Copyright © 2005 United Nations ICT Task Force All rights reserved. Except for use in a review, the reproduction or utilization of this work or part of it in any form or by electronics, or other means now known or hereafter invented, including xerography, photocopying, recording, and in any information storage, transmission or retrieval system, including CD-ROM, online or via the Internet, is forbidden without the written permission of the publishers. The views expressed in this book are those of their individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the United Nations ICT Task Force, the United Nations itself, any of its organs or agencies, nor of any other organizations or institutions mentioned or discussed in this book, including the organizations to which the authors are affiliated. Published by The United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force One United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 unicttaskforce@un.org ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to the many people who make this publication possible. Markus Kummer, the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat supporting the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), was an early and enthusiastic supporter of the project and provided guidance and the requisite resources. The former members of the WGIG and of its Secretariat staff who contributed chapters did so on short notice and in good cheer, even when this meant dragging laptop computers on their summer family holidays. The staff of the United Nations ICT Task Force Secretariat, located in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, provided excellent and equally rapid support in the copy editing and production phases. Special thanks go to Sarbuland Khan and Sergei Kambalov for their trust and support in opening the United Nations ICT Task Force Series to this project, Enrica Murmura who skillfully oversaw these efforts, and Serge Kapto who dedicated his technical skills to the production of this book. Thanks too to the Graphical Design Unit of the Outreach Division of the Department of Public Information for providing the cover design. Finally, very special thanks go to my wife, Michiko Hayashi, for her support and equanimity about yet another “working vacation.” TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface vii NITIN DESAI Introduction 1 MARKUS KUMMER The Dynamics of Multistakeholder Collaboration: WGIG and Beyond 7 A Brief History of WGIG 9 DON MACLEAN A Reflection from the WGIG Frontline 25 FRANK MARCH The WGIG Process: Lessons Learned and Thoughts for the Future 31 TAREK CHENITI Internet Governance: Striking the Appropriate Balance Between all Stakeholders 35 WILLY JENSEN WSIS, WGIG, Technology and Technologists 41 AVRI DORIA The Current Landscape of Internet Governance: Selected Issues 47 Internet Names and Numbers in WGIG and WSIS: Perils and Pitfalls 49 ALEJANDRO PISANTY Multilingualism and the Domain Name System 67 KANGSIK CHEON International Internet Connections Costs 73 BAHER ESMAT AND JUAN FERNÁNDEZ Intellectual Property, e-Commerce, Competition Policy, and Internet Governance 87 C. TREVOR CLARKE Internet Governance and International Law 105 JOVAN KURBALIJA Internet Governance: Strengths and Weaknesses From a Business Perspective 117 AYESHA HASSAN Self-Regulation After WGIG 129 PENG HWA ANG The Development Dimension 135 Driving the Public Policy Debate: Internet Governance and Development 137 HOWARD WILLIAMS Encouraging Internet Public Policy Development and Capacity Building in Developing Countries: Lessons from the FLOSS Community 149 CHENGETAI MASANGO The Case for National Internet Governance Mechanisms 155 WAUDO SIGANGA vi Challenges for Africa 161 OLIVIER NANA NZEPA Challenges for the Caribbean 169 JACQUELINE A. MORRIS Options for Institutional Change 175 The Need for International Internet Governance Oversight 177 ABDULLAH A. AL-DARRAB Internationalized Oversight of Internet Resource Management 185 QIHENG HU A Scenario for a New Internet Governance 193 CARLOS AFONSO De-Mystification of the Internet Root: Do we need Governmental Oversight? 209 WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER Oversight and multiple root server systems 227 VITTORIO BERTOLA Proposal for the Establishment of an Internet Governance Forum 235 CHARLES SHA'BAN Conclusion 247 Why the WGIG Process Mattered 249 WILLIAM J. DRAKE Annex 267 About the Authors 269 PREFACE Or, more accurately, an afterword on how we got there Nitin Desai The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) was an experiment that worked. That much is clear from the compliments heaped on its report by the participants in the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). How did this unlikely combination of forty individuals from very diverse backgrounds, each with strong views on what needs to be done or not done, end up producing a unanimous report? Now that the exercise is over, as the Chairman of this Group I feel more able to respond, at least partially to this question. The Group was fortunate in that the Office of the United Nations Secretary-General allowed it to work without interference. It was also very fortunate to have in Markus Kummer an Executive Coordinator who brought to bear his knowledge of the issue, his substantial skills as a diplomat, and his typically Swiss efficiency. All this helped. But I believe a large part of the answer lies in the sequencing of work and the ease with which those who were not in the group could keep track of and contribute to its deliberations. The first challenge was to ensure a genuine dialogue in the group. When a group with very divergent views converses, the biggest hurdle is to get people to listen rather than just talk. Ideally, one wants a good faith dialogue that each person joins not to convert, but to be converted. The WGIG’s discussions did not quite meet this standard. But the conversation definitely moved beyond a dogmatic statement of set views. Everyone made an effort to explain the logic behind their view and put their argument in terms that could convince others. To do that they had to listen and respond to the doubts and questions raised. Instead of talking at one another, the members started talking with one another. The members of the group were there as individuals. But they had been