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.
