WASHINGTON, June 15 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering brief opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute
(CEI is a conservative, free-market think tank that supports principles of free enterprise and limited government, and actively engages in public policy debate.)
WASHINGTON -- C:\Spin -- The little engine that couldn't: reforming ICANN
by Maura McGonigle and James V. DeLong
In 1998, the Department of Commerce, working with what is loosely called "the Internet Community," embarked on a "grand experiment" in public/private governance to manage the Domain Name System, or DNS. It created the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, known as ICANN. According to the DoC White Paper, ICANN was to serve as a vehicle through which DNS management could eventually be completely privatized.
Today, ICANN is in deep trouble, accused of becoming autocratic, imperialistic, over-centralized, undemocratic, secretive, unaccountable, and possibly corrupt. A particular sore point is administration of the process for approving new Top Level Domain or TLD names -- the slowness of the process, its opacity, and its cost.
In fact, ICANN is more than accused. It is convicted. Everyone involved is calling for reform -- original supporter Esther Dyson says ICANN is full of "juvenile behavior" and "a real cesspool" -- and even President Stuart Lynn accepts the need for change, while asserting that change is on track and needs only time.
At a June 12 hearing before a subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, the issue was whether ICANN will be given a chance to reform. Its basic charter, the Memorandum of Understanding, or MoU, between ICANN and DoC expires in September, and if it is not renewed ICANN is toast.
A recent letter to Assistant Secretary Nancy Victory by a coalition of non-profits (including CEI) calls for DoC to "re-compete" the MoU when it expires. The theory is that this would force ICANN to either change or relinquish control to companies that DoC deems "better alternatives." In addition, Senator Conrad Burns (D-Mont.) is considering legislation to condition MoU renewal on changes that would reduce ICANN's power to set policy on TLDs while increasing transparency and due process.
However, it is doubtful that either of these approaches would get at the root problem, which is that ICANN has leveraged its authority over TLDs to become a regulatory agency. As Roger Cochetti, Senior VP of VeriSign, told the Committee, this has "diverted significant resources," "discouraged innovation," "replaced marketplace competition with competition among lobbyists to curry favor with ICANN," and "discouraged investment."
Realistically, the chances that ICANN can reform itself are zero. Name a dysfunctional government-protected bureaucracy that successfully reformed itself -- ever. Most supposed reforms only add tiers to the bureaucracy, decrease accountability, paralyze initiative, and increase the frustrations of everyone.
Re-competing is a good idea, but do we really think that the next organization will be immune to the temptations that beset ICANN?
The key to reform is to end the artificial scarcity of TLDs, which is what gives ICANN its power and exposes it to temptation. Let anyone who wants to create a TLD do so, and reduce the role of ICANN or its successor to registrar and traffic cop. Last year, ICANN approved seven new TLDs in a proceeding that saw 37 applicants walk away disappointed, and out $50,000 just for the privilege of applying. Other inventive entrepreneurs are devising ways to circumvent ICANN and set up alternative TLDs. So the potential for a booming market is there.
When asked by Senator Wyden (D-Ore.), "Can ICANN reform itself?" Roger Cochetti responded, "I don't know, but the answer is not 'yes'." But the better question is, "Why bother to try?"
(Maura McGonigle is a research analyst, and James V. DeLong is a senior fellow, in the Project on Technology and Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.)
WASHINGTON -- Treaty before Senate could threaten millions of lives: poor nations need access to DDT to fight malaria
The U.S. Senate will soon vote on a treaty that could contribute to millions of deaths around the world. The treaty would restrict access to the pesticide DDT and possibly lead to its complete ban. Ironically, Senate deliberations coincide with the 30th anniversary of the U.S. ban of the pesticide, which occurred June 14, 1972. Many developing nations followed suit, leading to millions of annual deaths because communities could not control malaria without DDT.
"DDT is still the best available tool for controlling the spread of malaria-carrying mosquitoes," said Angela Logomasini, director of risk and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Public health authorities spray DDT on the interior walls of buildings, which deters mosquitoes from entering the homes. In addition, DDT is much more affordable than other pesticides, which is critically important for people in developing nations."
