Contribution of the International College of AFNIC to the WSIS July 2003

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Contribution of the International College of AFNIC to the WSIS July 2003"

Valerie Patrick
5 years ago
Views:

1 Contribution of the International College of AFNIC to the WSIS July 2003 Which Internet Governance Model? This document is in two parts: - the rationale, - and an annex in table form presenting Internet governance structures, players and objectives, in order to provide an overview of the issues to be addressed and of the way in which the various players interact. Rationale Internet governance organization today relies on two main approaches: - the "international" model, - the "intergovernmental" model. Each model has intrinsic advantages and drawbacks, but they must also be considered in terms of the requirements they must meet. a) The "international" model In this highly "liberal" model, governance players are the representatives of private-sector players and/or representatives of non-profit entities and/or representatives of "users", which is a somewhat simplistic way of designating "civil society". The main advantages of this model are as follows: - it enables a small number of experts to discuss problems and find solutions. As this is a highly technical area, the number of experts is limited, players all know each other personally, share the same views on collective interest and are in a position to take consensual decisions; - in view of the above, informal operating methods provide flexibility, "efficiency" and responsiveness; - this model, which focuses solely on operational problems, virtually lacks a political dimension. 1

2 In conclusion, the international model is a good model for growth when problems are limited to areas of highly technical expertise and experts share the same culture hold similar views on uncontroversial issues. It is the "founding" model of Internet governance. b) Changing environment and requirements Internet governance should have evolved together with the Internet itself, but as the "ideological" dimension has a very strong impact, a gap gradually emerged between the modes of functioning and the reality of the problems being addressed. Issues and problems effectively take on a global dimension and cut across boundaries. The explosive growth of the Internet means that they are more than just technical issues; they are also economic, legal, social and, ultimately, political issues. This evolution raises questions about, and can even call into question, the traditional "international" model: - the governance structures adapted for the Internet between 1995 and 1998 have gradually become obsolete because yesterday's experts are unable to grasp the global dimension of the issues; - the growing impact of the Internet on our societies can in fact be measured according to two criteria: the increasing number of Internet users and the growing variety of uses. Almost 10% of the world's population is currently connected to the Internet; between 2000 and 2003, the total number of Internet users rose from 384 million to 633 million (of which, in 2003, 32% are in Asia, 31% in Europe, 28% in North America, 7% in Latin America and 1% in Africa) and the trend is still exponential in 2004; - In terms of uses, web navigation and electronic mail are the most common, but the introduction of IPv6 and ENUM is going to drastically alter our perception of the Internet and of its place in our daily lives by 2010 through IP telephony, domotics and applications in areas as diverse as the automobile industry, farming, medicine, electronic commerce, on-line management of financial flows, "e-governance" and access to public services over the Internet, etc.; - the experts themselves no longer necessarily have either the power or the legitimacy to enforce their decisions, given the interpolations between the different dimensions of the problems addressed: an "ideal" technical solution can easily come into conflict with certain local laws and become impracticable; - from this standpoint, the Internet is no longer a "global village" in the sense that a small community of experts were able to address and solve problems globally: it is now entering a period in its history where its organization must adapt to the modes of "governance" that exist in the "real world" in order to be effective. This first set of reasons for raising questions relates to the evolution of the Internet's environment. A second set concerns governance players themselves: 2

3 - "historic" players often represent only themselves; they are experts, but ideologistexperts who often have only personal legitimacy to give opinions on the problems addressed; - these players are sometimes mandated by their employers for very specific purposes such as lobbying, etc. This evolution, which is indissociable from the increase in governance-related challenges, makes the participation of players lacking adequate organization or financial resources increasingly weaker. There exists a genuine risk of governance being diverted for the benefit of the private interests of a minority of players; - as players represent only themselves, they do not regard themselves as accountable for their actions to the community. Although they claim to serve the collective interest, they can sacrifice this to their private interests at no risk at all; - Too much "politicization" on the part of players drains their role of all substance: experts become politicians and non-expert politicians appear. A final question can be raised: - technically speaking, the entire Internet naming and addressing system relies on the Root System, which is under the control of the US Department of Commerce. - politically, legally and administratively speaking, ICANN is an organization that is dependent on the United States. A policy of compromise and cooperation is no doubt essential and can be achieved by searching for equity, rather than by relying on unbalanced foundations. These three sets of questions lead us to describe a second model of Internet governance organization. c) The intergovernmental model This model brings several governments together on an equal footing to perform key Internet governance tasks and in particular - to dissociate "Root" management from its present geopolitical implications that make it a source of tension in the medium and long term, by introducing collective (or collegial?) management of this resource that is increasingly vital to us all; - to guarantee legitimacy and the possibility of implementing the decisions made in governance circles provided they relate to sovereign role of States. In this connection, the intergovernmental model can be regarded as consistent with the history of the Internet: since problems are no longer purely technical ones, a small group of experts not accountable to the community can no longer single-handedly address all governance dimensions. To avoid all risks of diversion or abuses, governments should join forces to 3