chosen to reflect a balance across regions and interest groups. There was always a risk that what any person said would be dismissed on ad hominem grounds like, “what do you expect from someone who comes from such-and-such country,” or “that person is bound to reflect the views of such- and-such vested interest.” These sentiments may well have been felt but they were never expressed or allowed to distort the basic protocol of treating every argument on its merits. The primary credit for this constructive protocol for the dialogue within the group rests with its members. I hope that as a chair I helped it along as I asked questions to educate myself about the intricacies of Internet governance. I believe that a crucial difference was made by the viii substantial academic presence in the group, as these members brought to the group the ethic of treating every debater with respect. Of course, this did tend to make every conversation a little longer than it would have been in a more business-like group! But as a chair, I welcomed this because it reinforced the mutual respect between the group members. The WGIG also decided against getting into the difficult issue of making recommendations too early. In fact members began their work with a thorough exercise in problem definition. This phase was crucial in creating a sense of joint responsibility. More than that, by deconstructing the problem, they shifted the terms of the debate away from rhetoric, slogans and simplifications to very precise organizational, institutional or policy issues. For example, the discussion of root zone file changes looked at all the steps involved and focused on the authorization function. The deconstruction exercise helped greatly in separating public policy functions from operational and technical management issues. The analysis and deconstruction of the problem was a very collaborative exercise. Group members connected with one another through voluminous e-mail and other means and produced group drafts. The analysis was largely factual, but getting people to agree on a description of how things actually work was often enough to resolve differences about how they should work. More than that, the group members who had put in so much hard work developed a vested interest in the success of the process. Much of the work done by the WGIG on problem definition and deconstruction is contained in the Background Report rather than in the Main Report of the Group. The Background Report is not an agreed report in the sense that every member of the group has not signed off on everything said therein. But the report is a product of a collaborative exercise, so one may think of it as a report by the group but not of the group. It has been made available so that the raw material that was used by the group in developing its Main Report is widely accessible. The group had reached this stage of problem definition by February 2005, but it had not yet started any systematic discussion about the recommendations that it would make. This posed a minor problem as the WGIG, which was launched in November 2004, was required to submit a preliminary report to the February 2005 WSIS PrepCom. We did present our assessment of what we saw as the public policy issues, but little or nothing on matters like the definition of Internet governance, roles and responsibilities. My job as the chair was to take the heat from the PrepCom and allow the group to pace its work in a manner that would maximize the chances of a unanimous report. Throughout the process the WGIG followed a very transparent process for connecting with the wider constituency outside. Every meeting of the group included an open consultation. The ix documents that were considered within WGIG were put on-line before these meetings so that all stakeholders could send in their comments, and many did. These open consultations were part of the original design. They were necessary to meet the concerns of those countries that did not want a small group process, but rather a full intergovernmental meeting. In practice the open consultations proved particularly valuable in affording an opportunity not just to governments but also to other stakeholders to find out where the WGIG was heading and try to push it in the directions they preferred. The scale and level of participation in these open consultations was truly extraordinary. I would particularly note the full and committed participation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Society (ISOC), and other entities involved in Internet management at present. Hopefully, their presence reassured both the governments and the private sector. The openness helped to maintain the interest of the Internet community and media outside the PrepCom. It gave them material to report and comment on. I believe it also stimulated academic interest in places like the Berkman Center at Harvard University, the Oxford Internet Institute, and the Internet Governance Project at Syracuse University in New York. The open consultations had the paradoxical effect of reinforcing the WGIG’s sense of self- identity. Group members did refer to the views presented at the open consultations. They were influenced by the weight behind different positions as evidenced in these open meetings. But they became increasingly conscious that their job was to write their report, not a report on the views expressed in the consultations. By April 2005 the Group had started talking about recommendations, but the real discussion was to be at the final June meeting. Usually the group met in the United Nations’ premises in Geneva. This allowed a certain amount of informal interaction between group members and other stakeholders. However when it came to drafting the final report, a more secluded environment seemed necessary. The WGIG had in any case shared so much with the stakeholders that no surprises were in store. The secretariat arranged to take everyone to a conference centre on the outskirts of Geneva. Well before the group met in Chateau de Bossey in June 2005, it had developed a camaraderie and team spirit. People knew one another and what they could expect in an argument. There was a real sense of ownership, and a commitment to get an agreed report despite the differences that remained. The atmosphere in the Chateau helped in promoting a certain