Q&A
'Internet's governance can't be limited to one geography'
Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information technology, believes countries like India, with growing internet users, should have far more share in the running of the internet. Speaking with Monobina Gupta, Pilot discusses how managing the global internet currently lies within the purview of very few nations, why this must change - and how he is against any form of online censorship:
Who governs the internet at present?
Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These servers move the information. I believe India and other countries ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a particular geography.
Currently, the US-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, reporting to the US secretary of commerce, is responsible for governing the internet. But the global landscape of internet users has drastically changed. Going by estimates, by 2030, more than five billion people will use the internet, the majority being in South America, Africa, Asia, China, India and Russia. It's only practical in this context to move towards a truly multilateral, transparent, secure internet. I believe internet governance ought to be open and accessible to all.
What is your vision of alternative internet governance?
I'm espousing the principle of participation and equitable representation. With more than 110 million active internet users, India is the world's third-largest user. China ranks number one and the US number two. The internet's growth in India will be exponential in the next four to five years. Currently at 10% of the population, it might go up to 40% or 50% in the next few years.
Could root servers also be located in India, China and Russia?
These servers are the basis for all data - so that's definitely one possibility. Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without mechanisms of control and intervention. All major internet-using nations must have greater representation at all levels of governance. Proportionality of representation is a key principle in global bodies like the IMF and UN, along with equity in participation.
What is the government planning to do about this?
We've had initial discussions around having a working group to discuss the future management of the internet. It's not a question of us versus them or East versus West. It's having everybody on board. That might take some time. But the discussion must start today. New thinking has to evolve. The viewpoints of countries like Brazil, South Africa, India, China and Russia have to be considered in working out a middle path.
The World Summit on Information Society recognised the need for an open and inclusive process. We've raised the issue at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). But should the IGF remain just a talking platform? It's time to have substantive discussions. Even within India, we need to air our views. We have to think ahead about how to deal with cyber security, safety, increasing virus attacks. With the internet's help, non-state actors can inflict a lot of harm. You don't need an army to destabilise a country - cyber attacks, identity thefts, financial frauds, all these are happening on the internet.
And what is your view on internet censorship?
I am against any form of censorship. Of course, we have to be respectful of people's sentiments. But India already has established rules and regulations to that effect.
'Internet's governance can't be limited to one geography' - The Times of India
