Issues Regarding Internet Governance

Summary

This paper traces the history of Internet and its governance structures. It focuses upon the relatively recent global interest in Internet governance intensified by WSIS and the recent Internet Governance Forum.  The issues involved are disaggregated, and two views of the decomposed structure are presented, with implications for the distribution of governance responsibilities in these spaces. In general, it appears that much if not most of Internet governance is appropriately discussed at the national level, while at the same time serious issues remain to be discussed and solved at the international level.

 

Beginning of the Internet

 

The Internet's birth can be traced back to they year 1969, when four U.S. universities set up a novel kind of network connecting four computers.  It was called a packet switching network because it relied upon the transmission of digital packets of information between computers, rather than the then traditional method of sending information over circuits that reserved fixed bandwidth at call initiation.

 

During the 1970's, the experiment that was the Internet evolved, including new interfaces such as IMPs (Interface Message Processor) and TIPs (Terminal Interface Processors).  As the number of objects on the network grew, and as the types of messages expanded, there was a need for one central register of addresses and protocol types.  This led to the establishment of the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) at the University of Southern California, which was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense.

 

The IANA, headed by Jon Postel from its beginning until his death in 1998, was the recognized registry of protocol numbers and addresses that allowed the Internet to function.  It performed this function, prior to 1983 for the older protocol set NCP, as well as after that for the newer TCP/IP protocol set.  When the DNS (Domain Name System) was introduced in the mid-1980s, it assumed the task of recording and supplying the correspondences between IP (Internet Protocol) addresses and DNS entries.  These tasks that Postel undertook were conceptually very simple; initially kept on paper, the lists were moved to a computer base as they grew and as they needed to be shared across the network.

 

The IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) was established in 1986 as a voluntary informal standards group to assist in continuing the development of Internet standards.  The standards effort, which began in 1969 as a collection of RFCs (Requests for Comments), needed a more organized way of making progress.  The IETF was recognized relatively quickly as the authoritative body for developing and extending Internet standards.

 

Until 1993, the combination of the IETF and the IANA represented what governance the Internet could be said to possess.  The IETF structured itself into areas and working groups for the continued development of the TCP/IP protocol suites, while the IANA was responsible for keeping the authoritative record of names and numbers that allowed precise and unambiguous navigation on the network.  The user community was for the most part oriented to research and education, and the more appropriate word coordination rather than governance was used to describe these functions.

 

Internationalization and Commercialization

 

The period 1990-1996 can best be thought of as the time when the commercial Internet began and eventually assumed a lead role in its development.  The transition  was inevitable given that research and education activities alone could not have sustained any  substantial growth of the Internet.  Many research and education networks were folded into the commercial Internet starting at the end of this period.

 

In 1994, the National Science Foundation, which at the time had administrative authority for the DNS, was pushed by the U.S. administration to commercialize it.  It did so by giving registrar and registry rights to a number of  global top level domains (.com, .edu. .org, .net) to a private U.S. company, Network Solutions, Inc.  It was one of the worst decisions ever made with respect to the Internet, for it gave Network Solutions and its successor corporate organizations a monopoly position from which the Internet is still suffering today.

 

There are many histories of the Internet both on the web and in printed form.  An excellent brief history, written with a first hand perspective by the people who built the Internet, as well as a pictorial history describing these developments in a broader context, can be found at:

 

http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml

http://www.computerhistory.org/exhibits/internet_history/

 

In 1996, as the Internet continued to expand, the inadequacy and unfairness of the arrangement with Network Solutions became increasingly evident.  The Internet Society initiated an effort called the IAHC (Internet Ad Hoc Committee) to study the domain name issue, but with no concrete result.  In 1997 the U.S. Department of Commerce, to whom authority over the DNS had been transferred, studied the situation and asked for proposals for the future of the Internet's naming system.  Four concrete proposals were assessed and resulted in early 1998 in a "Green Paper," the contents of which were considered acceptable by the Internet community.  The text of the Green paper can be found at:

 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm

 

A subsequent 'White Paper" contained principles that were more acceptable.  The text of the white paper, which became the basis eventually for the creation of ICANN, can be found at:

 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm

 

The birth of ICANN

 

In October 1998, ICANN was established as an organization under contract to the U.S. Department of Commerce.  Its goal was to assure the continued security and stability of the Internet's system of naming and addressing, including taking over the IANA function that had previously been performed under direct contract with the Department.  An impetus to its formation was the monopoly over much of the DNS held by Network Solutions, and the sense that much good could come from opening this function to competition.

