Citation
Blackman, C. (2014), "Internet Governance and the Multistakeholder Model, CEPS Digital Forum, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, 18 March 2014", info, Vol. 16 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/info-04-2014-0019
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Internet Governance and the Multistakeholder Model, CEPS Digital Forum, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, 18 March 2014
Article Type:
Conference report
From:
info, Volume 16, Issue 4
Introduction
The future of Internet governance is high on the agenda ahead of the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) in São Paulo, Brazil, in April 2,104[#fn1].
This Digital Forum seminar, chaired by Colin Blackman (Director, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) Digital Forum), brought together a distinguished panel of experts (Andrea Glorioso, Policy Officer, Internet Policy and Governance, European Commission Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content & Technology (DG CNECT); Frédéric Donck, Director, European Regional Bureau, Internet Society; and Ewan Sutherland, CRIDS, University of Namur) to discuss the key issues.
The meeting opened with a keynote address from Nigel Hickson (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN’s) VP for Stakeholder Engagement in Europe), explaining how ICANN and others are responding to current concerns about Internet governance on the “road to Brazil”. The concept of Internet governance was explained, with legitimacy afforded by the Tunis Agenda[#fn2] in 2005 for the multistakeholder model. The debate within The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)[#fn3] at that time was seen very much as a matter of who should be responsible for the Internet – should it be a bottom-up, multistakeholder approach or top-down with authority given to national governments?
That debate resurfaced more recently with the attempt to include the Internet in revised International Telecommunication Regulations in the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)[#fn4] in Dubai at the end of 2012; a move that only resulted in greater division. This was followed by Edward Snowden’s revelations about the extent of surveillance on the Internet. Although this has little to do with Internet governance, it has clearly increased the perception that the USA can no longer be trusted to act as a neutral custodian.
Relevant work going on within the United Nations was outlined, specifically the WSIS+10 review[#fn5] culminating in a high-level event in June 2014 in Geneva, and the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) work on Improvements of the Internet Governance Forum[#fn6]. The International Telecommunication Union also has a number of relevant activities over the coming months, for instance, the World Telecommunication Development Conference in June in Dubai[#fn7], and its Plenipotentiary Conference in October/November in Busan, Korea[#fn8].
The announcement by the USA National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on 14 March that its contract with IANA (Internet Authority for Assigned Numbers) would be subject to review (and potential replacement with a multistakeholder solution in September 2015) was welcomed. Historically, the USA has held control of what goes into the root, so there is a perceived problem of sovereignty, although, contrary to conspiracy theories, this power has never been abused. The NTIA attached some conditions to its proposal – most notably that it would not allow IANA to be controlled by any government, or international governmental organisation.
So there is now a transition process underway – the globalised, multistakeholder governance of the Internet that has always been envisaged by the USA is now coming to fruition.
Attention turned to a European perspective on Internet governance and the impact of the recent European Union (EU) Communication[#fn9]. If you read the Communication, the messages are clear. It is not revelations about USA surveillance that is driving EU policy on this matter, but the EU’s legitimate concern to protect the interest of its citizens. A global and resilient Internet built on the principles of freedom of expression and protection of human rights is fundamental to Europe’s social and economic future.
The Communication strongly supports the multistakeholder approach and does not support increased control by some large states or through the United Nations. There was consensus within the room that the Communication was an important and positive contribution and that the European Commission had a key role to play in preventing fragmentation. Supporting European cloud providers was fine, but talk of national or a European cloud should be seen as nonsense. Ultimately, a shift away from a global Internet would be extremely detrimental for economic growth and jobs, political expression and social enlightenment.
The distinction was drawn between governance of the Internet – the issues around protocols, numbers and names – and governance on the Internet – for instance, matters to do with security, privacy, child protection, fraud and so on – while recognising the relationship between them. The coming year was seen as pivotal and the Internet governance process was a critical forum to engage on the issues.
Debate then turned to the question of whether the current multistakeholder model was viable to ensure openness, security and accountability on the Internet. In a traditional democratic approach, there are checks and balances, vested interests must be declared, civil servants and politicians are accountable to parliaments and courts and there are mechanisms for appeal and redress. These features are currently absent in multistakeholderism. In Internet governance fora, there is a lack of transparency about who is being funded by whom, and on whose authority they speak. In many countries around the world, the notion of multistakeholderism is anathema.
The potential for corruption is certainly there, but this view was countered by the argument that multistakeholderism is a growing feature of democracy, and is largely seen as strengthening democratic values. Whether some basic accountability can be introduced – a register of interests, for instance – remains to be seen.
The lively debate culminated in considering the possible outcome of the upcoming meeting in Sao Paulo and the Internet governance reform process over the coming year or so. Broadly speaking, there is more hope than fear about what may transpire. The need to avoid fragmentation of the Internet is paramount but, especially after the Snowden revelations, governments should resist the implementation of technical solutions in attempting to address policy and trust-related issues. The hope was that there would be clarity over principles, deliverables and a timetable for reform of Internet governance, with the September 2015 deadline focusing everyone’s attention.
Colin Blackman
Editor, info
Director, CEPS Digital Forum, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels
Visiting Senior Fellow, LSE London; and
Director, Camford Associates, UK
Notes
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html
http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html
http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/2014.html
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Conferences/WTDC/WTDC14/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.itu.int/en/plenipotentiary/2014/Pages/default.aspx
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2014:0072:FIN:EN:PDF