A Proposal for the Establishment of an Internet Governance Forum
Charles Sha'ban*
The Internet might very well be the most prominent and important feature of our present age. US development, technology and research abilities have joined together to produce an achievement which sparks humanity’s creativity, powers of invention, and skills for management and regulation, for which global society needs to be thankful. Although the Internet originated and is still administered mainly within the United States, it has extraterritorial importance and effects. It is therefore essential that all involved parties be given the chance to discuss and suggest how the future of the Internet may unfold. A variety of players must be invited to participate with their suggestions and opinions. It is vital, however, to point out that any change in the current Internet governance structure should not involve a change in its current logical elements and operators.
The Internet is merely a world-wide network of networks that connects servers and personal computers. This network has expanded at light speed to touch every destination in our global village. It now comprises a billion users around the world. All sectors and businesses are affected, in one way or another, by the Internet revolution. Airlines, universities, business, research, communication systems, contracts, mail systems, the computer industry, governments and finally the individual are considered the Internet’s loyal dependants.
The fact that Internet involves a mosaic of users and suppliers with multifarious interests and needs results in their forming a very complex and layered society. Members of this society - in addition to the entities owning the infrastructure and other assets forming the Internet are considered as the “Internet stakeholders” (See Appendix I, below). It is very healthy when these stakeholders have mutually informative and constructive discussions where the parties involved may exchange ideas and suggest solutions, which may benefit the global Internet community. It is vital to mention here that this phase of discussion shall involve no major changes in Internet operations or infrastructure ownership.
The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) has proposed the creation a discussion space wherein all stakeholders will be represented and feel free to discuss and make recommendations. This global participation should result in an acceptable Forum where all those involved in the effective upkeep and securing of the Internet may work towards ensuring ways and means of solving inevitable developmental obstacles and to establish an infrastructure capable of dealing with ongoing development and maintenance.
Forum Issues
Internet governance should be viewed in a broad sense so that a flexible approach may be reached, rather than one that limits the Internet to a collection of domain names and protocols. Accordingly, the WGIG Report has defined Internet governance as, “the development and application by governments, the private sector, and the civil society – in their respective roles - of shared principles and norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evaluation and use of the Internet.”
The WGIG has purposefully introduced a wide definition for Internet and its regulation so as to allow current entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to continue in their present role. The concept of soft discussion, such as the type indicated here, is the best means to retain the self-regulating character of the Internet while at the same time providing a means by which presently disparate entities may work together under a loosely defined 'umbrella' for the mutual benefit of the Internet and its users.
Internet governance involves many concerns that need to be addressed in a wide range of discussions. Listing the issues at stake is an ambitious endeavor; one attempt at this task is represented in Appendix II, below. It is recommended that decisions over whether a particular field should be considered an Internet public issue be vested in the Forum itself. This will add more elasticity to its functions.
Issues like domain names, root servers, Internet protocols, Internet services providers, interconnection costs, and telecommunication channels, should be open to member suggestions and recommendations. This would empower the international entities – such as ICANN and the ITU---respectively responsible for these issues. In the event that an issue may currently be addressed to an established entity, this fact shall not preclude the forum from discussing the issue in question and passing recommendations to the competent responsible entity.
Similarly, matters not falling within jurisdiction of any entity also could be discussed in the forum. This category includes, inter alia SPAM, intellectual property rights in cyberspace, recognition and enforcement of laws, human rights, jurisdiction procedure, terrorism and fraud repression, Internet security and stability among others. Regulation and enforcement, however, may be approached in a different manner. The Forum should be able to pass recommendations on to the concerned parties, and may also invite – or recommend that the United Nations invites –member states to discuss a certain issue in an official capacity, or via a vote in the United Nations General Assembly.
It is intended that the forum be equipped with abilities and expertise in all fields relevant to issues relative to the Internet. This assembly of experts will act as an “advisory party” for those issues requiring professional or academic qualifications.
Sponsorship and Participation
It is presumed that all these issues – along with many others - will be discussed by all the stakeholders in a Forum, pursuant to an invitation of the United Nations to act as an Internet governance body. The United Nations is the most likely organization to sponsor an Internet governance Forum. The exact relationship with the United Nations is not dealt with in this proposal; however, it is recommended that this relationship be restricted to a mere honorable patronage by the United Nations.
The Forum should be comprised of representatives from all parties concerned with the Internet. Membership will be egalitarian to ensure that all stakeholders are on equal footing. Business concerns, social sector members, governments, academic institutes, representatives from the United Nations, ITU and ICANN are just some of the groups and interests expected to participate. For logical and historical reasons, it is not unlikely that US participation will be highly visible, on account of America’s early contributions and leading role today.
The forum also should be mandated with encouraging discussions at regional, sub-regional, and national levels. These discussions will ensure fair participation. The ideal scenario envisions sub-international committees reporting to the main forum for cultural and informational exchanges and to guarantee the discussion is representative of all involved sectors. The regional, sub-regional, and national committees might be more informal and be more fluid regarding centralized locations, procedures and structures.
Promoting Stability
It is important to ensure that current organizational responsibilities are not altered. Creating an international discussions space does not necessitate – in its most basic sense - any restructuring of the present operative entities, particularly in the case of domain names administration, root servers administration, Internet protocols administration, Internet infrastructure, and telecommunications regulation and administration. Current responsible bodies—including any oversight bodies---should not be weakened by the establishment of the proposed Forum. Establishing a Forum is only an effort to guarantee that all interested parties are represented and that their voices contribute in an advisory role to maintain principles of transparency, and utility.
The fact that the proposed Forum would have no real judicial or legislative authority does not imply that it will not be useful. Being a discussions space, the Forum would refrain from entering into political, historical, diplomatic and ceremonial processes. It would be practical and its recommendations will not be vitiated by the aforesaid restrictions. Moreover, the Forum would an assembly of well-practiced, educated, experienced, and prepared individuals who are only bound by science and principles of reasons. It would hence be a source of balanced and well-studied opinions and theory.
In light of its neutrality and the qualified staff, the Forum could be appointed as arbitrator or adjudicator of disputes. It could also act as a blueprint for a future system by serving as an example for future governance of technological advances and systems, as the need arises. Finally, due to its proposed base---including the regional, sub-regional and national levels---the Forum would have a resonance at all levels. These multi-layered connections would facilitate greater influence on societies, small enterprises, and individuals than what current bodies such as ICANN or the ITU can claim.
Conclusion
It is essential to bear in mind the complexity of the medium and the mosaic of users involved, and to ensure the Forum’s transparency and accessibility. In spite of the fact that the proposed Forum is not to be empowered with legislative or judicial powers, or perhaps because of this fact, it should be flexible enough to suit diverse mode of discourse and provide a means of unifying otherwise disparate entities and pointing them toward the path of common benefit. By its very nature as a common ground and meeting place for all concerned it should accurately represent its stakeholders on all levels, from corporate bodies to individual users. In this way, the Forum can exercise its advisory function and at the same time serve as a blueprint for similar organizations in the future.