Over the revelations of mass surveillance of internet users and government officials, the topic of internet governance has risen to the mainstream political agenda. And a Communication on “Europe’s role in shaping the future of Internet Governance” passed by the European Commission today would put “Europe in the center of the debate,” EC Vice President Neelie Kroes said in a press conference in Brussels.
The Communication, which in part is supposed to foster an EU consensus position for the upcoming Brazil and other 2014 internet governance meetings (IPW, Information and Communications Technology, 30 January 2014), supports the globalisation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, performed under contract with the US Department of Commerce.
Kroes and her predecessor Viviane Reding made several attempts to push for a reform of the still unilateral oversight role of the US over the management of the root zone, the heart of the internet domain name system. So far, those attempts failed due to opposition from the US administration, though some steps to internationalise ICANN oversight have been taken and were welcomed today by the Commission.
In presenting the communication today, Kroes said the current debate is “happening at a time of broken trust, not the least because of surveillance scandals and at a time when many governments want more control over the internet.” The EU certainly did not support a UN or government takeover, she rushed to assure. The Commission rejected the notion that there is only a “binary choice” between “pretending there are no problems with governance” or “a revolutionary a top down approach.”
But in order “to avoid a split of the global political community” and an unravelling of the internet into “a series of regional and national networks,” there is a need to act urgently, she said. The Commission, therefore, is recommending the establishment of a clear timeline for the globalisation of the ICANN, a dialogue over “how to globalise the IANA functions,” and a strengthening of the multi-stakeholder model in general and the Internet Governance Forum as one of the platforms based on that model.
Compared to earlier proposals, the EU Commission this time seemingly wants to make sure to pre-empt any claims that it might help those asking for more UN control over the internet.
Multi-Stakeholder – Not a Magic Wand
The Communication will be discussed next week by the representatives of member states in the Council, according to the Commission, and later in the European Parliament where Dutch MEP Mareitje Schaake today called for a debate.
The Communication includes a list of other measures, too. Proposed measures of the Communication include the start of a Global Internet Policy Observatory to ease access to information on the complicated internet governance processes.
Moreover, the “fact that a process is claimed to be multistakeholder does not per se guarantee outcomes that are widely seen to be legitimate,” the Communication reads. A consultation on how “adequate and transparent multi-stakeholder involvement” can be ensured in the EU itself therefore is also on the to-do list.
One question raised with regard to multi-stakeholder context in particular is related to the role of public authorities in these new processes. There have been many questions by non-governmental participants about the role of representatives in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee for example.
Also some of the tough topics of global internet governance are included in the Communication, such as how to deal with the clash of jurisdictions in one universal, borderless network. The concern is that even if ICANN moves from California to another jurisdiction, the problem would not go away, but would only change with regard to what jurisdiction might be the dominant one.
“Stakeholders” Welcome Communication
The EC’s proposals today were quickly welcomed by many of the so-called stakeholders. ICANN Vice President for Europe Nigel Hickson sent out a statement saying the organisation was “pleased that the European Commission in this important communication is emphasizing the need to sustain the multi-stakeholder approach to governing the Internet.“ ICANN has joined Brazil in hosting and preparing the April Sao Paulo Conference, and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé has committed to internationalisation.
The European Telecom and Network Operator Association (ETNO) in a press release said it agreed “that we need to move towards a coherent set of global Internet principles and that the upcoming Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, hosted by the Brazilian Government in co-operation with other Member States, is a good place to start that debate.” ETNO’s Chairman Luigi Gambardella in the release said: “We need more Europe in Internet governance, or we won’t be able to make an impact at global level.”
Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) Vice President James Waterworth said in a statement that he was pleased with the EC’s “support for a truly open, free and global Internet and will take that position into the Brazil Summit in April this year.”
“It is vital that Europe leads liberal democracies in supporting a multilateral and multi-stakeholder system of Internet governance that does not hand control over critical Internet resources to an intergovernmental institution or to governments,” he said.
At the same time, CCIA cautioned against another measure in the Communication, an attempt to bring more non-technical stakeholders into technical standardisation bodies in order to have public policy interests represented. The Commission according to the communication will hold workshops about how this might be realised.
Waterworth said: “The Commission has set itself ambitious goals to broaden participation in Internet governance processes and I hope it will provide adequate funding and support to make this happen. It must also carefully balance its wish for increased public policy input in technical processes and standard setting with its desire for an open Internet; public policy is not always oriented towards freedom.”