What is Internet governance and who exactly governs the Internet? These are the issues we grappled with in our class discussion about multistakeholder Internet governance. Internet governance is complex. The Internet is not owned by a single entity; there is no global government in charge of the Internet. Instead, multiple stakeholders govern the Internet through various means including the IGF and ICANN.

As highlighted in class, the concept of Internet governance arose after the first phase of WSIS in Geneva, Switzerland. This introduction of Internet governance allowed for the creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). As mentioned on its’ website, the IGF is a “multistakeholder platform that facilitates the discussion of public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.” Further, the IGF “serves to bring people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet.”

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) also governs the Internet utilizing a multistakeholder governance framework. According to its’ website, ICANN is a “not-for-profit partnership of people from all over the world keeping the Internet secure, stable, and interoperable.”

Because the Internet has no boundaries, it is my opinion that the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance is highly beneficial. The Internet should not be owned or regulated by one entity, organization, or nation. This would give far too much power to one entity, and would be counterintuitive in the movement toward inclusive sustainable development.

According to “Internet Governance – Why the Multistakeholder Approach Works,” the multistakeholder governance framework is informed by (1) open-ended unleashed innovation, (2) decentralized governance institutions, and (3) open and inclusive processes. I believe that this framework is highly important, especially regarding the inclusiveness and transparency, collective responsibility, and effective decision-making and implementation measures of the multistakeholder governance framework. This framework allows for the participation of the international community in addressing a very critical need – access to the Internet. As access to ICTs increases in bridging the “digital-divide”, Internet governance will continue to be a predominant issue, especially with the addition of new stakeholders.

Multistakeholder Internet Governance and Sustainable Development by Ines Renique

Privatizing telecommunications— how do you decide who to sell to? Do you pick the highest bidder or pick the one that produces the highest quality, arguable a subject measure? This is a class discussion I wanted to look further into afterwards as it is a curious subject.

I looked into ICANN, which was formerly under the U.S. Department of Commerce and has now taken the responsibility to represent a multitude of global interests to ensure transparent and open Internet across national borders.

The cost of giving up these controlling mechanisms is hard, especially for the U.S., which has previously had significant control due to the Internet’s growth in the U.S. The transfer of powers is criticized by elements in the national security branch of the U.S. government as it weakens the U.S. ability to protect itself against cyber attacks.

Ultimately, the dangers of having a non-profit in control of the Internet has to do with the reliability of having the same priorities, and resources to pursue threats to U.S. national security. The heightened frequency of these threats, as seen throughout the U.S. presidential election is certainly a cause of concern for U.S. politicians, since cyber security will most likely remain a matter of strictly national security in the near future.

The decision, however, is a step towards the right direction regardless of the costs. If the U.S. keeps control of its systems, it would have undermined the development of the ICANN, and made other countries reluctant towards the U.S. ability to cooperate to the make the Internet a truly global playing field.

The Internet is increasingly becoming the leading communication and information tool around the world, especially with younger generations. It seems that more and more of my own personal interactions include the line, “Do you have a Facebook?”. Beyond personal interactions, my studies and the studies of my friends all seem to begin with “Googling” the topic at hand. With more and more people, of all ages and backgrounds, depending on the Internet as their primary way to stay connected and informed, it is important that the global community recognizes it as such.

In 2003, the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held in response to the growing use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Between the first phase and the second phase (in 2005), the concept of Internet governance emerged, which would lead to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Both WSIS and IGF took or have taken (respectively) multistakeholder approaches. Considering that the Internet is a global tool with no real owner and no real global barriers to participation, it is important that multistakeholdersim methods are involved in decisions and discussions regarding the Internet. To clarify, multistakeholderism is basically an approach that involves any or all– if even possible– relevant stakeholders with various backgrounds so as to yield the most inclusive plans possible.

As noted in other blog topics, the inclusion of multiple stakeholders is a great step for international agenda making but remains to be limited due to disproportionate resources between countries, organizations, and stakeholder groups. However, ICTs represent the potential to reduce these differences and barriers to partaking by providing tools that facilitate participation by reducing costs (i.e. travel), reducing physical barriers (for PWDs that may not be able to access the event because of sites with poor design), addressing time differences (by using recordings to allow people in different time zones or with different schedules to see what they missed), and through other means. Some of these tools were seen in action at the recent Habitat III conference in Quito, Ecuador, where live streaming, recorded sessions, and social media where just some of the various ways the UN tried and mostly succeeded in expanding participation and involvement in the conference.

