Informative - Evolution of Internet Governance and Its Effect on Global Internet Users - Research Paper Example

? Evolution of Internet Governance and its Social Effect on Young Users Evolution of Internet Governance and its social effect on young Internet users Introduction A couple of years back, many people did not have any idea what Internet governance entails. However, with time, Internet users have come to understand what Internet governance presupposes, and now they are asking relevant questions when it comes to protecting one’s privacy. Members of the Working Group on Internet Governance had a hard time explaining to their families and friend what their job was. This essay focuses on the evolution of Internet governance and its effects on global Internet users (Schewick 2010, p.5). Through Internet governance, individuals are able to practices safe browsing and parents can also be in control of what their children can browse. For development, as well as the innovation of the Internet, the Internet has to remain open. Some of the aspects of Internet governance to be discussed in the paper include Skype, Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Discussion Internet governance is a topic surrounded by a number of controversies, and one of them is its definition. There are different perspectives associated with Internet governance, which triggers varying policy approaches, as well as expectations. This is illustrated by some examples; for instance, specialists in the field of telecommunication look at Internet governance as the prism when it comes to technical infrastructure development. A computer specialist views Internet governance in the form development of various applications and standards. Lawyers focus mostly on the dispute and jurisdiction resolution. The freedom of expressions and ways of enhancing the basic human rights is the angle taken by human rights activists when it comes to Internet governance. In short, Internet governance can be defined from various angles according to the occupation of the person looking at it (Aspray 2004, p.2). Internet governance is summarized as the act undertaken by Governments, civil society, and the private sector in the role of development and applications; it also involves their respective roles of shared norms, decision making procedures, rules, principles, and other elements that shape the process of Internet evolution (Mathiason 2008, p. 6). The term governance also had its share of controversy when it came to its interpretation. Many considered governance to have an extremely related meaning to the word government. The meaning, which is accepted by the Internet community, considers governance as governing the conducts and behavior of any institution, inclusive of the non-governmental institutions. A government project formed the origin of the Internet. In 1960, the United States of America sponsored a project considered as the mother of the Internet. This was a resilient communication project mandated with the development of the research named DARPA Net. With time, there took place the invention of Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), which evolved the Internet (Gelbstein & Kurbalija 2005, p.11). The Internet is distributed in nature; one of them is the data packets nature to take a different path through any network, enabling the Internet to avoid traditional barriers, as well as control mechanisms. This theory is a total proof that, in the early days, in relation to the Internet, there is no central government, grand design and central planning. This made people consider the Internet as a unique tool, which could offer an alternative solution to the modern politics. In the 1980s, the term Internet governance was introduced, and it described the technical management of the Internet core resources globally. The core resources included IP address, domain names, Internet protocols as well as the root server system. The term Governance was used to show the outstanding differences between government and governance. After the emergence and discoveries of technology advancements such as the telegraph, the government in the early twentieth century commenced regulating this industry in the form of using both telecommunications and broadcasting laws. When Internet fully emerged, there were no set laws or governmental activities to regulate its use. It is for this purpose that a code of ethics on Internet regulation became a necessity. During this tenure, the necessary regulations were essentially technical and offered by the providers as well as the Internet users. In the early days, government involvement in the role of regulating the Internet was considered unnecessary. Furthermore, majority of the Internet experts were against the idea of governments involving themselves with the Internet. One of those experts, who were totally against the government involvement, was Dave Clark from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He believed that kings and presidents were not supposed to be involved, and their vote did not count. For him, Internet was better managed through the use factual approach, rough consensus and running code (Mathiason 2008, p. 24). With time, business sectors and governments realized the significance associated with the global network leading to changes in the way the decentralized approach was viewed. During this time, the US National Science Foundation relieved Domain Name System their duties, and Network Solutions Inc. was subcontracted. The Internet community did not welcome this move, and it lead to the DNS war. The aftermath of the war was an introduction of new players such nation states and international organizations. The result after the entry of the new players was the establishment of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. It was during the World summit on the Information Society that the Internet governance was placed on the diplomat agenda list. After prolonged discussions, the US National Science Foundation agreed to enact the Working Group on Internet Governance acronym WSIS. The WSIS is always on the front line in the role of establishing the way forward in terms of the Internet governance. During the 2005 Tunis Agenda, WSIS elaborated on the crucial questions surrounding the Internet governance such as a definition that should be adapted, and establishing a forum on Internet governance. Another emerged to enhance a smooth process of the Internet governance, and the way forward when it came to the establishment of the schedule to direct the steps to be taken. In the year 2006, there were three main developments, which included the expiry of the existing