 

The birth of ICANN was painful.  In an area where feelings of members of the community were quite strong and varied, there were inevitably those members who disagreed with the formation of ICANN in many different ways.  Worse was the fact that the process of selecting the initial Board of Directors was accomplished privately.  The private discussions included a number of well-known Internet figures including Jon Postel, who was widely acclaimed at having managed the IANA, the precursor to ICANN, extraordinarily well up to that time.  However, in mid-October, Postel died unexpectedly as a result of complications after undergoing heart surgery.

 

Many of the initial claims regarding the lack of legitimacy of ICANN centered on the manner of selection of the initial Board of Directors.  The initial response from those involved was that Postel was responsible for the composition of the Board.  The answer satisfied none of the complainants, and the response was impossible to verify because Postel was no longer alive.  The initial public meeting of ICANN in November 1998 in Cambridge, Massachusetts was marked by significant rancor and accusations, with anti-ICANN individuals having a near monopoly over the microphone.  The tone of this initial meeting set the stage for similar diatribes that characterized a long series of ICANN meetings, and only recently has the rancor subsided and the discussions become more responsible and productive.

 

Evolution of Internet Administration

 

The first five years of ICANN's history were marked by continued turmoil and accusations of illegitimacy.  However, the same period saw a major restructuring of  the way in which names and numbers were treated.

 

One of ICANN's goals was to introduce competition into the Internet industry.  In 1998, for the commonly subscribed user domains of .com, .org, and .net, there was one registrar and one registry, and the cost of a domain name was US $35 per year.  ICANN quickly broke the linkage between registrar functions and registry functions, so that in early 2007, there were almost 1,000 registries worldwide.  On the registry side, while a number of additional gTLDs (global top level domains) have been chartered, the popularity of the original three has remained sufficiently strong that they have collectively retained the vast majority of the gTLD market and have quasi-monopoly status in their respective markets.

 

Among the earliest challenges that ICANNN faced was dealing with disputes over domain names, in which more than one registrant laid claim to a specific name by virtue of copyright.  The issue was resolved in cooperation with WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization, through the creation and acceptance of a uniform dispute resolution protocol (UDRP).  This method of resolution kept such disputes out of ICANN's direct responsibility.

 

The Internet as a Culture

 

In order to understand some of the tensions that exist in the evolution of both administrative and governance issues with respect to the Internet, it is essential to understand the cultural conditions in which the Internet was developed and which made it grow in the manner it did.

 

The Internet started as a research experiment in networking together different computers so that researchers using one of the computers could communicate with and use others on the network.  The user community was small, relatively homogeneous, and strongly cooperative in working towards its goals.  Sharing and openness were strong virtues for this community.  Administration of the resources involved  was flexible and dynamic.  New ideas were welcomed and tested.  The culture was permeated by a "bottom up" philosophy, based upon decentralized control of resources and the expectation that these resources would be actively and willingly shared among the participants.  With the exception of routing of packets of information, the network itself had no intelligence.  Innovation and the provision of services were created and operated at the edge of the network, not at its center.

 

Most alternative models of networking had a very different structure, consisting of intelligence and control at the center of the network not at its edge.  The alternative models consisted both of computer network models such as IBM's SNA and of telephony models.  While meaningful competition from alternative computer networks disappeared during the miod-1990s, competition from the centrally managed model of the public switched telephone system lasted considerably longer.