bonhomie. The group members, thrown together not just for the meetings but also for all meals and convivial evenings in the fine garden, became friends who had differences on substantive x matters but who were prepared to find a way through out of a sense of responsibility and friendship. The discussions at the Chateau were intense and tempers occasionally frayed. My job as the chair was to keep the process moving, cajole people toward compromise, lighten the mood when the going got rough, and once in a while simulate anger! But the Group members rose to the task and practically everyone pitched in contributing some text to the final product. The most difficult issue was that about institutional arrangements for global public policy oversight. It soon became clear that a single view would not emerge and would in fact be misleading, as it would not reflect the diversity of opinions within the group and in the wider community outside. We correctly decided that we were not a substitute for the political process in the WSIS PrepCom and that our duty was to spell out options clearly rather than to find a compromise. Had we presented just a single option, then all those outside who disagreed with that option might have rejected the rest of the report, which contained valuable suggestions. In the end the WGIG produced a unanimous report. There was no note of dissent. It was not a report that replaced the need for a broader political process. But it was a report that made it possible for such a process to start further down the road to the ultimate compromise. The WGIG began with forty experts who were often suspicious of one another. It ended as a group of forty collaborators who were convinced that they had fulfilled their duty and were proud of what they had wrought. The challenge now is to reproduce in the wider community the same sense of engagement, dialogue, understanding and constructive compromise. [...]... progress on the basis of the documentary record, as contained in papers published on the WGIG web site and in e-mails exchanged among the members of the group A concluding section provides some personal views on the principal themes that flowed throughout the WGIG process, the 10 | Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from WGIG main factors that shaped the working group s story, and the kinds... join the group of the dates for the first meeting at the beginning of the month so that they could make travel arrangements In line with the decisions of WSIS-I, the forty members of WGIG who assembled in the Palais des Nations represented government, the private sector and civil 1 See Markus Kummer, The Results of the WSIS Negotiations on Internet Governance, ” in Don MacLean, ed., Internet Governance: ... participants once multi-stakeholder processes are over? The history of WGIG may have as much to say about these kinds of questions as it does about Internet governance 24 | Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from WGIG A REFLECTION FROM THE WGIG FRONTLINE Frank March Other contributors to this book outline the history of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), how and why it was established,... that had guided the development of the Internet, as well as the WSIS principles that had guided the working group in carrying out its terms of reference Since these principles would be presented in the Introduction to its Final Report, the group concluded that they would not need to be repeated in the chapter dealing with the definition of Internet governance, and that the definition therefore should... coordinate Internet governance at the national level To facilitate action in response to these current governance challenges and others that arise in the future, there was a general feeling among WGIG members that it would be useful to have a global Internet governance forum where all stakeholders could meet on an equal footing However, although there was general agreement in the group on the main Internet governance. .. function; an oversight function; a function to improve coordination of existing international governance mechanisms; and a function to improve coordination of national governance mechanisms WGIG members were encouraged to use the Plone work space to post their replies to the questionnaire, to keep track of their colleagues’ answers, and to continue their discussions In addition, a separate version of the. .. its discussions the group reached consensus on the general meaning of the term governance as distinct from “government”, and on the range of issues, actors, organizations, and activities that would need to be captured in order to have a satisfactory working definition This progress was duly reported to PrepCom-213 In addition to beginning work on the definition of Internet governance, the group took... appropriate, on the governance of the Internet by 2005 The group should, inter alia: i) develop a working definition of Internet governance; ii) identify the public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance; iii) develop a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of governments, existing intergovernmental and international organizations and other forums as well as the private... to the internal version of the questionnaire23 In addition, four governments and seven WGIG observers responded to the public questionnaire24 Writing the Report The fourth and final WGIG meeting, which took place from 14-17 June 2005, began with open consultations at the headquarters of the International Telecommunication Union, which are across the street from the Palais des Nations in Geneva When WGIG... drawn from the Preliminary Report, as well as from the draft working papers on Internetrelated public policy issues and existing governance arrangements In addition, as agreed at the third meeting the document included sections on the general principles that had guided the development of the Internet since its inception and on the WSIS principles that had guided WGIG’s work, as well as a draft chapter on . in the success of the process. Much of the work done by the WGIG on problem definition and deconstruction is contained in the Background Report rather. that the other stakeholders involved in the discussions on Internet governance had a valid contribution to make their competence gave them legitimacy. The