Internet governance: What are we talking about?
Raúl Echeberría, Executive Director of LACNIC, discusses the ambiguous and imprecise term 'Internet governance' and the way it has been used in the WSIS processes.
What is understood by Internet governance?
It has been several years since the discussion of different 'Internet governance' models began and this discussion has gained strength during the course of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Unfortunately, the WSIS delegates could not have chosen a more inappropriate term. It is impossible to say that all persons involved in the discussion attribute the same meaning to this expression. I personally believe that the opposite is true. There is obviously no Internet government, nor is the Internet 'governable' as a whole. There are numerous and extremely diverse aspects to the Internet, some of which are discussed at different levels and by different organisations, while others are determined by local legislation and regulations.
Some of the diverse aspects related to the Internet include e-commerce, intellectual property, e-government, communications, human rights, education, and privacy, among may others. But there is no single organisation or forum where these issues are discussed and channeled. Likewise, there is no single body where all decisions are made and all standards established. The much renowned Internet governance does not exist.
However, the term Internet governance has acquired an existence of its own merely through its constant repetition. For this reason, whether or not many of us believe it an outdated expression, the term is used as a general reference for technical administration and coordination of Internet resources.
In other words, when people speak of Internet governance, they are referring fundamentally to the administration and management of domain names, of Internet addresses (IP numbers and autonomous numbers), the coordination of technical aspects and the definition of the technical parameters necessary for the operation of the domain name system and root servers.
Current situation
With this understanding of the problematic nature of the term Internet governance, we can begin to consider the issues currently under discussion.
Since the beginnings of the Internet, various organisations have assumed active roles in administering and coordinating Internet resources. The fact that the Internet was born as a project depending on the US government resulted in many 'Internet system' functions being performed by organisations under government contracts - in many cases funded by US government agencies.
Such is the case, for example, of IANA, the organisation responsible for administering the root of the domain name system and the unallocated Internet number resources (basically IP addresses).
Other organisations, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) have operated independently, in an open and participatory manner, from the outset. The IETF is the forum where the standards for Internet architecture and operation are developed. Neither the IETF nor its related organisations (IAB and IESG) depend directly or indirectly on any government.
Root servers are another good example. There are thirteen similar servers, identified with the letters A through M, that constitute the basis (the root) of the domain name system. There is no hierarchy among these thirteen servers - all are at the same level. Ten of the thirteen root servers are located in the United States, with only three controlled by government organisations. Of the three root servers that are not located in the United States, two are in Europe and the other in Japan. The selection of organisations operating the root servers is based on historical reasons, not on geographical diversity. These organisations are not under contract with the US government.
In 1996, a global discussion process began with the aim of reforming the 'Internet system'. This process culminated in October, 1998, with the creation of ICANN. The idea was to build an international non-profit organisation, with participation and representation of all interest groups related to the Internet. The United States government temporarily transferred to ICANN, via contract, the functions under its control. In theory, when a set of requirements established by the US government is satisfied, these functions will be transferred to ICANN permanently. The current contract between ICANN and the US government expires in 2006 and it is expected that at that time the transition will be finalised and the relevant functions permanently transferred.
Internet governance and the WSIS
During the WSIS preparations, there arose - surprisingly for many - a debate on Internet resource administration models, or Internet governance. Some national governments stated the need for governments to have a greater degree of control in this matter, calling for the functions currently in the hands of ICANN to be transferred to an intergovernmental organisation. Some believe the ITU would be the appropriate choice, while others think some other organisation within the framework of the United Nations would be better (although they do not specify which one, or even if a new body should be formed).
The debate has always focused on the wording of certain paragraphs of the declaration of principles and of the plan of action, but it has never really been made clear what each national government understood by Internet governance, or what is implied by saying that certain tasks would be absorbed by an intergovernmental organisation.
For example, would this imply substituting some other intergovernmental organisation for ICANN? Or is it the intention that only ICANN's current Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) be replaced by an intergovernmental organisation? As to the functions that would hypothetically be transferred to this intergovernmental organisation, what is their scope? Do they include, for example, the current role of the IETF? Would the new organisation have only policy supervision functions, or would it also have operational functions? It would seem that, even among the countries that promoted the idea of assigning a significant role to an intergovernmental organisation, there are many and quite varied answers to these questions.
The alternatives
The Internet system is much more complex than it sometimes may seem. Frequently the discussion is simplified by mentioning only ICANN, but there are many other organisations involved, such as those we have already mentioned (IETF, IAB, IESG), in addition to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs), among others. The current Internet resource administration model may not be perfect, but it is participatory, it is efficient, and it is admirably balanced. The public often demands greater transparency and participation within ICANN's structures, but it is clear that the levels of transparency and participation that have been reached are significantly greater than those of any intergovernmental organisation.
Some national governments have managed to raise this issue, albeit in an imprecise manner, but this was not originally a part of the WSIS agenda.
The idea of an intergovernmental organisation in charge of the various functions discussed has not gained supporters among those more closely related to Internet operation. The most reasonable model seems to be to maintain these participatory organisations in which all stakeholders may express their interests, where the private sector and civil society organisations maintain a major role, and where governments - obviously - also have an appropriate level of participation.
However, it is necessary to attend to some of the claims asserted by these governments, in some cases because they are fair and in others because, although they are not priorities, they have been placed in the spotlight and will remain there until answers are provided.
ICANN needs to become more international, something on which it appears to be working. We need information in more languages, simultaneous translations during meetings, expansion of the number of regional offices, and processes that enable a higher degree of public participation.
The root server issue is an Achilles's heel of the current system. Although the root servers that are located in the US are operated by different organisations and the possibility of conspiracy is absolutely minimal (if not non-existent), and although clones of these servers are now being deployed in many parts of the world (currently 35 copies of different original root servers and rising), it remains difficult to justify that ten of the thirteen original root servers are located in the same country. In the near future, ICANN, working jointly with other system organisations such as the IETF and the IAB among others, will probably have to prove that it is willing to review the current geographical distribution of these root servers. Obviously this must be done in a responsible manner so that the stability of the network will not be compromised.
Are there any other important elements and factors that could justify transferring these functions to an intergovernmental organisation? If someone believes there are, then it will be necessary for them to specify which things are currently not working and how they could function better within the framework that is being proposed. Today it is not possible to have a clear picture of what these elements might be. It will be the responsibility of national governments to clearly establish their requirements and which changes they want implemented. Governments must also consider whether their needs could be achieved through the current structures.
Conclusions
Internet governance remains a problematic term. But from this discussion of the issues surrounding the use of the term, we can draw the following conclusions.
No one has proposed a system of intergovernmental organisational control of Internet resource administration and structures that would provide a better alternative to the current system.
Within the framework of the current model, both third-world countries and those sectors that usually have the least influence on power structures have had active participation and influence, something that would have hardly been possible in an alternative model, including the one that is apparently being proposed.
There is always much room for improvement, but the correct path appears to be to continue working to improve the current model.
This agenda has been imposed from outside the current system, but is now a part of the environment. Some of the issues that have been set forth will have to be solved sooner than we were planning to deal with them. The existence of the second phase of the WSIS together with its entire process of preparation, which includes the formation of an Internet Governance Working Group for following up on this issue, inevitably implies new schedules and working times.
This is an edited version of the original article, which was first published at:
