Exploring Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Exploring Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Exploring Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Exploring Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance John E. Savage, Brown University Bruce W. McConnell, EastWest Institute January 2015 Exploring Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Abstract Internet community input through multi- stakeholder consultative processes. With Internet governance is now an active topic these changes IG can be made more com- of international discussion. Interest has prehensive and manageable while protect- been fueled by media attention to cyber ing its most valuable characteristics. crime, global surveillance, commercial es- pionage, cyber attacks and threats to criti- Introduction cal national infrastructures. Many nations E have decided that they need more control Interest in Internet governance (IG) has over Internet-based technologies and the grown steadily since the creation of the policies that support them. Others, empha- Internet Corporation for Assigned Names RNANC sizing the positive aspects of these tech- E and Numbers (ICANN) in 1998 and is now nologies, argue that traditional systems discussed at many international forums. OV G of Internet governance, which they label The World Summit on the Information So- T “multi-stakeholder” and which they associ- E ciety (WSIS), held in 2003 and 2005, was a ate with the success of the Internet, must landmark event. Paragraph 24 of the WSIS RN E continue to prevail. outcome document, the 2005 Tunis Agen- NT I da (WSIS, 2005), contains the following R In this paper we explain multi-stakeholder working definition of IG. E Internet governance, examine its strengths and weaknesses, and propose steps to im- A working definition of Internet gov- HOLD prove it. We also provide background on E ernance is the development and ap- multi-stakeholder governance as it has plication by governments, the pri- been practiced in other fields for decades. vate sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared princi- Three recommendations are made. First, ples, norms, rules, decision-making echoing others, we propose simplifying procedures, and programmes that Internet governance (IG) by partitioning it shape the evolution and use of the into issues that can be addressed by exist- Internet. ing international agencies and those that cannot. The latter include naming, routing, The Secretary General of the UN created EXPLORING MULTI-STAK EXPLORING security and standards. These are primarily the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as technical issues but have a policy dimen- an offshoot of WSIS and has met annually 4 sion. Second, for bodies handling technical since 2006. It provides an important venue or technically related issues, such as the for thousands of participants to share ideas Internet Corporation for Assigned Names on Internet governance but has no author- and Numbers (ICANN), we recommend ity to make recommendations. adding a multi-stakeholder oversight layer that can accept or reject opinions from In 2013 the leading Internet organizations these bodies but not alter them. Third, ex- met in Montevideo (Akplogan et al., 2013) to isting international agencies handling the warn against “the undermining of the trust other issues should be altered to receive and confidence of Internet users globally faire policies and government regulation by due to recent (Snowden) revelations of per- enabling cooperation between NGOs and vasive monitoring and surveillance.” They corporations in a form of self-regulation. also “identified the need for (an) ongoing effort to address Internet Governance chal- Unfortunately, there is no universally ac- lenges, and agreed to catalyze community- cepted definition of multi-stakeholder gov- wide efforts towards the evolution of global ernance. The concept came into use as a multi-stakeholder Internet cooperation.” vehicle for cooperation in the solution of societal problems, such as sustainability of One result of the Montevideo meeting was natural resources and protection of work- the April 2014 NETmundial: The Global ers in the developing world. Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (ICANNWiki, 2014) We now provide a brief history of Internet held in Brazil. It produced a set of principles governance; report on studies of multi- and a roadmap for the evolution of the In- stakeholder initiatives outside of the Inter- ternet that were endorsed by most partici- net; and examine the current problematic pants, but not China, India, or Russia. They state of Internet governance (IG), how ap- prefer a “UN-led, government centric ap- proaches to it might be simplified, and the proach to Internet governance” (Corwin, possibility of its capture by the ITU. Finally, 2014). we give a detailed breakdown of IG issues and illustrate the simplification of gover- One NETmundial Internet governance pro- nance by proposing allocations of individ- cess principle states “Internet governance ual issues to authorities. For the technical should be built on democratic multi-stake- IG issues, we recommend that if a political holder processes, ensuring the meaningful layer be attached to an existing body, such and accountable participation of all stake- as ICANN, that it protects technical judg- holders, including governments, the private ments from modification by the political MULTI-STAK EXPLORING sector, civil society, the technical commu- layer. For non-technical IG issues, we rec- nity, the academic community and users.” ommend the addition of a multi-stakehold- er component to international bodies that The multi-stakeholder model is now widely take responsibility for an IG issue. touted as the Internet governance model of choice. The White House endorsed it in its 2011 International Strategy for Cyberspace, Brief History of Internet as did both houses of the U.S. Congress in Governance late 2012. ICANN describes itself as multi- stakeholder (ICANNWiki, 2014) while the The Internet evolved from a packet-based E HOLD International Telecommunications Union communications research project funded (ITU) says in a backgrounder document by the (Defense) Advanced Research Proj- E published for the 2013 World Telecommuni- ects Agency (DARPA) of the U.S. Depart- R I cations Policy Forum (WTPF), “Through its ment of Defense. DARPA-funded research NT Plenipotentiary Resolutions, the ITU mem- projects in universities and research labo- E bership recognizes the multi-stakeholder ratories produced a new set of communi- RN E governance model based on the WSIS prin- cation protocols for the interconnection of T ciples as the framework for global Internet networks. Once the protocols emerged, a G governance” (“Supporting Multi-stakehold- large variety of new applications emerged, OV erism in Internet Governance,” 2013). thereby stimulating the growth of a new in- E RNANC dustry. Given the prominence that multi-stake- holder Internet governance has assumed, The original DARPA research project was E it is important to understand what the very popular; computer science depart- concept means, explore its strengths and ments and research organizations clam- weaknesses, and understand how best to ored to be connected to the new network. implement it. It is imprudent for the world Research on packet-based networking community to adopt this form of gover- flourished as a result. By the early 1980s, 5 nance of a global resource as important as the transition began from a research net- the Internet without first having a solid un- work to an operational one. At that point, derstanding of these issues. DARPA allowed the Internet community to develop network technologies on its own Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) are at- via a new non-governmental entity known tractive because they can provide an al- today as the Internet Engineering Task ternative between the extremes of laissez- Force (IETF). The creation of Internet technologies has It follows from this description that the In- been done largely in a multi-stakeholder ternet governance domain is very complex fashion. Both the IETF and the World-Wide and has many players. What is remarkable Web Consortium (W3C), which produces is that, despite its size and complexity, it web protocols and standards, are of this is reliably serving a population estimated kind. They operate in an open and transpar- at more than three billion users. In light of ent manner. All interested parties are invit- this, attempts to replace important parts ed to participate. However, to be a credible of the current governance system must be participant requires in-depth knowledge of done with great care. Another conclusion is the technologies in question. that the Internet domain is likely too com- plex to be managed by one organization. It The IETF has created an informal but well- functions well because of the expertise that articulated system to guide its work (2014). is distributed among the many players. Its recommendations are recorded in thou- sands of documents called Request for Comments (RFCs) in honor of the first re- What is Multi-Stakeholder port by Steve Crocker (Crocker, 1969). One Internet Governance? of these documents, RFC 7154, explains the IETF code of conduct, namely, that par- The term multi-stakeholder governance ticipants are expected to show respect and (MSG) came into use in the Internet arena courtesy to one another, have impersonal around 2004. Markus Kummer, who served discussions, come prepared to contribute, as executive coordinator for the IGF Sec- and work together to devise solutions for retariat, describes MSG as a vehicle “for the global