World Wide Web of Bureaucrats Kleptocrats

Two free market think tankers analyze the catastrophe that would ensue if the UN gains any kind of control over Internet in The Wall Street Journal (requires subscription; Sunday update–free OpinionJournal link is here, subtitled “Keep Your UN Off My Internet”):

Nevertheless the “U.N. for the Internet” crowd say they want to “resolve” who should have authority over Internet traffic and domain-name management; how to close the global “digital divide”; and how to “harness the potential of information” for the world’s impoverished. Also on the table: how much protection free speech and expression should receive online.

While WSIS conferees have agreed to retain language enshrining free speech (despite the disapproval of countries that clearly oppose it) this is not a battle we’ve comfortably won. Some of the countries clamoring for regulation under the auspices of the U.N. — such as China and Iran — are among the most egregious violators of human rights.

Meanwhile, regulators across the globe have long lobbied for greater control over Internet commerce and content. A French court has attempted to force Yahoo! to block the sale of offensive Nazi materials to French citizens. An Australian court has ruled that the online edition of Barron’s (published by Dow Jones, parent company of this newspaper), could be subjected to Aussie libel laws — which, following the British example, is much more intolerant of free speech than our own law. Chinese officials — with examples too numerous for this space — continue to seek to censor Internet search engines.

The implications for online commerce are profound. The moment one puts up a Web site, one has “gone global” — perhaps even automatically subjected oneself to the laws of every country on the planet.

A global Internet regulatory state could mean that We Are the World — on speech and libel laws, sales taxes, privacy policies, antitrust statutes and intellectual property. How then would a Web site operator or even a blogger know how to act or do business? Compliance with some 190 legal codes would be confusing, costly and technically possible for all but the most well-heeled firms. The safest option would be to conform online speech or commercial activities to the most restrictive laws to ensure global compliance. If you like the idea of Robert Mugabe setting legal standards for everyone, then WSIS is for you.

So what’s their suggestion?

….. We favor the non-regulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the “country of origin.” Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of “consent of the governed” online. It would also give companies and consumers a “release valve” or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression.

The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.

The authors don’t mention the very real possibility that UN control of the Internet could lead to something UN lovers see as their Holy Grail: the ability to collect taxes, in this case on e-commerce and communications, or perhaps on domain name registration. Anyone who believes in national sovreignty must realize that this cannot be allowed.
__________________________

UPDATE: From Instapundit–“Given Kofi Annan’s efforts to suppress books critical of his operations, as well as such past crimes as the “New International Information Order,” I don’t trust the U.N. with the Internet at all.”

UPDATE 2: A previously plugged post from Atlas Shrugs deserves another plug, especially since commenter Tyranno also picks up on the “UN Tax” angle.

UPDATE 3: Roger Simon thinks “World Wide Web of Criminals” would have been a better title. A Simon commenter warns that “Somebody in the Pentagon needs to make a note that retaining control of the internet should be a key national security objective. And this needs to be widely circulated in the government. Congress should adopt a resolution telling the autocrats to shove it.
__________________________

Previous Posts:
- July 5–US Retains Control of Internet Directory: AP Has Hissy Fit
- September 29–Internet Control Stays in the US (I should think so)
- October 3–The Whining About “Control” of the Internet Continues (Plus the “Gobbled Up” Internet Addresses Canard)
- October 7–This Had Better Not Be True (US to Give Up “Root Server Control” of the Internet?)