It is exciting to be in the field of development at this time where ICTs are increasingly advancing and becoming available to more and more segments of the global population, while, concurrently, international decision-making processes are becoming more and more diverse. The recent uses of ICTs to increase participation and expand development processes to previously excluded groups is an exciting step in the right direction towards inclusive and successful development practices.

The internet itself is a fascinating commodity in that no one entity can really claim ownership over it. Multistakeholder internet governance, according to the Internet Governance Forum can essentially be thought of as a “multi-stakeholder dialogue on public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance issues, such as the Internet’s sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development” (intgovforum.org). The Internet Governance Forum was established in 2006 and aims to facilitate public policy discussions – that are both productive and inclusive– regarding some of the issues surrounding internet governance. I think that it is important that the IGF encourages discussion that is inclusive of all stakeholders because it allows for multiple actors to have the ability to express their opinions and concern over the governance of a single resource that is shared by millions of communities all over the world.

The 2016 Internet Governance Forum (IGF): ‘Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth’, is currently being held in Jalisco, Mexico. According to the forum’s website, it looks like the discussions that have been held were in regards to maximizing internet opportunities, while also sharing opinions on different actor’s ideas of internet best practices. One aspect of the IGF’s website that I thought was a good compliment to their overall purpose, was that there is an option for people to submit their feedback on the conference directly to the IGF (which speaks to the inclusivity of all relevant actors having a voice in the IGF).

Furthermore, in regards to multistakeholder internet governance, NETMundial was a meeting held in Brazil in 2014 to discuss the principles of internet governance (including in relation to future international development). It is extraordinary to see that stakeholders from over 97 countries were able to participate in this forum. I think NETMundial was a good example of the importance in being inclusive of multiple voices in the discussion of development goals, as a means to gain the collective knowledge necessary to best approach development solutions. Within the forum’s outcome document, I think it is important to note that it explicitly mentions the idea that “persons with disabilities should enjoy full access to online resources Promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information, technologies and systems on the internet” (NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement 4), thus emphasizing the need for inclusivity in all development goals.

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling of the Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration said “The multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance is the best mechanism for maintaining an open, resilient, and secure Internet because, among other things, it is informed by a broad foundation of interested parties arriving at consensus through a bottom-up process regarding policies affecting the underlying functioning of the Internet domain system.” This sentiment is the best summary of the sentiments of the frameworks in this class regarding internet governance. Specifically, the Internet Governance Forum has epitomized the prioritization of uniting many varied stakeholders together to maintain the internet as open, resilient and secure.

The Internet Governance Forum serves to bring together people from various stakeholder groups as equals. They focus on community leaders, NGO and corporate representatives, and governments. The Forum seeks to unite these dispirit entities in discussions on public policy issues relating to internet governance and the Internet as a tool. While the IGF has no negotiated outcomes as of the end of 2016, it serves a purpose similar to the Sustainable Development goals by uniting those with policymaking power in both private and public sectors towards an end that benefits the world. The Internet Governance Forum facilitates a common understanding of how to optimize Internet opportunities while simultaneously addressing the risks and challenges inherent in reliance on internet use.

The Internet Governance Forum community holds an annual meeting to allow relevant stakeholders normally attended by over 2000 delegates. This meeting is intended to produce tangible outcomes through its scheduled activities. The IGF’s annual meeting is organized by the multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG), which is intended to represent equally the interests of every stakeholder group. The MAG also encourages members of each group to see the other groups as equal partners. At the IGF’s annual meeting, delegates exchange information and best practices. The most recent meeting actually started on December 6^th of this year in Guadalajara, Mexico. The IGF’s schedule focuses on best practices as well as other initiatives intended to facilitate general IGF community activities. This intersessional program was designed in accordance with a 2012 report recommending the development of additional tangible outputs to ‘enhance the impact of the IGF on global Internet governance and policy’.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/multistakeholder-1.pdf

Multi-stakeholder governance can be defined as a multi-actor approach to internet governance. The concept of multi-stakeholder governance came into existence as countries and multinational corporations grappled with the concept of the governance of the internet. How the internet should be governed and even if internet governance should occur has, in recent years, been a topic of fierce debate. However, multi-stakeholder governance has emerged to a solution to the issue. In our increasingly globalized and interconnected world, multi-stakeholder internet governance is more relevant than ever before.

