It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.¹
—Voltaire

The Internet never ceases to fascinate. I am referring not to its content, but to its governance. The IANA transition is the latest example in a world of interesting possibilities. At the core, we find ICANN, and that is why we need a Human Rights Advisory Committee. Any future model, with or without the NTIA, needs to seriously consider this option. But I prefer the hard truth over my own ideals. Maybe this idea will be dismissed, simply because human rights are discussed as some kind of inconvenience. Perhaps these standards of conduct are misunderstood. Underneath the wrangling and demands of various stakeholders for control, the process must burrow deeper, and consider suspect any discussion that excludes recognized principles of human dignity. The present governance structure needs reform, because it is ill-suited to defend the social process.

Most users of the Internet live their lives under the assumption that the protection of human rights is always a guarantee. But the truth is the opposite. The notion of the social contract should be at the core of the discussion, but that seems surprisingly difficult to reconcile with regard to the Internet. It is difficult to grasp why human rights have become such an ugly concept when analyzed from the point of view of Internet governance. This is the greater challenge that the ICANN’s Ecosystem needs to tackle. There is an erosion of online human rights and freedoms. The assurance that Internet users can continue to enjoy the Internet is in jeopardy. In order to also approach the challenges of cybersecurity and find a pragmatic solution, we must first be confident in the protection of human dignity. For this reason, all stakeholders must promote the protection of human life, online and offline.

Time is of the essence. We still have time to make a difference. “Hell is truth seen too late.”² This is not about the interests of various stakeholders in the ICANN Ecosystem. This is not about a broad or narrow focus on rights. This is about remembering the inconvenient reality that human rights still matter. It is better to face that reality. Those rights are innate to all humans. They are not hypothetical concepts that need to be considered acceptable by any given stakeholder. Instead, they are inviolable. This also means that it is the nation-state that ultimately must prove its legitimacy as a good steward and protector of the Internet. Indeed, “we judge the legitimacy of a government by whether it lives up to the international standards of human rights,” as delineated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.³

The citizens of the Internet community are not naïve, even those with ideals. We, as Internet users, give up some of our freedoms and, in return, the social contract should protect a set of values that, when considered together, increase the potential for a dignified life. Indeed, all actions taken to reduce security risks rely on the premise that governments will be the equalizers of fairness. For this reason, all stakeholders, particularly governments, must promote the protection of human life and happiness, and not the destruction.⁴ Each nation, group, and individual may be a participant in the development of Internet governance, and each can participate in the process, to reaffirm its legitimacy. This legitimacy, I emphasize, is the sine qua non of freedom, the necessity of a special “stake” that qualifies the stakeholder to share in the management of the Internet. The stakeholders, governments in particular, should stand as trustees for the world community. The legitimacy of any government and any institution is demonstrated by how it protects the people it claims to serve. Regardless of how narrow the scope of work, human rights considerations will always be unavoidable.

Will we be swallowed by the Leviathan or protected by the Golem? I remember growing up thinking about the American Gemini spacecraft and a future of space exploration. It was an age of dreams and a new age of discovery catapulted by the use of computers. But humanity stopped dreaming, and it seems that cyberspace has now become the new dream to be destroyed. May be one day, we will escape the greedy nature of the human heart on our way to the stars. Still, it is not too late. We still have time to make our world better. The Internet can be a facilitator of that goal. It can be a facilitator of hope, a ground for dreams, and a catalyst for a better future. We still have a chance to provide progress for the benefit of humanity.

¹ The Concise Columbia Dictionary of Quotations 81 (Robert Andrews, ed., 1989).

² Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651, 2011).

³ Lung-chu Chen, In Affectionate Memory of Professor Myres McDougal: Champion for an International Law of Human Dignity, 108 YALE L.J. 953, 956 (1999).

⁴ Thomas Jefferson, To the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland, March 31, 1809. See, John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, 389 (1980).