 

It is useful to observe how different the model of Internet administration is from the telephony business model:

 

	Internet Characteristics	Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) Characteristics
Roots	Support for research and academic computing and exploration of network technologies	Consumer service in a technological age where communication systems were a natural monopoly
Pricing	Initial culture of free good to end user; more generally pricing by maximum bandwidth available to customer.  Distance independent.	By unit of service, with price very dependent upon distance and length of call.
Attitudes toward use	Information is free, explore and search what exists and find what you need.	Pay for your communication needs according to an existing tariff.
Organization	Bottom up.  Decentralized both with respect to control and choice of services offered.	Top down.  Centrally administered and controlled.  Available services decided and offered centrally.
Standards	Initially de facto, but standardized through IETF, a meritocracy with no legal status.  Criteria for adoption are rough consensus and running code.	Formal, through national and international standards bodies such as ITU and IOS.  Criteria for adoption are unanimous agreement by member governments.
Scope of communication	Multiple possibilities, with 1-to-1, 1-to many, many-to-many modes of communication all possible in a variety of ways	Generally 1-to-1 communication, although few-to-few and few-to-many broadcasts possible with additional equipment.
Style	Experimental, flexible, very innovative	Businesslike and structured, formal agreements among participants
Rate of change	Rapid obsolescence, little respect for prior investment, major changes are in software and protocols, malleable media.	Long time horizons, major investments are in hardware, a very physical and durable medium.
Ownership	No one owns the Internet. Pieces of the infrastructure that makes it possible are owned by multiple players of various types.	Initially almost completely   governmentally owned; recently evolving to more private sector ownership.
Administration	Highly decentralized	Government and private sector, with governments  still having control through ownership and/or regulation in many developing countries.
Control	At the edge of the network	At the center of the network
Innovation	At the edge of the network	At the center of the network

 

While both cultures are likely to change in a convergent manner, the gap between the two cultures is substantial and illustrates the significant difficulty that exists in finding common ground regarding the non-technical future of the Internet among the various interested parties – governments, the business sector, the academic and research community, and the Internet community – on a worldwide basis.

 

WSIS: World Summit on the Information Society

 

In 1999, a proposal was made by the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) for the United Nations System to hold a summit meeting on what they conceptualized as the Information Society.  The Government of Tunisia offered to host such a summit meeting.  The United Nations has from time to time held such summit meetings on important matters such as the law of the sea, the protection of the environment, the status of women, and economic and social development.

 

The suggestion in 1999 must have been prompted in part by not only the rapid rise of the Internet as a medium par excellence in distributing knowledge and information, but also by the immense increase in value of public companies rapidly entering industries related to the Internet.

 

As a result of political negotiations regarding the suitability of Tunis as a venue for WSIS, the summit was split into two parts.  The first part was held in Geneva in December 2003 and the second part was held in Tunis in November 2005.  The 2003 Summit was accompanied by a large ICT4D exhibit space, occupied by governments, NGOs and some private sector firms.  The Tunisian Summit also had an associated exhibit floor, considerably larger than that in Geneva, featuring very substantial private sector exhibits on the scale of a commercial conference.  NGOs and developing countries were for the most part given inferior and un-air-conditioned space in an adjoining hall.

 

WGIG: The Working Group on Internet Governance

 

The first Summit in Geneva produced two major documents, a Declaration of Principles and a Plan of Action.  The documents, in all official UN languages, can be found at:

 

http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1161%7C1160

 

The Geneva Summit also resulted in the creation of two Task Forces, one on Financial Mechanisms and the other on Internet Governance.  Both task forces issued reports.  In December 2004 the Task Force on Financial Mechanisms issued a rather comprehensive report of the pace of investment in ICTs in developing countries, with submissions from various donors integrated into the report.  It serves as a useful historical document, but with hardly any prescriptions for the future:

 

http://www.itu.int/wsis/tffm/final-report.pdf

 

The Task Force on Internet Governance was considerably more contentions.  It consisted of 40 members, 20 of whom represented governments and the other 20 representing other sectors, and was led by Markus Kummer, an accomplished Swiss diplomat who was pressed into this service by the Secretary-General soon after the conclusion of WSIS-1.  One major issue was exactly what should be meant by the term Internet governance, since there were a number of incompatible definitions ranging from very broad to very narrow.  The final definition that the Task Force arrived at was moderately good, but subject to broad interpretation:

 

"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."

