Byron Holland is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA). View bio
As mentioned in my blog last week, the Internet Society (ISOC) has posted a petition to maintain the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance. The following is a guest blog by Bill Graham, who leads ISOC’s Strategic Engagement. Last week, Bill attended a UN-convened open consultation on enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.
By Bill Graham, Strategic Global Engagement, the Internet Society
The UN Under-Secretary-General, Sha Zukang, convened “open consultations on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet” in New York on December 14, 2010. I requested and received permission to speak as an NGO on behalf of the Internet Society (ISOC) as well as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) (at the request of the IAB). I believe there is a public interest in being able to share some of the positions taken, so I am pleased to provide my observations on CIRA’s blog. All written contributions to the consultation, and the text of most of the speeches, along with a webcast, and the program are to be posted to the DESA web.
Of the 25 formal presenters, 14 were governments, 10 were business or civil society organizations, and one was an intergovernmental organization (ITU). Several other governments and civil society organizations spoke during the open discussion. My estimate is that a small majority of governments spoke in favour of any mechanism for enhanced cooperation being multi-stakeholder, although several were strongly of the view that enhanced cooperation is strictly meant to be intergovernmental. Of course all business and civil society speakers were in favour of a multi-stakeholder model.
In the most coherent expression of the governments-only view, Brazil spoke for India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) as a group, presenting their plan for “a new world order“, in this case in the form of a new intergovernmental entity to deal with international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. It would have governments deal with issues such as: stability, interoperability, network neutrality, human rights the balance between security, privacy, openness, and maintaining a development focus. Brazil went on to say that there has been progress toward internationalization of ICANN, but it is still dependent on one government. In their opinion, that contravenes UN practice and principles of multilateralism. They said there is a need for an intergovernmental platform formally established under the UN to discuss critical Internet resources and Internet governance. That said, IBSA reaffirms commitment to the Internet as a global facility based on the full participation of all stakeholders, in line with their roles and responsibilities, and denied that their proposal is an attempt to have the UN take over the Internet.
On the other side, IETF/ISOC, the European Commission, International Chamber of Commerce, ICANN, the NRO, the United Kingdom, the European Telecommunication Network Operators’ Association, Finland, Tech America, the Internet Governance Caucus, Italy, Serbia, the American Bar Association, the World Federation of Engineering Organizations and others spoke about the benefits of the multi-stakeholder model. Many examples of post-WSIS enhanced cooperation were offered and, in general, a pretty good case was made that enhanced cooperation is alive and well in the Internet world. The Internet Society made the point that it is not enough for the inter-governmental organizations to invite stakeholders to work in forums of their creation; it is also necessary for the IGOs to recognize there are many other forums within the existing Internet organizations where governments and IGOs need to go to cooperate.
After the formal presentations completed, USG Sha opened the floor for discussion. Milton Mueller, of Syracuse University, expressed concern about the IBSA proposal, which will fragment cooperation, not enhance it. He said a purely intergovernmental platform means that governments do not take seriously their interaction with other stakeholders. Nor would all governments agree to such a forum. He went on to remind the group that governments have no trans-national authority over the Internet. Public policy is the sovereign right of states within their national borders, but there is no international sovereignty over the Internet, which negates the position of several governments. He posed a question to governments: Why not embrace this challenge rather than running away from it?
John Curran (ARIN) and others questioned how the idea of a government-only enhanced cooperation process could possibly be considered, given the WSIS Tunis Agenda’s insistence that “The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” IGC pointed out that there is still a very long way to go before all stakeholders deal with each other in a constructive manner; thus work needs to be continued to enhance cooperation among all the stakeholders.
China took a new tack by saying that the existing Internet organizations have done a very good job of enhancing cooperation but that doesn’t mean that the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) doesn’t need to start a governmental process toward enhanced cooperation. They criticized the UNSG for not having started the process he was asked by WSIS to start by first quarter 2006, and said that governments need a private place to discuss how to deal with Internet-related public policy issues. They concluded by saying that the meeting’s purpose was to help the UNSG do his job starting the process, and so the meeting doesn’t need to reach consensus.
And in the Chair’s concluding remarks, that was the point he made rather strongly when talking about the way forward. He said the point of the meeting was to act upon the resolution passed by member states at the WSIS. If anyone does not like it, he said they have to go back to WSIS or the Economic and Social Council, and get the resolution overturned. The UN Secretariat will act on the resolution that is current.
