Spinning The Web Forward

NEWSWEEK: What8217;s your take on what happened in Tunis?
CERF: Or maybe what didn8217;t happen, in some sense. The boat hasn8217;t destabilised. The situation is still ripe in the sense that the arrangement for a forum for countries to discuss the issues further, which is not fully worked out, at least is on the table. There was a sense among some governments that they weren8217;t participating satisfactorily or adequately from their points of view. I8217;ve encouraged the governmental advisory committee to address this question and try to help ICANN reach out to those countries.

What8217;s at stake here?
What is at stake, in a sense, is a place in the online environment. I think governments recognise how important this is to them economically and sociologically and in every other sense. They want very much to feel they have some say and some stake in how this all evolves. With regard to the technical decision-making that goes on and the specific tasks that ICANN has to do, I think it would be quite detrimental to the Internet8217;s operation were they to become politicised.

Critics say the US government basically controls the Internet.
That8217;s bulls8212;t. I8217;m sorry, I8217;m not supposed to say that to reporters, but that8217;s just a very bad misunderstanding. Ninety-nine percent of the Internet is in private hands. If you8217;ve got a computer at home, and a cable box or DSL line, you own a piece of the Internet. Most of the Internet is owned by the private sector, by businesses, by ISPs, by individuals, by governments8212; well, that8217;s not the private sector, but it8217;s not ICANN either and it8217;s not the United States.

So what about talk of a battle between the EU and the US over control of ICANN?
A: Governments frequently don8217;t believe anything can work if nobody8217;s in charge. As you look around the landscape, you discover that the only entity that has specific high-level responsibility, or unique responsibility for the Internet, is ICANN. And so the immediate and incorrect conclusion is that if ICANN has this unique responsibility, it must be in charge of the Internet. That8217;s, frankly, not true.

When you look ahead, say 30 years from now, what do you imagine for the Internet?
A: I would say surely 20 or 30 years from now, virtually everyone who wishes it will have access to the Internet. The bulk of information8212;if not 100 percent of information8212; will be produced in some digital way. This isn8217;t to say all things will be created digitally8212;gosh, there will still be painters and architects and sculptors and musicians and so on. But a great deal of what is produced will have some digital manifestation. I think there will probably be more devices on the Internet than people on the Internet. I8217;m fairly confident in predicting that.

More robots than humans8212;seems like the sci-fi ideas from The Matrix or The Terminator.
A: But those are legitimate fantasies that science-fiction writers produced, saying, 8216;8216;Well, if this particular trend continues, and we look at the grotesque extension of it, it8217;s not an unreasonable projection.8217;8217; So now the question is, if we don8217;t like that scenario, what do we do? One example and one answer to this is significant improvement in authentication technology. That is to say, I don8217;t want you controlling my entertainment system, house heating and ventilation, and I don8217;t want you placing or receiving my phone calls. How do I inhibit you from doing that? A lot of the things can be addressed either under existing legislation or impending legislation to take into account this online environment.

Newsweek Inc.