1. MCC101 Week 8 Global Policy and Digital Governance Guest lecture by Jeremy Malcolm Introduction to Communication, Technology and Policy 9 October 2007

2. Introduction Some of the last month's headlines A Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web http://opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/ http://opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/ Google calls for global online privacy standard http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/091407-google-calls-for-global- online.html http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/091407-google-calls-for-global- online.html Australian comm's minister seeks to censor the Web http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22451522- 15306,00.html http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22451522- 15306,00.html Apple update disables unlocked iPhones http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/09/27/iphoneunlock/index.php http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/09/27/iphoneunlock/index.php Myanmar appears to cut public Internet access http://uk.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKBKK30431520070928 http://uk.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKBKK30431520070928

3. Outline What is Internet governance? Lessig's four types of regulation Multi-stakeholder/network governance The evolution of Internet governance The Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

4. Internet governance What is it? Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. – WGIG, 2005 Includes: Technical coordination (domain names, IP addresses) Standards development (specifications for Web, email) Public policy governance (spam, cybercrime, privacy)

5. Mechanisms of governance Lessig identifies: Law (international, domestic, transnational...?) Norms (netiquette, Acceptable Use Policies) Markets (interconnection agreements, ICANN contracts) Architecture (open Internet technical standards, DRM) But consider more broadly: Lessig's firewood example: seldom just one mechanism Networks – partnerships of stakeholders (Rhodes 1996) A regime made up of “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations” (Krasner 1982)

6. Architecture and regulation What is the Internet's architecture? Traditionally: decentralised, open, egalitarian, anonymous Does the architecture of the Internet facilitate regulation (or governance)? Sometimes: well suited to commerce and communication But: bad at IPR protection (information wants to be free!) However, per Lessig, (some) architecture can be changed Try sorting the cases on the first slide Is such regulation also democratic?

7. Decentralised governance ISOC Example of (public policy) governance through norms Home of the IETF, “The Internet is for Everyone” ● IETF Example of (standards) governance through architecture “We believe in rough consensus and running code” But also impacts policy! (See RFC 2804 on wiretapping) ICANN Example of (technical coordination) through markets Contracted to the US government to administer DNS root But inconsistent with Internet norms (Mueller 2002)

8. Hierarchical governance Intellectual property ● The DMCA “take down first, ask questions later” ● The United States—Australia FTA ● Domain names ● ccTLDs transformed from identifiers to sovereign assets ● US Commerce Department intervention on.xxx ● VoIP regulation ● Clash with telecommunications regulation (ITU) ● Some countries tax or outlaw VoIP altogether ● Is this democratic either?

9. Network governance International level WSIS – World Summit on the Information Society 2003-2005 in consultation with private sector and civil society WGIG – the multi-stakeholder Working Group on Internet Governance called by WSIS to report on disputed issues IGF – multi-stakeholder forum recommended by WGIG, accepted by WSIS, with a five-year initial mandate Regional level CGI.br: Brazilian Internet Steering Committee In Australia – not really: Co-regulation of spam and content regulation ccTLD management: auDA (cf Nominet, SIDN)

10. WSIS outcomes WGIG Report Identified 13 public policy issues: Root servers, Interconnection, Security/cybercrime, Spam, Policy participation, Capacity building, Top-level domains, IP addressing, Intellectual property, Freedom of speech, Privacy, Consumer rights, Multilingualism Geneva Declaration of Principles 11 principles, including “management of the Internet... should involve all stakeholders” “in their respective roles” Tunis Agenda A process of “enhanced cooperation” and the IGF

11. Internet Governance Forum Composition Plenary body – open to all but primarily meatspace event Secretariat – appointed by the UN Secretariat Advisory group – likewise! 46 multi-stakeholder members Dynamic coalitions – self-organised working groups Themes Openness – freedom of expression, access to knowledge Security – cybercrime, spam, privacy, network attacks Diversity – multilingualism Access – digital divide, interconnection costs, standards Overall development orientation, capacity building as a cross-cutting priority

12. Hawks and doves Hawks Development country governments, civil society A process not a meeting Emphasise action IGF should make recommendations Dynamic coalitions should be like working groups Stakeholders should appoint Advisory Group Doves OECD governments, tech community, private sector A meeting not a process Emphasise dialogue “Policy authority the sovereign right of states” Dynamic coalitions have no formal link to the IGF The United Nations has more legitimacy to do so

13. The Rio Meeting Critical Internet Resources “The elephant in the room” – ICANN Hierarchical US control broadly unacceptable Private sector control unacceptable to some governments (hence the “process towards enhanced cooperation”) But is ICANN also an example of governance by network? More formal structure of Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees including a GAC for governments No agreed statement “Speed dialogues” sessions scheduled but dropped

14. Conclusion Internet governance is evolving from decentralised to hierarchical to network from reliance on architecture embodying hacker values to a more democratically balanced and accountable process...or away from decentralised collective ordering to an inappropriate state- led model of policy development? Network governance incorporates other mechanisms Multi-stakeholder governance a new model for other issue areas?

15. Questions? Contact me: Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au My thesis on the IGF: http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis/http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis/ Join my mailing list for updates: http://igfwatch.org/wwshttp://igfwatch.org/wws A blog for commentary on the IGF: http://igfwatch.org/http://igfwatch.org/ Additional bibliography: S D Krasner. Structural causes and regime consequences. (1982) 36 International Organization 1 R A W Rhodes. The new governance: Governing without government. (1996) 44 Political Studies 652 M Mueller. Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002

16. See also Some URLs for further reading: http://www.intgovforum.org/ (the official IGF site)http://www.intgovforum.org/ http://www.icann.org/ (the official ICANN site)http://www.icann.org/ But see also http://www.icannwatch.orghttp://www.icannwatch.org http://www.itu.int/wsis and http://www.wgig.org/http://www.itu.int/wsishttp://www.wgig.org/ http://www.isoc.org/ and http://www.isoc-au.org.au/http://www.isoc.org/http://www.isoc-au.org.au/ For background reading see http://www.circleid.com/, http://netdialogue.org (now rather outdated), http://www.internetgovernance.org/ and http://www.diplomacy.edu/links/igportal.http://www.circleid.com/ http://netdialogue.org http://www.internetgovernance.org/ http://www.diplomacy.edu/links/igportal