As to whether there would be a process on enhanced cooperation, he said that’s no longer for discussion. On the other hand, Sha said all should agree “we” have existing institutions like ITU, ICANN, CSTD, ECOSOC, and they’ve all played their respective roles. He said there’s no question the IGF role is recognized, and will be extended for five years. Those existing mechanisms should continue, including UN institutions like CSTD. But he said none has created new overarching groups; he admitted CSTD has established a working group, but said that’s not frightening because it is just a working group: let them work. He noted the working group is to take into account the views of all stakeholders. CSTD is a governmental group, he said, and its working group is also governmental, but it can’t do its job without taking into account the views of others. Then in an interesting aside, he mused that the world has changed. When he was in government he said he used to shout at Civil Society that they are not accountable to anyone. But he admitted he was wrong – they are the source of ideas, and have experience in the field, so the UN should benefit from their experiences. No one says don’t consult them, he continued; they should be consulted and make recommendations.
And so it ended. The conclusion is that there has now been a multi-stakeholder consultation, and there will not be more on this topic. The Under-Secretary-General (Sha) will go away and write a report for next June-July’s ECOSOC meeting as requested, with recommendations that will take into account the views expressed at the December 14 meeting. My bet, if I was to make one, is that the recommendation will be to create an intergovernmental working group on enhanced cooperation, possibly with occasional consultation meetings for other stakeholders.
It seems to me that some member states are successfully getting the UN system to back away from progress made toward multi-stakeholder engagement since the WSIS. UN bodies also increased the number and frequency of largely ritualistic consultations with the non-governmental organizations, which has the effect of stretching our and other organizations’ resources and ability to deal with them. Whether that is a deliberate tactic, or just an accident arising from lack of coordination, is hard to say. I do think, however, those of interested in the health of the Internet and the Internet ecosystem need to consider carefully where we will participate in the next year, focusing more strategically on meetings and mechanisms where we believe we can have a real impact.
In light of recent events, the Internet Society (ISOC) has posted a petition to maintain the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance. This included a meeting of the United Nation’s Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), where a decision was made to create a Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The membership of this Working Group is made up entirely of governments.
Also, let’s call a spade a spade here. This was a hastily called, special, meeting for a Monday night in Geneva. Why does that matter? Because it means that only UN Mission staff, not the deep subject matter experts, would even have a chance of attending. And even many of the Mission staff would not likely make it given the odd timing and short notice. But remarkably the Chair was able to rustle up enough staffers from the countries that tend to be anti-multistakeholder (the usual suspects) to have a vote – and lo and behold, its governments only! I hate to sound like a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but it sure is a remarkable number of coincidences.
If you read this blog regularly, you know why I believe this multi-lateral approach to Internet governance is a mistake. If you don’t know my position, please read this, this, this, and especially this.
I will be signing the petition on behalf of CIRA. Are you going to sign ISOC’s petition?
I’m currently in Cartagena, Colombia at ICANN’s 39th International Meeting. This meeting started off with a bit of a bang with the U.S. government sending an aggressively worded letter to ICANN’s Board critical of the process regarding the launch of new gTLDs. Here’s Beckstrom’s carefully scripted opening remarks at the meeting; quite a well-crafted response in my opinion.
What’s interesting this time around is how the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) is making its presence felt. The GAC, not known as the fastest moving of ICANN committees, released this communiqué yesterday:
ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee Communique
In it, the GAC strongly called on the ICANN Board to delay its decision on new gTLDs, given numerous outstanding issues. The result? ICANN delayed finalizing the rules for new Internet extensions until a special meeting of the GAC can be held in the Spring of 2011, meaning that the earliest a decision will be made is when ICANN meets next.
I’d like to share some good news that has come out of our meeting in Cartagena. Heather Dryden, a Senior Policy Advisor with Industry Canada and a member of CIRA’s Board of Directors, was elected chair of the GAC. Heather has been acting as interim chair of the GAC for a while now, and has been a strong voice for government’s interests at ICANN, and for Canada. Congratulations, Heather!
Just a quick head’s up: CIRA will be submitting an application to host an ICANN meeting in Canada in October 2012. We’re very excited to be considered for this opportunity. I’ll keep you posted on our progress.
Expect a full report on ICANN’s 39th International Meeting next week.
On December 1, 2000, CIRA assumed the management of the .CA registry. Ten years later, I had a talk with John Demco, the creator of the .CA top-level domain about the early days of the Internet in Canada, and what he sees for the future. You can watch our conversation here: