Last week, Sao Paolo, Brazil, hosted an international conference on “Internet governance”, attended by government officials from Brazil, Argentina, France, Ghana, Germany, India, Indonesia, South Africa, South Korea, Tunisia, Turkey and the US, as well as by representatives from dozens of companies and NGOs, academics and technical experts. A total of some 800 people participated in the two-day conference the purpose of which was to set into motion the process of establishing a framework of “global” rules for the internet, much in the manner of the WTO for commerce, the IMF for finance and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for aviation. In such realms of activity, there is a universally recognised need for all nations to adhere to certain rules and conventions for the very simple reason that, in today's world, however zealously they champion their sovereign rights, they can not be the sole actors on matters that concern numerous and diverse nations and stakeholders. Certainly, this matter can no longer be left solely to the US that has shown that it did not have the safest hands in which to entrust the Internet. There are two sides to this question. The first is that never before in history had there been an invention the use of which would spread to billions of people around the world in the space of a quarter of a century. It would be no exaggeration to say that the “Internet world”, or “NETmundial”, has changed history and the ways people interact more than any previous invention from the railway to the airplane or any other invention that might come to mind. The second is that “the stronger” and “more skilful” can penetrate this vast network using various types of technology. Moreover, it can use such technologies to eavesdrop, violate personal privacy, tap industrial secrets and even jeopardise the national security of nations. All stakeholders in the network are not equal. Nor do they always use it for the purposes of promoting peace, human dignity and social justice. Edward Snowdon opened the world's eyes to the Internet's violated chastity and innocence when, after fleeing to Russia, he exposed the NSA (National Security Agency) spying and information trawling system that drew no distinction between ordinary citizens in the US and elsewhere, businessmen, army generals, leaders of international crime rings, and world heads of state. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was so furious when Wikileaks broadcast her private electronic correspondence that she cancelled a previously scheduled trip to the US. Subsequently, addressing the world from the podium of UN General Assembly, not only did she denounce the Internet spying activities of US intelligence agencies, she also appealed to the international community to take the vital steps necessary to safeguard the Internet against abuses by any party. The question of Internet safety does not concern a particular country, nationality or even language. It concerns the international internet citizen — the “netizen” — and his/her ability to transmit messages, pictures, statistics, videos and knowledge and information to others at the speed of light, thereby expanding the realms of human freedom, choice and expression. But, with Snowdon's revelations, it turns out that all of this is threatened. The world is divided into nations. Every nation asserts rights to sovereignty that is absolute authority over a national territory. Governments may willingly forego an element of this sovereignty in the pursuit of common benefits and interests. With respect to the “sovereignty” of the “netizen”, all unwarranted assault against his/her communicative freedoms (through eavesdropping or other such means) wreaks attrition on the substance of the notions of freedom and democracy. Using its “PRISM” project, the US could spy on the entire world. This posed an unsustainable threat to human progress which is why the Sao Paolo “NETmundial” conference was held. But explaining the problem is one thing, solving it another. There are some countries out there that are thirsting to turn the Internet and all its social networking derivatives into a purely sovereign matter that concerns them alone or, in other words, that can be incorporated into that realm over which these governments have absolute power. Generally, this is the direction in which dictatorial governments are pushing. The opposite point of view was perhaps expressed by Ismail Serageddin, director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina and former vice-president of the World Bank, in a paper entitled, “Don't Mess with (Im)perfection.” Perfection is a property that belongs to God alone, whereas all laws, systems and inventions created by man are, inherently imperfect, he argued. Human beings are constantly striving for perfection and if, in the course of addressing one flaw or deficiency, they generate another, this inspires them to overcome that one as well. The Internet was no exception. Like any other human activity or system it has aspects or features that can become weak points and deficiencies when used, for example, for the purposes of slander, spying or disseminating pornographic films. Such phenomena were part of the Internet ecosystem he said, and he cautioned that tampering with a vast ecosystem such as this carries with it the risk of causing the collapse of the entire ecosystem or severe losses of some of its benefits. Indeed, imagine the world today without the Internet. What would human life be like? How would people interact and communicate in their factories, schools and institutions. How would they undertake the processes of production, consumption, distribution and the dissemination and exchange of human values and cultures, inclusive of those aspects that are the most noble to those that are the most banal. Is it possible to create a framework for the Internet to safeguard it against foul play, which was the aim of those who assembled in Brazil? Will the US forego the spying programme it conducted under the auspices of the NSA? It was reported that 187 proposals were submitted to the conference. It is impossible to say, at this juncture, what direction will be taken. Will we see something similar to what occurred after World War II: the creation of a UN framework which gave the powers of war and peace to the Security Council in which only five nations had the right to “veto”? Will there arise a situation in which certain technologically advanced nations will have prerogatives not available to others? One could not help but to be struck by the fact that the Brazilian president organised this conference in cooperation with ICANN, the organisation that assigns names and numbers to Internet users (such as .org, .com, .gov, etc). Although this organisation states that it is an independent international corporation, we cannot ignore the fact that it is based in California. In all events, the doors to discussion and exploration have been opened. Another conference has been scheduled for the autumn. Also, throughout the world forums and workshops will be held and books and studies will be written and published, as has always been the case with global issues in which the various practical and moral dimensions grew more complex and intertwined. What is certain is that the Internet has become a reality that is impossible to do away with. It evolved from huge computers to personal laptops to tiny chips in a hand-held phone that can send and receive messages. Human ingenuity continues its pursuit for perfection and perhaps in this pursuit resides the solution to mankind's great dilemmas.
