ÒAnd the Answer to Internet Governance is ÉÓ
The Struggle Over Internet Governance: Searching
For Common Ground
By Kenneth Neil Cukier
Technology Correspondent, The Economist
Good evening. Let me first
thank Bill Dutton, Christian Ahlert and everyone else at the Oxford Internet
Institute, as well as John Palfrey and Mary Rundle of Harvard Law SchoolÕs
Berkman Center for Internet & Society, for their work in putting together
such an excellent event. The area of Internet governance is well-served by
these forums that bring people together to consider fresh approaches to the
difficult questions before us.
I am in a precarious position
to address you now. As an American congressman once remarked during a
particularly long hearing on Capitol Hill: ÒEverything has been said -- but not
everyone has had a chance to say it!Ó
Instead of commenting on what
tonightÕs speakers have said, IÕd like to do something different. IÕd like to
tell three stories. They are simple stories -- true stories -- about Internet
governance. I am certain that (with one or two exceptions) no one in the room
has ever heard the stories before.
A journalist is sometimes
bound by confidentially. But I feel confident that the people concerned wonÕt
object that these stories are now made public. (In fact, I am in the fortunate
position that in only one of the three cases, is a person in a story with us
here tonight -- to attest to my veracity!)
The first story, I call:
ÒSnickering in the Cabinet.Ó
The second story is called:
ÒThe Giggle Test.Ó
And the third story is called
ÒPink Elephants.Ó
Each story tells a different
lesson. But they all lead to one moral -- and it is nothing less than the
answer to the issue of Internet governance. So I propose to conclude my remarks
by giving you the answer to Internet governance.
I.
The first story: ÒSnickering
in the Cabinet.Ó
Everyone knows that in 1998
when ICANN was being created by Internet stakeholders -- involving the private
sector, the technical community and some, though certainly not all, governments
-- it was due to the direct coordination of Ira Magaziner in the White House.
He set up the Green Paper process in 1997 that solicited thousands of views
from around the world via the Internet, which later became the White Paper, and
culminated in ICANN.
But no one knows how Ira got
involved with Internet governance in the first place -- it is one of the
mysteries of American politicsÉ. How did that happen?
We know that Ira had
initially managed President ClintonÕs health care initiative that got torpedoed
quickly and nastily. Ira was bludgeoned by Republicans in Congress, and even
sued for how he described he composition of his task force! We know that Ira
previously had a successful career as an international management consultant,
and his intellectual prowess is legendary.
Yet by 1998, he was setting
in motion the process that would lead to ICANN. How did that happen? The story
is this:
In 1994, as the health care
plan was in tatters and abandoned on political grounds, President Clinton
called Ira into the Oval Office and basically said: ÒIra, this is killing me!Ó
Ira was told to lie low.
Now, of course, Bill and Ira
are good friends -- a friendship that was forged, appropriately enough, here at
Oxford, where both were Rhodes Scholars in the early 1970s. And Ira was particularly
good friends with Hillary. So he wasnÕt jettisoned. He was told to go find a
new issue -- anything he liked -- so long as it was: 1. non-controversial, and
2. out of the media spotlight.
(OK. So you can see where
this is heading!)
It is 1995, and Ira is
looking around at what are the interesting, emerging issues that he can turn
his talents towards. And being the foresighted person that he is, he spots
data-networking among small- and medium-sized businesses. It seems dry, and
very few people, especially in government, are thinking about it. But Ira is
convinced it is important.
Ira briefs the president
about the idea, and as is BillÕs way, he gets all excited. He invites Ira to
address the cabinet. So now Ira is at a cabinet meeting and explaining the
policy initiative he has decided to take on. Keep in mind that in 1995, to say
you are working on data-communications among small businesses -- especially
after trying to reform AmericaÕs health care system -- sounds something like a
joke.
And in IraÕs telling of the
story, as he is talking, he can hear a palpable sigh of relief fall over the
PresidentÕs cabinet; theyÕre sitting around the table thinking: ÒThank God!
WeÕll never hear from him again! Perfect!Ó And, in truth, there is a slight
wisp of snickering, too -- barely audible laughter under some peopleÕs breath.
It is, we can empathize, a bit humiliatingÉ.
Of course, we all know how
the story ends. Basically, this dry, unsexy and unimportant dossier is the
Internet, right before it emerges as the central engine of economic growth in
the United States and worldwide. Ira will end up leading the federal
governmentÕs policy on Internet matters. And ironically, far from steering
clear of controversy and staying out of the public eye, Ira ultimately will be
responsible for establishing the framework of global Internet governance!
The lesson is this: you canÕt
predict the future -- we just never know how things will unfold. Especially
with the Internet, which is inherently unpredictable.
II.
The second story is ÒThe
Giggle Test.Ó It goes like this:
There was a phrase used by
American officials overseeing ICANN between 1998 to 2000. They didnÕt use it
publicly, but occasionally it would crop up in conversations, and it was often
used internally. It was something called The Giggle Test.
And what was The Giggle Test?