 

The Task Force produced both a summary report and an associated longer report.  The proceedings of the WGIG, including links to the complete report in all official UN languages, can be found at:

 

http://www.wgig.org/

 

WSIS-2 in Tunisia displayed a number of tensions between the developed and the developing world, much of which, inappropriately, centered upon the so-called control of the Internet by the U.S. government through, as some countries claimed, "its agent," ICANN.  Internet governance was the most hotly debated topic in the political sessions.  The attack on the current mode of operation was led by developing countries, most notably Brazil, China and South Africa, but often joined by the so-called Group of 77, a grouping of developing countries, now numbering over 120, having its genesis in the formation of a developing country lobbying group in the UN General Assembly in the mid-1970s.

 

At the heart of the problem is a lack of knowledge displayed by the participants regarding the Internet.  The mechanisms by which the Internet operates are complex and not well understood, and much of the opposition, but not all, reflects this ignorance.  A good summary of the organizations that play a part in the operation of the Internet, and their interrelationship, can be found at:

 

http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v6i5_simoneli.html

 

It was clear by the end of WSIS-2 that the status quo was emerging as the best way to proceed, at least in the short run, but there was clearly no political consensus over this result.  The ultimate political solution was to accept the status quo for the present, but to continue the conversation about Internet governance in a forum, the Internet Governance Forum or IGF, that would serve as a vehicle for the exchange of ideas but would have no decision making powers.

 

IGF: The Internet Governance Forum

 

The Secretary-General of the United Nations asked the same leadership pair that had been responsible for the activities of the WGIG, Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer, to prepare the first meeting of the IGF, to be held in Greece in October 2006.  The Secretary-General appointed an Advisory Committee of 40 people, carefully politically balanced, to assist them.  In addition, Chairman Desai appointed 5 special advisers to assist the group.  The Committee held meetings in Geneva in June and September, and functioned as an informal conference and program advisory committee.

 

Held in a southern suburb of Athens, the IGF was attended by about 1,000 participants, many of whom came just for the first day.  The four broad themes of the Forum, fashioned in large part by the Advisory Committee, were

 

•   Openness - Freedom of expression, free flow of information, ideas and knowledge

•   Security - Creating trust and confidence through collaboration

•   Diversity - Promoting multilingualism and local content

•   Access - Internet Connectivity: Policy and Cost

 

with capacity building and social and economic development  as cross-cutting priorities.  A total of 8 main sessions were held, along with 33 workshops that were not an official part of the Forum but were co-located with the Forum in the same hotel.

 

One of the important outcomes of the WSIS process, which was highlighted during preparations for the Forum and in the Forum itself, was the emergence of what was called the multi-stakeholder approach.  This meant that all stakeholders in the future of the Internet should be involved in the planning and discussion of the issues.  For the Forum, four stakeholder groups were present: government, academic and technical, business, and civil society, although the existence of the academic and technical group was not officially acknowledged. Further, the issues of the real number and distribution of stakeholders, and perhaps more important, who speaks for those stakeholder groups, could be shut out of future discussion by the apparent political correctness of the adoption of the concept in its initial form.

 

The discourse was generally pleasant and moderately informative, and the behavior was an odd mixture of political correctness and honest reaction.  When the representative of the Chinese government commented in a main session that the Chinese government does not censor the Internet, there was immediate derisive laughter, and there were strong statements of denunciation of China's behavior from many people in the hall.  No one present could possibly have mistaken the event for a typical United Nations meeting.  However, the summing up session was quite politically correct, with all interventions in agreement that the Forum had been most successful, with no dissent whatsoever.

 

The mood of the participants at the IGF was decidedly upbeat.  Several people noted that ambience of the Forum was very much like that at INET '95, more than 10 years earlier, where people from many nations came together to learn about and to discuss the power of the Internet at that time, with the World Wide Web and Java just having come into prominence.  The fact that the Forum was not meant to reach any recommendations or conclusions, and that there would be no concluding statements, allowed discussions to be much more informal and informative, and contributed to the sense of success of the event.

