At this meeting -- one of several the ITU has held over the last few years to explore the underlying revolution caused by the convergence of computers and telecommunications -- the ITU and its member countries are examining the future direction of policy and regulation that the Internet has wrought, and the opportunities these changes present to the economic heath and welfare of their nations. Rather than offering any forward=thinking proposals, the U.S. may again have nothing to offer but a "nationalism first" agenda.
Quite understandably there are many Americans who are suspect. The worldwide spread of the Internet -- growing at 15 percent per month worldwide -- plays havoc with every national scheme developed over many years, and undermines the framework countries have established for their telephone, broadcast and cable telecom industries. The Economist magazine for example, just last month concluded that one such internet based innovation -- so called VOIP or voice over Internet protocol -- would literally kill the existing telephone industry. Similar forecasts are been heard about the impact on almost every other telecom industry sector.
On the upcoming agenda in Tunis is a plan to look at policies that will encourage the continued worldwide growth and development of the Internet by member countries. In this process, however, the ITU wants to closely examine the role and responsibilities of a California-based company called ICANN -- the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, that administers and keeps track of all Web addresses worldwide.
Some U.S. academic and industry analysts believe, as they have written, that there is "a move afoot at the United Nations and in the European Union to get the United States to give up control of the Internet," saying that we must "make every effort to block the ITU's effort."
Quite understandably, they believe that the Web will not remain "free" if we allow other nations to have a say about its development in the United Nation's International Telecommunications Union or elsewhere.
The U.S. position is not well understood but instead is often seen as short-sighted and overtly protective of U.S. interests.
This upcoming meeting is in actuality a unique opportunity for cooperation and a further advance of U.S. interest in the free flow of global communications -- a subject that is of enormous concern to the future of our whole information or "knowledge based" economy .
In the early 60's, for example, President Kennedy created COMSAT to take advantage of our investment in space, and leverage of our prowess in satellite technology. COMSAT not only became a vehicle for robust development of our own domestic communications system, but an instrument of global commerce and diplomacy, with the creation of Intelsat, a global consortium representing both government and private-sector interests around the world. America ushered in the first truly global communications system.
In many ways our investment in The ARPAnet in the 70s for the Defense Department -- the precursor of our modern-day Internet -- offers similar opportunities. The Internet has already become America's vehicle for creating a system of global "e-commerce" and has in a few short years, ushered in a triumph for advocates of our capitalist system.
But we can do much more by creating global "e-government" systems to solve international law enforcement and terrorism problems, or develop global education or environmental initiatives, using the Internet as a platform for advancing a new foreign-policy agenda.
We should, in short, remember that we are living in a "global" economy and are dependent upon cooperation and consensus decision making of the laws of trade and commerce worldwide.
This "go-it-alone, America first policy" may be appealing to our conservative and sadly, nationalistic instincts. Yet such narrow thinking will not only weaken our technological lead, it will continue to undermine our basic freedoms in the world. Unless we become a much more proactive, creative and cooperative member of the world community the U.S. will find too few allies in our effort to create an unfettered market for e-commerce and other new global electronic initiatives.
John M. Eger, Van Deerlin Endowed Professor of Communications and Public Policy at San Diego State University, was director of The White House Office of Telecommunications Policy from 1974 to 1976.
