Research Volume Two Two Volume Research Who Runs the Internet? The Global Multi-stakeholder Model of Internet Governance Who Runs the Internet? Research Volume Two Global Commission on Internet Governance Who Runs the Internet? The Global Multi-stakeholder Model of Internet Governance 67 Erb Street West 10 St James’s Square Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2, Canada London, England SW1Y 4LE tel +1 519 885 2444 fax +1 519 885 5450 United Kingdom www.cigionline.org tel +44 (0)20 7957 5700 fax +44 (0)20 7957 5710 www.chathamhouse.org Research Volume Two Global Commission on Internet Governance Who Runs the Internet? The Global Multi-stakeholder Model of Internet Governance Published by the Centre for International Governance Innovation and the Royal Institute of International Affairs The copyright in respect of each chapter is noted at the beginning of each chapter. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect the views of the Centre for International Governance Innovation or its Board of Directors. This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Canada. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of IDRC or its Board of Governors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — Non-commercial — No Derivatives License. To view this licence, visit (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/). For re-use or distribution, please include this copyright notice. Centre for International Governance Innovation, CIGI and the CIGI globe are registered trademarks. 67 Erb Street West 10 St James’s Square Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2 London, England SW1Y 4LE Canada United Kingdom tel +1 519 885 2444 fax +1 519 885 5450 tel +44 (0)20 7957 5700 fax +44 (0)20 7957 5710 www.cigionline.org www.chathamhouse.org TABLE OF CONTENTS About the Global Commission on Internet Governance . iv Preface . v Carl Bildt Introduction . 1 Laura DeNardis Chapter One: The Regime Complex for Managing Global Cyber Activities . 5 Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Chapter Two: Multi-stakeholderism: Anatomy of an Inchoate Global Institution . 19 Mark Raymond and Laura DeNardis Chapter Three: The Emergence of Contention in Global Internet Governance . 45 Samantha Bradshaw, Laura DeNardis, Fen Osler Hampson, Eric Jardine and Mark Raymond Chapter Four: Legal Mechanisms for Governing the Transition of Key Domain Name Functions to the Global Multi-stakeholder Community . 67 Aaron Shull, Paul Twomey and Christopher S. Yoo Chapter Five: ICANN: Bridging the Trust Gap . 79 Emily Taylor Chapter Six: Innovations in Global Governance: Toward a Distributed Internet Governance Ecosystem. 95 Stefaan G. Verhulst, Beth S. Noveck, Jillian Raines and Antony Declercq About CIGI . 118 About Chatham House . 118 CIGI Masthead . 118 ABOUT THE GLOBAL COMMISSION ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE The Global Commission on Internet Governance was established in January 2014 to articulate and advance a strategic vision for the future of Internet governance. The two-year project conducted and supported independent research on Internet-related dimensions of global public policy, culminating in an ofcial commission report — One Internet, published in June 2016 — that articulated concrete policy recommendations for the future of Internet governance. These recommendations address concerns about the stability, interoperability, security and resilience of the Internet ecosystem. Launched by two independent global think tanks, the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and Chatham House, the Global Commission on Internet Governance will help educate the wider public on the most effective ways to promote Internet access, while simultaneously championing the principles of freedom of expression and the free ow of ideas over the Internet. The Global Commission on Internet Governance focuses on four key themes: • enhancing governance legitimacy — including regulatory approaches and standards; • stimulating economic innovation and growth — including critical Internet resources, infrastructure and competition policy; • ensuring human rights online — including establishing the principle of technological neutrality for human rights, privacy and free expression; and • avoiding systemic risk — including establishing norms regarding state conduct, cybercrime cooperation and non- proliferation, condence-building measures and disarmament issues. The goal of the Global Commission on Internet Governance is two-fold. First, it will encourage globally inclusive public discussions on the future of Internet governance. Second, through its comprehensive policy-oriented report, and the subsequent promotion of this nal report, the Global Commission on Internet Governance will communicate its ndings with senior stakeholders at key Internet governance events. www.ourinternet.org IV • CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE INNOVATION • CHATHAM HOUSE PREFACE When I and my colleagues at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and Chatham House envisioned and launched the Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) in 2014, we were determined to approach the work ahead strictly on the strength of evidence-based research. To make this possible, we commissioned nearly 50 research papers, which are now published online. We believe that this body of work represents the largest set of research materials on Internet governance to be currently available from any one source. We also believe that these materials, while they were essential to the GCIG’s discussions over these past months, will also be invaluable to policy development for many years to come. The GCIG was fortunate to have Professor Laura DeNardis as its director of research, who, along with Eric Jardine and Samantha Bradshaw at CIGI, collaborated on identifying and commissioning authors, arranging for peer review and guiding the papers through the publication process. Questions about the governance of the Internet will be with us long into the future. The papers now collected in these volumes aim to be forward looking and to have continuing relevance as the issues they examine evolve. Nothing would please me and my fellow Commissioners more than to receive comments and suggestions from other experts in the eld whose own research has been stimulated by these volumes. The chapters you are about to read were written for non-expert netizens as well as for subject experts. To all of you, the message I bring from all of us involved with the GCIG is simple — be engaged. If we fail to engage with these key governance questions, we risk a future for our Internet that is disturbingly distant from the one we want. Carl Bildt Chair, GCIG November 2016 CARL BILDT • V INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Laura DeNardis Copyright © 2016 by Laura DeNardis LAURA DENARDIS • 1 RESEARCH VOLUME TWO: WHO RUNS THE INTERNET? INTRODUCTION “multi-stakeholder model” of Internet governance and makes recommendations about the types of governance Debates about Internet governance have long embodied a innovations necessary to maintain both Internet freedom tension between forces advocating for greater government and Internet stability in the coming years. oversight of the Internet and those advocating for a coordinating structure distributed across many actors — Internet governance can be viewed as a complex ecosystem ranging from international organizations, governments, of tasks carried out by many actors constrained by context- the private sector, civil society and new global institutions specic policies, markets and norms. In the rst chapter such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names in this volume, The Regime Complex for Managing Global and Numbers (ICANN). What is the appropriate role of Cyber Activities, Joseph S. Nye Jr. (2014) applies regime governments in running the Internet, on the one hand, versus theory to explain this range of actors, institutions, policies the administrative coordination of cyberspace distributed and norms collectively constituting Internet governance. across the private sector, traditional governments and The emergence of a unitary cyber regime is improbable civil society, on the other? The government-centric because of the different values and norms that exist approach can be thought of as multilateral oversight. The around issues such as cyber security and because of global distributed governance approach — which captures how disputes over cyber power. Rather, Nye considers the Internet governance has evolved historically — is usually structures underlying cyber governance a regime complex, called the multi-stakeholder governance model, although with “a set of loosely coupled norms and institutions that explanations of what multi-stakeholder governance ranks somewhere between an integrated institution that actually is and what is at stake are often incomplete. imposes regulation through hierarchical rules, and highly What is this multi-stakeholder model and who are the fragmented practices and institutions with no identiable 1 stakeholders? How should power be distributed across core and non-existent linkages” (p. 8). Within this regime various coordinating entities, and who decides? Is there complex, governance approaches to issues take various something unique about this framework of governance or forms. For example, international cooperation is more likely are there analogies in other areas of society? in the area of cybercrime, while governance approaches to online expression vary globally by cultural norms and Governance