As explored in class, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is one means in which the strategy of multi-stakeholder governance is utilized. As explained on its homepage, the IGF is a, “Multi-stakeholder platform that facilitates the discussion of public policy issues pertaining to the internet.” The IGF, hosted by the United Nation Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), plans to will meet December 6^th– 9^th of this year in Jalisoc, Mexico. One group that participates in the IGF is the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN is often presented as an experiment in international governance. ICANN is interesting because it prescribes to international regime theory. That is, it believes that there are actors other than states that can influence international relations. While ICANN does contain a Government Advisory Committee (GAC), it is only a small part of the group and not a major actor. Strategies such as those implemented by ICANN and the IGF have become increasingly important as different entities vie for control over different aspects of the internet.

There are also many outside conferences that have sought to establish multi-stakeholder governance on the internet. The NETmundial conference, which met on April 32^nd and 24^th of 2014 in São Paulo, Brazil, explored the idea of multi-stakeholder governance. In fact, the NETmundial conference website describes the conferences as a, “Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance.” The meeting, which was organized by CGI and Dilma Rousseff, established a tentative framework for multi-stakeholder governance.

I believe that internet governance will continue to be an issue for many years to come. As the internet expands and permeates many different aspects of our lives, questions about who should govern the internet and how the internet should be governed should be governed will continue to become increasingly pertinent. By addressing this issue now, the international community can avoid some undue tensions in the future.

The biggest problem with governing the Internet is that not one entity can claim ownership over it. While it was developed originally in the United States as a military tool, the US cannot and should not maintain control over the entire web. This is not a problem in that one entity should claim ownership as it is and should remain a shared resource. The problem is that it requires a vast number of stakeholders in the Internet to come together to govern it together. When framed this way, it becomes less of a problem and more of a challenge or opportunity for collaboration.

This opportunity was taken advantage of with after the 2005 Summit in Tunis at which WSIS introduced a shared aim to maintain equal access to and treatment of different states in their access to the Internet as well as the importance of net neutrality. In response, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has begun to transition away from being a United States dominated power and is now an international forum for monitoring of the logistics of the Internet.

Additionally, the Internet Governance Forum allows for a balanced and shared overseeing of the right to the Internet, access to it, and issues of neutrality. The IGF notably has a number of inclusive initiatives based on region, age (youth), and provides a “tool kit” for those outside of the organization looking to be involved and have their voice heard regarding the resource that connects us more than any technology ever has.

Not only is this magnificent in that it allows for shared overseeing of the right to the Internet as well as the importance of neutrality and increase access, this collaboration also marks a significant group of stakeholders working together for a shared goal. In what feels like an increasingly divided world, this is no small feat.

In this week’s class we discussed the fact that no one “owns” the internet and because it is used by people all over the world and surpasses the level of any nation state, its governance is quite complicated. With the internet, states are able to interact in a global sphere but without the guidance or rules that come with an all-encompassing governing body. Although the internet originated in the United States through DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), they only owned the infrastructure not the protocols. The internet was initially designed as and intended to be a research and military communication mechanism that could withstand a nuclear attack. However, after the National Science Foundation invested in the internet, its use rapidly expanded and it became internationally commercialized with the help of companies. Naturally, the more people that used the internet, the more valuable it became to everyone as a global resource, but still a lack of internet governance was evident. “Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet” (Class Notes). In 1992, a movement started to institutionalize the process in a way that would provide private governance of the internet rather than by a government. This also internationalized the internet further. Now in every country you can determine who owns the telecom infrastructure but the internet remains unowned. In 1998, a nonprofit organization called ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) was set up in California as a major experiment in internet governance. It was a stable and secure regime with all stakeholders having a role to play and serving its purpose, but it didn’t go far enough in further developing the internet, so there remained pressure to create new forces and a multistakeholder system (Internet Society).

After the 2005 Summit in Tunis, the WSIS attempted to tackle this challenge by creating a multistakeholder organization called the IGF (Internet Governance Forum). The IGF “serves to bring people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet. While there is no negotiated outcome, the IGF informs and inspires those with policy-making power in both the public and private sectors” (IGF). It was initially given a five year mandate and was renewed after the first. Now, the IGF continues to thrive with its persistent governing structure as a multistakeholder advisory group and has established dynamic coalitions that discuss and share information and best practices with one another. Therefore, to date the IGF has been the most successful creation for instilling “ a common understanding of how to maximize Internet opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise” (IGF).