The American Council on Science and Health (www.acsh.org), non-profit group of physicians and health experts, is also urging that DDT be made available to combat malaria in the new study "The DDT Ban Turns Thirty." The study explains that contrary to popular suspicions, the small, targeted doses sprayed near homes in areas where malaria is epidemic do not harm wildlife, and human exposure to even large quantities of DDT has been shown to have no negative health effects.
"Many Senators don't realize that millions of lives may be in their hands when they cast this vote," said Logomasini. A large number of Senators support the treaty because they think that provisions allowing limited use of DDT for public health reasons are sufficient. "In reality," says Logomasini, "regulations in the treaty will jeopardize access to DDT, which is why the death toll might continue to grow if the Senate ratifies," Logomasini noted.
The Cato Institute
WASHINGTON -- Should Washington Ban Internet Gambling?
by Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.
Your after-tax income belongs to you. You're free to spend it, invest it, waste it, burn it, or tithe it, and none of that is the business of politicians. But if some legislators have their way, you won't be able to use your money to gamble on the Internet.
The House Judiciary Committee is set to approve a bill to ban online betting by such means as banning the acceptance of credit cards or other instruments to process gambling transactions.
In this post-Sept. 11 era it's understandable that politicians would be concerned about shady financial goings-on on the Internet. Gambling operations can be a tool for money laundering. But passing such all-encompassing, all-monitoring legislation is the wrong approach.
In this privacy-sensitive era, the obvious question arises: assuming you were gambling on the Internet, how would the government ever know about it? For the government to know about such personal, consensual behavior requires spying. And that's what anti-gambling legislation would require. Banks and Internet Service Providers would be drafted into the role of snooper, sifting all financial transactions. The notion of government mandating surveillance of private computers is repugnant.
And to impose federal surveillance on consumer financial transactions before consumers have even universally embraced Internet banking and commerce as such has serious implications for people's willingness to welcome online finance. Not surprisingly, credit card companies don't want to be deputized as hall monitors in this crusade, responsible for assuring that companies for which it processes card services are not involved in gambling operations.
But the bottom line is that even if one were gambling, government has no right in principle to know about it, or to force disclosure of that information. Lawmakers need to be questioned intently on the privacy implications of this crusade.
Another rationale for gambling restrictions is to target not the gamblers, but shady dealers who run phony, fraudulent operations. But consumers have the incentive to look for endorsements and seals of approval of the gambling operations with which they transact, and to avoid fly-by-night operators. Most people realize that gambling is a pastime in which the house usually wins. (Of course there are always risks. Even upstanding games of chance like those offered at McDonalds restaurants have had problems with manipulation by insiders.)
While gambling is a problem for some who have trouble controlling themselves, others enjoy the challenge or just think it's fun, and are able to contain their addictive impulses.
And legislation is notoriously slippery. What constitutes "gambling" is often in the eye of the beholder -- or legislator. Fantasy sports gets a limited exemption, as do horseracing and jai alai.
Even investing can be a "gamble" in the sense that "the opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance" -- as the legislation defines gambling. Yet the anti-gambling proposals exempt "any over-the-counter derivative instrument," though these clearly are not for the faint of heart.
Only some gambling is bad, apparently. One gets the impression that the real motive of anti-gambling legislation isn't protecting against crime or protecting vulnerable individuals against the unscrupulous, but the desire to legislate behavior and control others. But it's not the job of politicians to hector constituents about morality or finances.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) rightly opposed the idea of government regulation of consensual behavior: "It is all motivated by the fact that a good number of people think gambling is something people shouldn't do ... . I don't think we should set ourselves up as the national household budget manager."
Similarly, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) summed up the matter well early on. "(T)he overriding freedom issue (with respect to gambling) is whether or not government should be involved in trying to improve personal behavior by an authoritarian approach by the use of law. This really falls into the category of legislating morality. I don't happen to like gambling, and I think it is rather dumb, to tell you the truth, but in a free society, people should have the right to do dumb things."
Government shouldn't turn vices into crimes -- even granting the notion that gambling is a vice, which is open to question. Perhaps pork barrel spending is a more serious vice, one to which Congress should direct its attention. Are gambling losses significant compared to pork barrel and other extravagant spending, to which citizens are forced to contribute?
Once we travel down the road of regulating behavior on the Internet, there's basically no limit to government's ability to regulate voluntary speech and interaction and to substitute its moral vision for those of individuals. Washington should mind the federal budget casino instead.
(Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. is director of technology studies at the Cato Institute.)
