What is Internet Governance? Concepts and Definitions

The WSIS definition “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.”

Breaking down “Internet governance” What is the Internet? What is governance? What is governance of the Internet? Who governs?

What is the Internet? The basics Issues of Internet governance relate to Internet-unique technical architecture rather than the larger sphere of information and communication technology policy” Laura Denardis The basics

Resources for internetworking Numbers IP Addresses Autonomous System Numbers Protocols IP (Internet protocol) TCP (Transport control protocol) BGP (inter-domain routing protocol) Names DNS

Autonomous Systems

What is governance? Steering a distributed system

Governance, rules, order Steering or shaping of a complex system Governance vs. government Different modes of governance Markets Hierarchies Networks

What is governance of the Internet? Cyberspace as a new domain

The cyberspace governance problem Mismatch between territorial boundaries of states and global cyberspace Novel legal problems Transformations of trademark & copyright law Jurisdiction issues Content regulation

Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace John Perry Barlow, 1996

Distributed governance

Centralized coordination of Internet Numbers IP Addresses Autonomous System Numbers Protocols IP (Internet protocol) TCP (Transport control protocol) BGP (inter-domain routing protocol) Names DNS

Technical Resources and Policy Rights Scarcity and externalities Uniqueness and exclusivity

Who governs? Techies, Businesspeople, Lawyers, Politicians

“We reject kings, presidents, and voting “We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code.” (David Clark, IETF, 1992)

Expansion of the relevant community Trademark lawyers Civil society rights advocates Internet industry People in developing countries Governments

History of Internet Governance From NSF to WSIS to WCIT

Liberalization of telecommunications Privatization of state-owned PTTs Competition in local and long distance networks Competition in telecom equipment Separation of information services and telecommunications WTO free trade agreements in equipment (ITA) and services (BTS)

Internet takes off, 1992-6

From research network to commercial mass medium US federal government privatizes NSFNet backbone, 1993-5 Multiple, competing ISPs Allows charging for domain names 1995 Network Solutions, Inc.

Framework for Global Electronic Commerce Private sector leadership Governments should avoid undue restrictions Rely on contract law, not national legislation E-commerce should be global

Governance conflicts over the internet Domain name – trademark conflicts (1994 – 1998) Attempt by ISOC, ITU and WIPO to self-privatize the DNS (1996-7) The Communications Decency Act (1996) Attempt to censor “indecent content” thrown out by U.S. Supreme Court Private intermediaries have immunity for publishing third party content Private intermediaries have immunity for efforts to censor third party content U.S. Department of Commerce White Paper proceeding in 1997-8 The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998) Notice and takedown procedure for copyright infringements

Formation of A California non-profit public benefit corporation

Domain name rights conflicts: 2nd level Trademarks The cases of miller.com, clue.com, pokey.org, panavision.com Country names SouthAfrica.com Amazon TLD Personal names Britneyspears.com Georgebush.com Georgebushsucks.com

Domain name rights conflicts: Top-level Demand for New TLDs How many? What character strings will be created? Who will they be assigned to? Regulation of TLDs Assigned forever, as private property, or temporarily? Charge for the assignment, or not? Country codes National governments’ sovereignty claims

Domain Name Rights Conflicts: The Root Who runs the root zone functions? Who gets to decide what new TLDs exist? How is this person/organization made accountable? Elected? Appointed? By whom?

A New Governance Model Privatization of the governance function Contractual relations Generic TLD Registries (.com, .org, .info, etc.) Registrars (accredited) Country code TLD registries (loose or no contracts) Root server operators (no contracts yet) IANA functions contract Tied ICANN to US government Accountability issues

ICANN and Visions of Global Democracy Initially conceived as a membership organization Individual members would elect half the board Members had specific legal rights under California law “Trial” election in 2000 brought 3 ICANN critics onto the board ICANN abolished elections in 2002, replaced it with At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and RALOs.

World Summit on the Information Society

The first challenge to the model From 2001-2005 Attempt by some states to subject Internet to conventional intergovernmental model Attempt by non-state actors to gain a stronger role in global governance

What was it all about? How do we make ‘public policy’ for the global internet? What is the role of national governments relative to the private sector and civil society in policy making for the Internet? Why does one government (the U.S.) control ICANN? Should there be governmental oversight of the organically developed Internet institutions (especially ICANN)?

WSIS and stakeholder roles Geneva Resolutions and Tunis Agenda attempt to force different stakeholder groups into specific ‘roles’ ‘Policy authority’ reserved to states as a ‘sovereign right’ Business relegated to ‘technical and operational matters’ that ‘do not impact on international public policy issues’ Civil society ‘has played an important role on Internet matters…at the community level’ This division of the world simply does not work Public policy issues mixed up with technical and operational matters The ‘public’ in the ‘public policy’ is transnational, not national There is no ‘sovereignty’ in cyberspace

The WSIS definition of IG “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.”

The WSIS definition of IG “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.”

International regime theory “a set of explicit or implicit principles, norms, rules, and decision making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area.” -- Stephen Krasner

The WSIS definition of IG “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.”

The Tunis Agenda

The Tunis Agenda

The Internet Governance Forum Product of a political bargain Key actors and interests State actors (developing world) State and private sector actors from the developed world Civil society actors U.S. govt and private sector actors All could agree on a nonbinding discussion forum

Continued State / Internet issues Tensions in the ICANN GAC The UN Committee on Internet Related Policies The “Enhanced Cooperation” Working Group (UN CSTD) Growing efforts by states to filter, censor global information flows Growing concerns about cybersecurity

WCIT, the ITRs and the ITU Revising the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) Dubai December 1 – 14, 2012 The 1988 WATTC Telecom liberalization Article 9 “special arrangements” “information services” vs. “telecommunications” Revising the ITRs Role of the ITU in internet Governance Nonbinding resolution The ETNO proposal Cyber security and spam

A split world? Black Votes for Red Votes against

The NSA revelations Reveals increased scope and scale of surveillance Links military/national security to Internet Reveals pre-eminence of one state (USA) Shows how the state leverages the private sector, linking US economic lead to US military power Undermines US claims of neutral stewardship Triggers nationalistic responses

The IANA transition March 14 NTIA announcement that it will complete the transition Designated ICANN as “convenor” of a process to execute the transition, set Sept 30, 2015 as the target for completion IANA Stewardship Coordination Group formed Accountability concerns linked to the transition Successful conclusion October 1, 2016

Additional materials Ruling the Root (MIT Press, 2002) From technical community to formation of ICANN Networks and States (MIT Press, 2010) Internet governance in the post-WSIS period Will the Internet Fragment? (Polity Press, 2017) IG, sovereignty and alignment