4 intervene as guarantors of the proper functioning of governance mechanisms and to interact in a sovereign capacity to address the constraints stemming from the "real world". 4

5 d) Limitations of the intergovernmental model Although the intergovernmental model meets new governance requirements better than the international model does, ultimately it may reveal a number of limitations: - significant delay at times in addressing problems, with a risk of "overpoliticization" of purely technical issues (this risk could be reduced by the existence of an operational structure placed under the nominal authority of the political structure); - a lack of expertise on the part of the civil servants appointed to deal with these complex problems. This poses two dangers: firstly, that these people will "go into politics" as they are unable to resolve these issues; secondly, that they rely on experts in order to do this, with the risk of effective powers being transferred and responsibilities diluted; - lack of accountability of governmental civil servants to the community of Internet users: civil servants are only answerable to their governments, which, provided they are democratic, are only accountable to their electors. Yet the equation whereby electors = Internet users is far from being proved true, in defining the rights and duties under each status. The main harmful trend of the intergovernmental model is that it should gradually become estranged from players "in the field" and Internet users by having its own concerns prevail over the aspirations or requirements of other Internet communities. Yet history has shown that the Internet was created by these communities and that they cannot be excluded from Internet governance without the following risks arising: - risk of slowing down or even stagnation of the development of this new vehicle for information; - risk of the emergence of behaviours hostile to a "governmental" system; - risk of the emergence of alternative behaviours that will bring about "grey areas" within the Internet itself. e) Is there an "ideal" model? Recalling the logic - the Internet was created by pooling highly technical expertise to work in the general interest; - the expansion of the Internet has made the issues global and meant that they also cut across boundaries; - the "international" model reaches its own limits once the Internet becomes a strategic resource for all, because its "administration" then becomes a political, social, or other issue; - the "mono-governmental" model is the real face of current governance; 5

6 - the intergovernmental model can incorporate the political dimension within a lasting and non-controversial framework; - on the other hand, it also has its limitations with regard to expertise and ability to interact with the "pillars" of the Internet, meaning the private-sector players and users. assuming the role of guarantors of proper governance operation and equilibrium In view of the above, an interesting model of compromise would be a form of intergovernmental model involving private-sector players (operators and users) in governance, with governments responsible for - guaranteeing compliance with certain rules among the other governance players, in particular a balance of forces between the economic and social spheres; - addressing the new political dimension of governance by ensuring that the other players are in a position to address the relevant economic, social, technical and other dimensions in the best possible conditions. A region-oriented structure In terms of organization, the model could be structured on a regional basis encompassing Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia and Africa, with each region bringing together all governmental, economic and social governance players based on the interconnections detailed in the Annex. The interest of this regional approach is many-sided: - it ensures balanced representation of each region in the global coordination bodies; - it enables each region to address its own specific problems as a matter of priority; - it fosters the emergence of Internet player communities bound together by common interests at regional level and constituting a "matrix" capable of meeting, as best they can, everyone's expectations in the context of their activities and their region. It is important, in fact, to build a governance system capable of meeting collective requirements on a global scale, as well as the requirements of each player. The regional level appears to be the most appropriate to ensure a management capable of adapting to very diverse situations in terms of - infrastructure and connectivity: problems in Africa are in no way similar to those experienced in Europe; - Internet user populations. In the most developped regions, almost everyone has access to the Internet; in disadvantaged regions, Internet access is reserved for the political, 6

7 economic and cultural elites. Socially, the "digital divide" thus runs along existing dividing lines; - uses, since they often depend on the availability of high-speed Internet access and on the maturity of Internet users and their appropriation of this new means of communication and exchange; - law enforcement and personal data protection: national legislations often need to be adapted to the new problems posed by the Internet, as countries in a given region may have fairly similar legal traditions; - and in cultural terms, regarding in particular the possibility for non-western Internet users to circulate and consult the contents written in their own languages (introduction of internationalized domain names) O0000 7

