Countries supporting a shift in ICANN’s powers provide several major reasons for the recent demand. ICANN maintains control over country code domains, and therefore could shut down another country’s domain system at its discretion (Geist). The chances of the US taking such a major action, however, are minimal, and placing the power in the UN’s hands could backfire. The UN would possess a means of holding any major country “hostage,” and could even threaten the United States the next time it declares war on a Middle Eastern country without UN approval. Although the latter event is also unlikely, the power shift would be yet another step – a very major step- for France and other countries around the world to balance America’s power. I do not support a US world domination, but I believe the US should maintain its internet power to compensate for its deteriorating economic power as well. Since Mr. Bush took office, “the value of the dollar has plunged 46% in terms of the metal that is the greatest store of value” (The Bush Dollar). Economics is also a reason used by proponents of delegating the power of the internet.

As UN Secretary Kofi Annan said referring to the issue, “The hurdle is more political than financial” (Cornwell). A major initiative has been taken up to narrow the “digital divide” that prevents people of lower economic status from obtaining internet access. The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) currently works towards it goal of providing internet access world-wide by 2015. Several countries challenged the US though by threatening not to attend because of the ICANN debate (Cornwell). While I believe it is important to bring the information super highway to the entire world, it can be accomplished without the US relinquishing ICANN. The UN can handle providing computer equipment and money to help developing countries increase their internet access per capita. Such an undertaking does not require the control of the DNS. I recognize the minimal access in parts of the world, as illustrated by the following map:

http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/mids_intrworld9901_small.gif∞
(Quarterman)

ICANN, as a non-profit business, could offer a no interest loan to countries and businesses that could expand networks in countries where the internet is starting to emerge. The internet’s development around the world also raises a third highly voiced issue- the English language’s domination of the internet.

The UN Working Group on Internet Governance stated in a recent report the need for, “respect for cultural and linguistic diversity… [and] multilingual, diverse and culturally appropriate content” (No to Dictators.org). Once again, while it is an issue that needs to be addressed, it should be individual countries and their people who take the initiative to post content in languages other than English. The responsibilities of ICANN do not include language, and UN control of ICANN shall not further effort to break the language barrier. Additionally, an international body using ICANN to break the language barrier could lead to consequences such as censorship, especially when language is spoken in same sentence as culture.