Memorandum of Understanding and enactment of a new one between the United States’ Commerce department and the ICANN. It is also during this year that the first Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took place. Another key group associated with the Internet Governance implementation is the Multi stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). It advises UN’s Secretary General on IGF’s program and schedule (Maclean 2004, p. 19). Through Internet governance, there is a positive social effect on young users, who are the majority. It has provided a sane environment to the young users by implementing guidelines meant to cater for them. Through Internet governance, young users are secure from cyber attacks on either their mobile phones or computers. Those young individuals who come up with excellent ideas or project through the Internet are well protected as a result of the mechanisms being put in place. Through Internet governance, human rights and democracy for young users has been maintained. This is because the fundamental rights and freedom are well protected by the Internet governance principles set during its enactment. Therefore, the Internet governance has helped recognize and maintain human rights and crucial freedoms when there are either public or private actors. Internet governance has set rules concerning new development so that they do not threaten any fundamental freedoms and rights of all generation including the youth (DeNardis 2009, p.4). Internet governance has developed a mechanism which regulates its development and implementation, by ensuring that all its arrangements are conducted in a way, which is open, transparent and totally accountable (Mueller 2010, p.2). This mechanism forms a basis for a society which is open and accountable, leading young users to follow the same path. It also ensures that there is full participation of governments, technical community, civil society, the private sector and the young users. This helps ensure that all parties’ desires are put into consideration leading to smooth use of the Internet by all the stakeholders, particularly the youth. A huge number of young people use the social sites such as Facebook and Twitter to air their views, as well as socializing with other people. Internet governance has created a media which is safe and convenient for these individuals. This is achieved by establishing ways of regulating what other people can view in their social sites. Through Internet governance, safe socializing between youths is attained and also their privacy protected. With the evolution of Internet governance, states are mandated to make sure that there is no harm incurred to the young Internet users. Furthermore, no national decision, which should form a restriction their fundamental right. Internet governance has been established in such a way that it empowers young Internet users (Eom 2005, p.8). The key objective of Internet governance is making sure that the Internet is secure, stable and resilient mostly to the youth. This enhances Internet integrity and infrastructure, considering that the young Internet users are the ones with exceptional new ideas about Internet innovations. Internet governance has helped remove unreasonable barriers to new users and unnecessary burdens, which could hinder innovation. It has enabled users to access applications, contents and services they want, and also block those they do want accessed by other people (Grembergen 2004, p.81). According to Andjelkovic, Vetter & Creech (2008, p. 3), Internet governance has played a tremendous role of preserving culture and language diversity of the young Internet users. It also plays a role when it comes to traffic management, which has aided to protect young users’ freedom of expressions and information access, as well as respecting the right to a private life. Terrorism is one of the things which make people feel unsafe when conducting their day to day business. Internet governance stands out as one of the vices, which can be used to hinder terrorist from undertaking their attacks or recruiting the young users online. Conclusion The evolution of Internet Governance has been a long journey, which at the end has yielded fruits to all Internet users. The World summit on the Information Society has done an outstanding job to make sure that Internet governance is achieved. Other significant players associated with the success of developing and implementing Internet governance include private sectors, international organizations, governments and young users. Currently, there are large numbers of young users using the Internet and the Internet governance has affected them in various manners. Internet governance has had both positive and negative social effects on the Internet users. However, studies show that the pros outdo the cons; therefore, Internet governance can be considered a success that has had a couple of challenges. Internet governance is a significant contributor towards forming a conductive social environment for the young Internet users. Therefore, the role of Internet governance to the youth’s social life is of exceptional benefits. References Andjelkovic, M., Vetter, T., & Creech, H. (2008). Critical Internet uncertainties how will governance, evolution and growth of the Internet affect sustainable development?. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development. pp. 1-32. Aspray, W. (2004). Chasing Moore's law: information technology policy in the United States. Raleigh, NC: SciTech Pub. pp. 2-10. DeNardis, L. (2009). Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance. Cambridge.: MIT Press. pp. 1-13. Eom, S. B. (2005). Inter- organizational information systems in the Internet age. Hershey PA: Idea Group Pub. pp.6-10. Grembergen, W. (2004). Strategies for information technology governance. Hershey: Idea Group Pub.. pp. 81-83. Gelbstein, E. & Kurbalija, J. (2005). Internet Governance: Issues, Actors and Divides. Geneva: Diplo Foundation. pp. 11-13. Mueller, M. (2010). Networks and states: the global politics of Internet governance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. p.2. Maclean, D. (2004). Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration : an Edited Collection of Papers Contributed to the United Nations ICT Task Force Global Forum on Internet Governance, New York, March 25-26, 2004. New York: United Nations Publications. pp. 15-20. Mathiason, J. (2008). Internet Governance: The New Frontier of Global Institutions. New York: Taylor & Francis. pp. 6-24. Schewick, B. (2010). Internet architecture and innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press. pp. 5-7. Read More