Did WSIS Ratify the Status Quo? IGP Analysis

[Milton Mueller]

US WIN? SCHOLARS SEE LONG TERM CHANGES IN STORE FOR ICANN, INTERNET
GOVERNANCE

18 November, 2005.

Statement by the Internet Governance Project

Academic experts attending the World Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS) challenged the US government's claim that WSIS ratified the
status quo in Internet governance. Speaking in Tunis at the conclusion
of the Summit, they acknowledged the Summit's inability to make
immediate changes in ICANN's political oversight and constitution. But
this occurred simply because no changes in political oversight could be
made without the US government's agreement, and the US had indicated
that it would not support any such changes.

Nevertheless, the Tunis Summit has set in motion long-term processes
that could increase the role of national governments in Internet policy
broadly, and ICANN specifically, they claimed.

"The real result of WSIS is that the debate over ICANN and Internet
governance will be prolonged for another 5 years,"  said Milton Mueller
of Syracuse University. "The US can claim a short-term victory but faces
a long-term war of attrition that will gradually erode its position," he
predicted. Georgia Institute of Technology professor Hans Klein said.
"Before WSIS ICANN was a sort of Frankenstein organization created in
the basement of the US Department of Commerce. Now ICANN has been given
a qualified delegation of public authority, but the details of how other
governments relate to it must still be worked out."

The WSIS statement, a product of intense negotiations over wording, had
four main results:

1) It praised the "the existing arrangements for Internet governance"
"Existing arrangements" were described as "the private sector taking
the lead in day to day operations, and with innovation and value
creation at the edges." (para. 61) The document, however, did not
endorse ICANN specifically, and in fact never mentions it by name - a
reflection of its continuing lack of acceptance by many governments. For
the time being, ICANN continues to operate under the formal authority of
a single government, the US.

2) It paved the way for long-term changes in ICANN
The official WSIS statement challenged specific aspects of the current
ICANN regime and set the stage for long-term change. Paragraph 63
rejects the need for other countries to manage their ccTLD via the
U.S.-dominated ICANN regime. Paragraph 68 says that all governments, not
just the US, should have "an equal role and responsibility" for the DNS
root and for Internet public policy oversight. Paragraphs 69 and 70
calls for the development of "globally-applicable principles on public
policy issues associated with the coordination and management of
critical internet resources." Paragraphs 71 and 72 propose mechanisms
for developing these principles.These aspects of the WSIS results have
been underappreciated, the IGP said. They are likely to result in
greater power being given to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee
(GAC).

3) It insisted on the authority of governments to define "public
policy" for the Internet.
The WSIS document formalizes the division of Internet governance into
two parts: the domain of "technical management" or "day to day
operation," which should be left to the private sector and civil
society, and the domain of "public policy-making," which is supposed to
be ruled by governments. The IGP scholars, however, noted that this
distinction is not clear and is difficult to apply. The document does
not clarify how this distinction is to be drawn, thus reinforcing
further the likelihood that negotiations and discussions around it will
continue for some time.

4) It authorized the creation of an Internet Governance Forum.
In a victory for public interest advocates who participated in WSIS as
"civil society," the world leaders at WSIS have launched the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF).  This is a multi-stakeholder forum for advising
on Internet governance. The value of the IGF remains to be seen. Since
ICANN's GAC and ALAC already allow governments and civil society to
advise on Internet governance, the new IGF's mandate does not seem
especially novel:  it also allows governments and civil society (and the
private sector) to advise on Internet governance.  The difference is
their scope: ALAC/GAC advise on technical coordination in ICANN, and IGF
advises on public policy for the Internet.

The IGP scholars expressed the hope that the new Forum can be used to
develop the public policy principles needed to guide global Internet
governance in the future. Noting their prior calls for a framework
convention on Internet governance, and related calls for an "Internet
bill of rights" or "first amendment" for the Internet, they expressed
the hope that these discussions will not be confined to governments.
They also reiterated their call for more reliance on online methods of
deliberation and participation, to broaden inclusion. "We must start
using the Internet to improve governance of the Internet," said Syracuse
University's Derrick Cogburn.

The Internet Governance Project is a consortium of scholars focused on
internet policy. See http://www.internetgovernance.org