8 Annex I: Internet governance structure and players I - Definitions "Internet governance" should focus on an operational task, that of its technical administration. Yet since this operational task impacts many areas, affecting an increasing number of countries and people, it is important to understand the interconnection between its aspects and the interaction of players as regards each of these aspects. I.1) Aspects Aspects/impacts Problems Examples Players concerned Political Management of "Root" control management, geopolitical equilibria IANA function, Legal Interconnection of a transnational medium with national legislative systems Economic Social Security-related National defence-related Technical Cultural Management of resources (IP addresses) and visibility vectors (naming). Growing dissemination of Internet uses in daily life. Growing dependence of our societies on the Internet as a medium Guaranteeing Internet stability at all levels and protecting the network against hacking Protecting national defence and production resources Guaranteeing the system's adaptability. Creating and improving standards and protocols Fostering the enhancement of cultures through the Internet redelegations Trademark protection Personal data protection Development of electronic commerce Budgets for trademark "protection" on the Internet s, web navigation on-line transactions IP/ENUM telephony IPv6 and its uses (domotics, mobility, etc.) October 2002 and January 2001 attacks against the "root" Acquisition by "spies" of information on the Web IDN, WHOIS, ENUM, etc. Dissemination of contents in the national languages "Internationalized" domain names in their non-technical aspects Civil society Civil society meaning "consumers" Civil society (help in defining uses and protection of human rights) Civil society Experts Civil society Civil society 8

9 I.2) Players Players Problems Examples Aspects concerned Protecting their political, legal and technical sovereignty Guaranteeing the protection of their citizens Encouraging the growth of their economies Helping their cultures to develop Participation in the GAC and ITU Problems relating to the control of certain local extensions Problems relating to the application of ICANN decisions on certain local laws In principle, all aspects Optimizing the functioning of the Internet in satisfactory economic and strategic conditions Being able to develop their activities and optimize their management thanks to the Internet, in good legal and security conditions. Local extension managers Router manufacturers, infrastructure managers Electronic commerce development "Webmarketing" development. Emergence of new markets linked to new uses. Legal Economic Security-related National defence-related Technical Legal Economic Social Security-related National defence-related (protection of business secrets) Technical Civil society Users Being able to use the Internet while fully safeguarding the civic and legal rights acquired in the real world; being confident about using the Internet and enjoying protection against any attempted hacking, control and manipulation Spam Child/pornographic contents Embezzlement, counterfeiting, on-line fraud, hacking into personal data Legal Economic Social Security-related Technical Cultural II - Principles We believe that governance should guarantee: 1) A safe Internet network 1.a) Stability 1.b) Security 1.c) Reliability 2) The Internet for all 2.a) Co-management 9

10 2.b) Adaptation to requirements 2.c) Appropriation and development of uses 3) The Internet as a vehicle for development 3.a) Economic 3.b) Cultural 3.c) Social III - Organization In order to achieve and uphold the above principles, Internet governance should be organized around the following spheres: 1) An intergovernmental sphere It would be in charge of: - "depoliticizing the Internet by ensuring collective "root" control - guaranteeing the proper functioning of mechanisms for consultation among the various players concerned - ensuring the possible interactions between the sovereign functions of States and the Internet - addressing the requirements of States and act as a platform for dialogue among them 2) An economic sphere It would be in charge of: - bringing together profit-making private-sector entities whose activities are impacted by the Internet - creating and maintaining conditions conducive to the development of economies thanks to the Internet - ensuring that corporate views and interests are taken into account by governance 3) A social sphere It would be in charge of: - bringing together non-profit private-sector entities and individuals - guaranteeing that the development of the Internet and its uses will not be detrimental to individual rights and freedoms, but will on the contrary help to better satisfy user requirements - ensuring that the views and interests of civil society members are taken into account by governance 4) A technical sphere It would be in charge of: 10

11 - bringing together Internet technical players, namely extension managers, infrastructure operators, and bodies in charge of drawing up standards and protocols - guaranteeing Internet stability and security - guaranteeing the proper functioning of the Internet in accordance with the requirements of the other spheres (in particular IANA database management) - ensuring that operator views and interests are taken into account by governance and explaining what technical constraints the desires expressed by the other communities involve. 0000O

Evolving the Ecosystem: Institutional Innovation in Global Internet Governance

Evolving the Ecosystem: Institutional Innovation in Global Internet Governance Igov2 Conference, Oslo 8 9th September 2014 William Drake University of Zurich & NonCommercial Users Constituency, ICANN www.williamdrake.org