 

The issue of the level of activity, accomplishment, recommendations and general output that should ultimately be provided by the IGF is still being debated.  At the Forum, individuals motivated toward further activity presented the notion of  "dynamic coalitions," i.e. working groups that would each be focused upon a particular issue or set of issues and would function between IGFs.  The word 'dynamic' was meant to imply dynamic membership, i.e. each coalition would be open to any interested parties, who could join or leave according to their interests.  Several dynamic coalitions were announced at the end of the Forum, and space is being provided on the IGF web site for information about and from these coalitions.

 

The eight IGF main sessions, as well as the meetings leading up to WSIS, were scribed verbatim.  Transcripts of all of the  main sessions of the IGF can be found through:

 

http://www.intgovforum.org/

 

One of the arguments made in this paper is that the great majority of issues in Internet Governance are national in character, not international.  This theme was emphasized by many of the workshop and session panelists, and there was no serious disagreement.  This is important, because at WSIS there was a great deal of pressure for international action, often using ICANN and the U.S. government as the target for international pressure.  This could well have been a diversionary tactic at best, with governments from many developing countries taking the opportunity to deflect attention from national issues and problems to the convenient political whipping boys of the moment.  Discussions at the IGF not only explicitly addressed the issue of the locus of responsibility, but firmly settled the question of the overall importance of national policy as a basis for most issues in Internet governance.

 

Recent activity

 

There was a sufficient sense that the IGF had been quite useful in bringing to discussion some of the important topics in Internet governance.  Additionally, the governments of Brazil, India and Egypt had already volunteered to host the 2007, 2008, and 2009 IGFs respectively.  At the Forum, both Lithuania and Azerbaijan made public speeches welcoming the IGF to their countries in 2010.  Thus, it seems clear that the IGF will have a lifetime of at least the next 4 years.

 

It is important to ask what is likely to occur at these meetings and how good Internet policy will be brought to bear on the discussions.  The next IGF is likely to be more contentious, because Brazil is one of the main countries charging ICANN with lack of legitimacy and they are likely to make more of an issue of both ICANN and international connectivity costs.[1] This latter issue, often referred to as the ACAIS issue, has been studied but with apparently no clear outcome.  Further, much of the discussion is based on emotional arguments and is used to criticize both the United States and the tier 1 Internet carriers.

 

Some increased contentiousness was noted at the meeting in Geneva in February 2007 that was called to "sum up" the experience of the first IGF.  Considerable time was spent reviewing the Tunis mandate to determine whether the IGF in fact had a mandate to go further than just discussion, and whether "non-binding recommendations" were a part of its mandate.  There was discussion of whether the dynamic coalitions were vehicles for the production of such recommendations.

 

The search for appropriate organizational models

 

It appears that the Internet is a unique phenomenon that is worldwide and increasingly essential to all countries and all sectors  There is no other global infrastructure or  service that shares its development, its reach, its decentralized roots and growth, and its lack of central organization.  The challenge assumed by the WSIS, as well as the subject of discussions in the IGF, is to discover a set of principles for its governance that provide for international acceptance and yet provide sufficient degrees of freedom and autonomy to continue its evolution as an innovative and creative culture.  Much of what the Internet is about crosses national boundaries invisibly, bringing into play highly probable collisions between laws and cultures of different nations.  It is a difficult problem.

 

The first thing to note is that Internet governance is a collection of many different issues, and that there already exist organizations that concern themselves with most of these issue areas. One interesting way to display these issues is on the two dimensional chart below.[2] Each issue is characterized according to the extent of government involvement that appears to be appropriate (the horizontal access) and according to the extent to which the issue is local or international (the vertical axis).  Readers may not agree exactly where to put the center of any specific concern; the placements in the figure seem, on the other hand, to be reasonable approximations.

 

Likewise, there are a significant number of organizations, international and national, some governmental, some private, that provide some aspect of governance of this space.  The names of some of the major players are also contained in the chart, placed according to their governmental-non-governmental status and the jurisdictional scope of their interest.

