 - 13:39:59 EST
Tunus'ta 16-18 kasimda yapilacak Dunya Bilgi Toplumu Zirvesi
amaclarini aciklayan bugunku Washington Post yazisi
Saygilar
Mustafa Akgul
--------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110401431.html
washingtonpost.com
The U.N. Isn't a Threat to the Net
By Kofi A. Annan
Saturday, November 5, 2005; A19
The main objective of the World Summit on the Information Society
to be held this month in Tunisia is to ensure that poor countries
get the full benefits that new information and communication
technologies -- including the Internet -- can bring to economic
and social development. But as the meeting draws nearer, there is
a growing chorus of misinformation about it.
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 United Nations wants only to ensure
the Internet's global reach, and that effort is at the heart of
this summit.
Strong feelings about protecting the Internet are to be expected.
In its short life, the Internet has become an agent of
revolutionary change in health, education, journalism and
politics, among other areas. In the United Nations' own work for
development, we have glimpsed only the beginning of the benefits
it can provide: for victims of disaster, quicker,
better-coordinated relief; for poor people in remote areas,
lifesaving medical information; and, for people trapped under
repressive governments, access to uncensored information as well
as an outlet to air their grievances and appeal for help.
There are also legitimate concerns about the use of the Internet
to incite terrorism or help terrorists, disseminate pornography,
facilitate illegal activities or glorify Nazism and other hateful
ideologies. But censoring cyberspace, compromising its technical
underpinnings or submitting it to stringent governmental
oversight would mean turning our backs on one of today's greatest
instruments of progress. To defend the Internet is to defend
freedom itself.
Governance of matters related to the Internet, such as spam and
cybercrime, is being dealt with in a dispersed and fragmented
manner, while the Internet's infrastructure has been managed in
an informal but effective collaboration among private businesses,
civil society and the academic and technical communities. But
developing countries find it difficult to follow all these
processes and feel left out of Internet governance structures.
The United States deserves our thanks for having developed the
Internet and made it available to the world. For historical
reasons, the United States has the ultimate authority over some
of the Internet's core resources. It is an authority that many
say should be shared with the international community. The United
States, which has exercised its oversight responsibilities fairly
and honorably, recognizes that other governments have legitimate
public policy and sovereignty concerns, and that efforts to make
the governance arrangements more international should continue.
The need for change is a reflection of the future, when Internet
growth will be most dramatic in developing countries. What we are
seeing is the beginning of a dialogue between two different
cultures: the nongovernmental Internet community, with its
traditions of informal, bottom-up decision making, and the more
formal, structured world of governments and intergovernmental
organizations.
The Internet has become so important for almost every country's
economy and administration that it would be naive to expect
governments not to take an interest, especially since public
service applications in areas such as education and health care
will become even more widespread. They need to be able to get
their Internet policies "right," and to coordinate with each
other and with the Internet community. But governments alone
cannot set the rules. They must learn to work with non-state
stakeholders. They, after all, are the ones that have played
critical roles in building and coordinating the Internet, and
they will remain the driving force of further expansion and
innovation.
At the summit two years ago in Geneva, discussions on Internet
governance reached a stalemate. So the U.N. member states asked
me to establish a group to examine the issue further. This
Working Group on Internet Governance presented its findings in a
report that reflects the views of its members, but not of the
United Nations. It proposed creation of a "new space for
dialogue" -- a forum that would bring all stakeholders together
to share information and best practices and discuss difficult
issues, but that would not have decision-making power.
The group also 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. All say that the day-to-day
management of the Internet should be left to technical
institutions, not least to shield it from the heat of day-to-day
politics. These and other suggestions are being considered by
U.N. member states.
Everyone acknowledges the need for more international
participation in discussions of Internet governance. The
disagreement is over how to achieve it. So let's set aside fears
of U.N. "designs" on the Internet. Much as some would like to
open up another front of attack on the United Nations, this dog
of an argument won't bark. I urge all stakeholders to come to
Tunis ready to bridge the digital divide and ready to build an
open, inclusive information society that enriches and empowers
all people.
The writer is secretary general of the United Nations.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