It went like this: If you can say ÒIt is only a technical coordination bodyÓ to
describe ICANN and the issue of domain name system management, and not break
into peels of laughter because of the obvious ridiculousness of what you just
said -- well, then you successfully passed The Giggle Test.
The lesson of the story is
that US officials knew from early on that these issues were not simply
technical in nature, but effected broader issues of society, economics and
public policy.
But there was a feeling that
in the short-term, these wider issues needed time to mature and be recognized
by others. And as that happened, what was most important was for the technical
aspects of the Internet to be placed in a stable environment, to ensure the
stability and reliability of the infrastructure. And so, the creation of ICANN,
and so, The Giggle Test.
This is not to say that what
was right for 1998 should be right for all time -- far from it. No one thought
that then, and no one suggests that now. But the lesson of The Giggle Test is
that these issues were acknowledged from the outset to pose big questions that
didnÕt have easy solutions.
III.
The third and final story is
called ÒPink Elephants.Ó
Around 1960, Vint Cerf and
Steve Crocker, both among the original group of engineers who created the
Internet, were in high school together in Los Angeles -- and we are fortunate
to have Steve with us here tonight. At the time, they wanted to create a math
team to compete against other high schools. There was only one thing they
needed to do: they had to write a constitution for the club, and submit it to
the principle.
This being high school, the
math club was open to all, and some other kids were interested in the club,
too. As these things sometimes go, they took the writing of the constitution
seriously. Very seriously. Over the course of the school year, after-school
debates would rage about the wording of the preamble, the provisions of the bylaws,
and every detail that you might imagine -- or, probably never imagine -- about
a high school math clubÕs constitution.
An entire school year passed,
and the math club never formed, never competed once, because the constitution
was never submitted to the principle. Vint and Steve were deeply upset about
it. It took an entire year until their persnickety classmates finally agreed on
a math club constitution; an entire year wasted.
A few years later, Steve is
now at university at UCLA, and he is part of a group of kids creating a
computer club. Computers are new, big, bulky, complex machines, and the
creation of a computer club will bring together some smart kids to work
together on important future technology. In this instance, too, they need to
establish a charter for their group with the school. And once again, there are
a few classmates who relish the chance to take something that is fundamentally
strait-forward and make it as complicated and bureaucratic as possible.
But this time, Steve, remembering the experience in high school, is well-prepared to counter it. Before the persnickety people have a chance to totally encumber the process, he strikes: ÒWhat if pink elephants were spotted walking down the hall?!,Ó he asks. ÒThere are no provisions for pink elephants!Ó Instead, he explains, it makes sense to simply address the immediate issues rather than create a document that attempts to foresee and treat every possible eventuality -- and that if pink elephants become a problem, one can tackle the matter then.
The UCLA computer club was
thus born. And I like to think that the Internet and its governance, which
Steve Crocker initiated through writing the first ÒRequest For CommentsÓ
standards document, was fertilized from that experience.
The lesson -- and there are
many, but the one IÕd like to highlight -- is simplicity; to not over-design
things. That it is more important to deal with what is before us than to expend
our effort trying to account for every potential thing.
* * *
I promised at the outset that
these three stories -- ÒSnickering in the Cabinet,Ó ÒThe Giggle Test,Ó and
ÒPink Elephants.Ó -- which have three different lessons, all lead to one moral,
and that the moral is the answer to the issue of Internet governance. I will
tell you what the answer is now.
It is probably not the answer
you want to hear.
The answer is É there is no
answer.
As humans, we like to believe
in order; in our ability to shape the world. And we hold to the notion of
progress. We like to think that each day will be better than the one that
preceded it.
And we like to feel that we
are continually building; that history leads in the direction of betterment.
This is the notion of progress, which we in the West inherited from the
Enlightenment. It is characterized by the ÒAmerican DreamÓ -- though it can be
universalized -- which is an optimism about one generationÕs ability to improve
upon the previous one. Similarly, it is tempting to think that we can
completely resolve the controversies we face.
Yet, when you think about it,
Internet governance is a lot like É governance.
It entails timeless
questions, that we try to answer for our own day. But there are no perfect
solutions, no final answers. We make the mistake believing there are definitive
answers, even as we acknowledge that the question we ultimately struggle with
is ÒWho Guards the GuardiansÓ -- forgetting that the phrase was formulated by
as far back as Plato in ÒThe Republic.Ó And if we still face this question --
today, in the context of Internet governance -- how should we presume that we
can answer it definitively? Rather, it is a conversation across generations and
societies.
We will always be discussing
Internet governance, just as we always debate governance.
The American statesman Henry
Kissinger broached the question of progress and policy early on in his life, in
his doctoral dissertation at Harvard, which is published as a book called ÒThe
World Restored.Ó In it, he took issue with the traditional view of the Congress
of Vienna, that regarded it as a futile attempt by European powers after
Napoleon to turn back the clock of history.
Kissinger revolted against
that view. Think about it: it brought peace to Europe for almost 100 years,
Kissinger noted. How could that possibly be considered a failure?
And so, too, Internet
governance. The best we can hope to achieve is a temporary, fragile harmony in
our own day. And leave that as our legacy for the next generation to carry on.
Thank you.