 

The area in which international initiatives in Internet governance, such as the WSIS and the IGF, could be of assistance is the upper right hand corner of the chart, i.e.  those issues that are super-national and that require a significant involvement by government.  Issues appearing in the other quadrants of the chart appear to be best addressed either by individuals, by national and sub-national governmental bodies, and by private and professional organizations.

Key organizations shaping the Net

 

Another way to look at the space of government organizations that are involved in some aspect or aspects of Internet governance is to look at the scope of their responsibilities.  A pictorial representation of such a view is provided below.  A grouping of organizations by their general orientation suggests three groups:[3]

 

•     Organizations that concern themselves with establishing standards.  The group includes intergovernmental organizations such as the ITU and the IOS, national standards offices, and professional organizations, both formal such as the IEEE and informal such as IETF.

•     Organizations that concern themselves with the allocation of the core internet resources required for the Internet to function.  This includes ICANN, the regional Internet registries, and the global and national domain registries.  Domain registries can be private businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or offices within national governments.

•     Organizations that concern themselves with policy and regulation.  This group includes agencies of the United Nations, national governments and regional governments such as the EU, and non-UN international organizations such as the OECD.

 

Each of these groups have specific responsibilities and obligations.  In addition, there are issues which fall into the overlap of two or more of these areas.

 

 

 

Discussions of Internet governance address a complex space.  Discussions at the international level, such as those that have taken place at WSIS and the IGF, tend to assume that many of the issues can be mitigated or solved at the international level.  This is not the case.  Any meaningful approach to Internet governance issues must first take into account the nature of the various components of the issue and come to an appropriate understanding of the level and the jurisdiction in which it is capable of being solved.  As we shall see in the next section, from a certain useful point of view, many if not most of the problems are national and sub-national, and can only be meaningfully addressed in a decentralized way at those levels.  International discussions can identify these issues, and they can prescribe best practices and solutions, but they cannot implement those solutions or practices.

 

The Users' Viewpoint

 

While the Internet's development benefits many groups, one of the groups best positioned to exploit what it offers is the set of developing countries.  For them, access to the Internet brings possibilities of access to knowledge, communication, and trade that are critical to their development.  The IGF has recognized this by naming development and human capacity building as the two cross-cutting themes for all discussions at the Forums.

 

Given the importance of the Internet for development, and the strategic importance that the world community assigns to it, one metric for governance that suggests itself is the extent to which the Internet is capable of satisfying the real information and communication needs of people who live in developing countries.  In particular, what are the forces acting on the development of the Internet that promote development or impede it?  An understanding of these factors, together with the knowledge of which organizations have the power to affect them, will help to understand who has the responsibility and the authority to make the changes that will maximize the good that the Internet can do for this important group of users.

 

There are many different kinds of Internet users in developing countries, and their composition is somewhat similar to that of users in developed countries, although the distribution of the number of users among professions will differ.  Consider, for example, the following possible Internet users:

 

•     A medical school student at the University of Mali

•     A health clinic director in Indonesia

•     A university professor in Madagascar

•     A commodity exporter in Ghana

•     A food distribution agency in Bangladesh

•     A social service agency in Peru

 

There are many other possible examples.  The reader is invited to choose his or her favorite ones and keep them in mind throughout the discussions below.

 

The people in the list above use the Internet for many reasons.  Some obvious reasons are for medical knowledge, for health information and diagnosis, for teaching material for classes, for market information and transportation schedules, for allocating food distribution, for tracking the welfare of poor families, and or many other practical necessities, just like people do in developed countries.  However, they can only use the Internet if it is available, and only if they can get affordable and secure access to it.

 

What Internet governance issues at the international level have any bearing on their lives?  It’s useful to  ask the following questions:

•     What organizations and processes have empowered these users?

•     What processes, and who, have given them access to the Internet services they have now?

•     Where are the barriers such users face?

•     What limits these users and what denies similar users the ability to exploit the Internet ?

•     Who is responsible for these barriers?

•     Who has authority, and therefore possibly the responsibility, to change or remove them?

