An independent Working Group on Internet
Governance (WGIG) last week put forward four
options for the internet's future management for
consideration at a forthcoming international
summit, without committing to a single,
preferred solution.
At present, internet
governance is largely in the hands of US-based
ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers. ICANN has responsibility for
Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation,
protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD)
and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name
system management, and root server system
management functions.
It is a non-profit corporation that derives
its authority from a 1998 agreement with the US
Government.
But some developing countries argue that
control of the internet should be in the hands
of an international body such as the UN, while
many developed countries disagree, looking to
increase the role of national governments in the
regulation of the internet.
The complex issue is due to be discussed at
the second World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS), which will take place in Tunisia
in November.
The first summit took place in Geneva in
December 2003, and resulted in a Declaration of
Principles for governing the information society
and an Action Plan for implementing them. But
agreement was only reached by leaving the
toughest issues for future discussion.
One of these – the question of who should
govern the internet – was given to the 40
members of the WGIG for consideration, and last
week the working group published its report.
In general terms, the WGIG report seeks to
improve current internet governance arrangements
and to set priorities for future action.
It proposes a further internationalisation of
internet governance arrangements, based on the
WSIS Declaration of Principles, which advocates
multilateralism and the involvement of all
stakeholders and international organisations. It
also identifies a wide range of governance
functions but excludes government involvement in
day-to-day operational management of the
internet.
Based on an assessment of what works well and
what works less well, the report identifies a
vacuum within the context of existing structures
and notes that there is no global
multi-stakeholder forum to address internet
related public policy issues. It therefore
proposes the creation of a global forum for
dialogue among all stakeholders such as
governments, the private sector and civil
society, to address problems linked to internet
governance, including spam and cybercrime.
Since it was unable to agree on a single
model, the Working Group sets out four possible
models for the conduct of global public policy
and oversight of the internet, stressing that
“No single government should have a pre-eminent
role in relation to international internet
governance.”
- One model sees no need for a specific
oversight organisation, but envisages the
possibility of enhancing the role of ICANN’s
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
- Another model suggests setting up a new
body that would address public policy issues
in relation to ICANN competencies and maybe
also issues that do not fall within the scope
of other existing institutions. In this model,
the GAC might be made redundant.
- A third model envisages the creation of a
new body that would replace the GAC and have
wide-ranging policy competencies. ICANN would
be accountable to this new body, which would
also facilitate negotiation of
internet-related treaties, conventions and
agreements. It would be linked to the United
Nations.
- A fourth model proposes new structures for
three interrelated areas of internet policy
governance, oversight and global coordination.
It suggests the creation of three new bodies
for each of these functions and would include
a reformed internationalised ICANN linked to
the United Nations.
The report, which has a strong focus on
development, advocates a meaningful
participation of developing countries in
internet governance and recommends ways to
reinforce their capacities to deal with these
issues.
The report also recommends further improving
coordination among the various international
organisations and institutions dealing with
internet governance issues. Furthermore, the
report notes that international coordination
needs to build on policy coherence at national
and regional level and recommends that the
multi-stakeholder approach be implemented at all
levels.
Finally, the document makes recommendations
in a number of policy areas: administration of
the root zone files and system; allocation of
domain names; IP addressing; interconnection
costs; internet stability, security and
cybercrime; spam; data protection and privacy
rights; consumer rights; intellectual property
rights; meaningful participation in global
policy development; capacity building; freedom
of expression; and multilingualism.