 

First, it is useful ask the question of what circumstances empower users.  Although there are a multiplicity of such factors, some of the most important ones are:

 

•     Training of technical professionals

•     Technical and policy workshops designed to increase human capacity in Internet and related technologies

•     Internet Service Provider (ISP) formation, growth, related  entrepreneurial activity

•     Foreign investment in the science, technology and Internet sectors in the country

•     NGO activities in the country that enhance access to the Internet and other appropriate information resources

•     Appropriately targeted bilateral and multilateral assistance programs

•     Government assistance, direct and indirect

 

Then one might ask the opposite question: what circumstances disadvantage users with regard to exploiting the resources available on the Internet?  Certainly one such factor is a high price for Internet connectivity and use, including the situation of an infinite price when the Internet is simply not accessible. Some questions that bear on price are the following:

•     Is the telecom market non-competitive?

•     Are regulatory processes closed or non-transparent?

•     Do ISPs have high barriers to entry, such as strict licensing or high fees?

•     Does the PTT or other organization have a monopoly on the Internet gateway?

•     Are IXPs (Internet Exchange Points)  prohibited?

•     Is it difficult to start a business? Are there long delays?

•     Are there high prices for computers and networking equipment relative to neighboring countries in similar circumstances, and if so, why?

•     Are import duties prohibitive?

•     Are local taxes high?

•     Is customs clearance slow, inefficient or corrupt?

•     Are existing networks closed to competitors, or are they open but with a non-level playing field?

 

Other impediments are not directly related to price, but may be just as important:

•     Are ISPs liable for transport only of illegal content?

•     Is e-commerce legislation non-transparent or arbitrary?

•     Are licensing requirements not predictable?

•     Is there lack of information confidentiality, privacy?

•     Are information services subject to content restrictions or censorship?

•     Are e-business transactions insecure?

•     Are security tools such as encryption forbidden?

•     Are any laws or regulations not published or not available?

•     Do e-government developments discourage or limit active public participation?

•     Are intellectual property rights not respected?

•     Are digital contracts & transactions not formalized in law?

 

Each of the above questions suggests a possible impediment that retard or block users from accessing affordable Internet services.  Experience indicates that each of the above impediments exists to some degree in some countries, and that there are at present a significant number of countries in which groups of these impediments combine to significantly block access to the Internet.  Every one of these impediments occurs at the national level, and it can only be removed at the national and the sub-national levels, not at the international level.

 

Conclusion

 

Internet governance is a complex subject.  It consists of a myriad of issues, occurring at all levels, and can only be understood and assisted if its complexity is recognized and if there is a good understanding of where the locus of authority and responsibility is for each of the issues.

 

Taking an international, development-oriented view, if we measure Internet governance changes by the effects that they are likely to have on users, it appears that most of the meaningful Internet governance issues relevant for users and development are at the national level.  While there clearly are serious issues such as spam and cybercrime that can only be addressed at an international level, users in developing countries are not as affected by governance changes at that level.

 

Good governance of the Internet is important.  Internet technology has the capacity to contribute to economic and social development around the world like no other recent technology.  The structure of the Internet, with innovation occurring all over its edges, has generated an enormous variety of information and services potentially accessible to almost everyone in the world — to the extent that they can access it and afford it.  In general, the private sector has been the driving factor to make this happen, and national governments can amplify their efforts by adopting progressive and enabling national policies.

 

Such action at the national level is necessary but not sufficient to address all Internet governance issues, and the international community also has specific issues — those that can be effectively addressed by action at the international level — that need to be solved.  Institutions already exist to address the large majority of these issues, and the Internet community as well as governments would do well to participate in their solution.  If comprehensive good Internet governance can be achieved, then the Internet will truly be for everyone.

 

[1] The presentation at Vatutinki was delivered in September 2007, several months before the second IGF meeting in Brazil.  The predictions above regarding increased contentiousness at the meeting were borne out, but at the time of this writing it is not clear what effect this will have on the future course of the IGF.

[2] This chart is provided courtesy of Dr. Michael R. Nelson of Georgetown University.

[3] This chart is provided courtesy of Dr. Michael R. Nelson of Georgetown University.