About fifteen years ago, prior to the advent of World Wide Web, the Internet was primarily focused on academic and research use; it was primarily North American-based, not for profit, and used mostly for email and file transfer. The invention of the Web prompted significant growth throughout OECD countries from the mid-1990s, and saw increasing privatization of its backbone. Today, the Internet has spread to most countries of the world and is no longer only a developed economy phenomenon.

Click on the graphic to enlarge it.

Internet demographics are changing rapidly. The Asia-Pacific region now has the largest share of Internet and mobile users and leads in advanced Internet technologies, such as broadband access and mobile data. The Republic of Korea and Hong Kong, China, are the top two economies in the world in terms of broadband Internet penetration. In mobile Internet technologies, Japan and the Republic of Korea were the first two nations to launch third generation mobile networks commercially. However, many developing countries (an in particular, Africa) remain greatly under-represented in overall Internet usage.

The underpinnings of the Internet are formed by the global interconnection of hundreds of thousands of otherwise independent computers, communications entities and information systems. Interconnection is made possible through a set of communication standards, procedures and formats that are shared by the networks, devices and computational facilities connected to them. The procedures by which computers communicate with each other are called "protocols." While this infrastructure is steadily evolving to include new capabilities, the protocol suite initially used by the Internet is called TCP/IP.

In reality, however, the crux of the Internet governance debate is about the narrower topic of resource management: the critical core resources needed to use the Internet. In particular, the debate is focused on the creation and management of Internet top level domains and allocation of Internet protocol addresses, as well as who defines their associated rules.

In the management/governance of domain names, the main actors are the United States Department of Commerce, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA - a function currently contracted to ICANN by the US government); international and regional country code top-level domain (ccTLD) organizations such as the Council of European National Top-Level Domain Registries (CENTR), the Asia Pacific Top-Level Domain Association (APTLD), the Latin American and Caribbean Top-Level Domain Association (LACTLD), the North America Top-Level Domain Organization (NATLD) and the African Top-Level Domain Association (AFTLD).

In the management and governance of Internet protocol addresses, the main players are the so caleed "IANA function", along with regional Internet registries including AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE NCC. The regional Internet registries (RIRs) have also formed the Number Resource Organisation (NRO) to formalize their co-operative efforts and to "protect the unallocated Number Resource pool, promote and protect the bottom-up policy development process, and to act as a focal point for Internet community input into the RIR system".

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has a mandate from its Member States to undertake work related to the domain name system and Internet protocol addresses.

The final authority for changes or modifications to the root zone file, which is the top level of the domain name system, is the US Department of Commerce.

In the final preparation of the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva in December 2003, the topic of Internet governance was debated extensively by governments and other interested parties. Although there were agreements on some basic principles, there remained divergent opinions and conflicting views in this area.

Part of the problem is that there are a wide variety of topics which could be considered to fall under the general rubric of Internet governance. Some think the issue should be looked at from a broad perspective, to include topics such as management of Internet resources, Internet interconnection arrangements and exchange points, spam, cybersecurity, universal access/service, intellectual property rights, privacy, and so on.

Others think that a narrower definition should be taken with regard to management and governance of Internet resources, particularly domain names and addresses. For the present, most of the debate is highly focused on the latter, which has been a subject of contentious discussion in technology circles for nigh on ten years.

The recognition that these issues needed to be further explored gave birth to the creation of a multi-stakeholder-based Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) , convened by the UN Secretary-General and mandated to report it findings to the second phase of the World Summit. The WGIG was established in November 2004.

Comprised of a group of independent experts from more than 30 countries, the WGIG issued its report in July 2005. Among other issues, this report endeavoured to develop an acceptable working definition of "Internet governance". It also helped identify a number of relevant public policy issues and enhanced understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of governments, intergovernmental and international organizations and other forums, the private sector, and civil society, from both developing and developed countries.

The WGIG’s working definition of 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.

With regard to global public policy and oversight, the WGIG recognized that any organizational form for the governance function/oversight function should adhere to the following principles:

The WGIG agreed that the continued internationalization of the Internet and the principle of universality reinforced the need for a review of existing governance mechanisms. In this regard, the review considered different organizational models for this purpose, including four possible models for consideration.

These options included different scenarios for further internationalization of Internet oversight, with stronger government involvement, particularly with regard to public policy issues, as many countries wish, or for doing so within the context of existing structures, as the United States and some other governments favour.

None of these options suggested that the United Nations should take over the role of technical bodies involved in Internet resource management, nor do they advocated the creation of a new UN agency; indeed, some do not mention any UN role at all.

The WGIG also recommended the creation of a new space or "forum" for dialogue where all stakeholders could meet on an equal footing to debate Internet governance-related issues. This forum was not foreseen to have decision-making powers.
 

The WSIS process has acknowledged that the Internet, a central element of the infrastructure of the Information Society, has evolved from a research and academic facility into a global facility available to the public. The Internet is now an important global means of communications and commerce, which is of critical importance to peoples and governments of all countries, as well as increasingly vital to their national security.

At the first phase of WSIS held in December 2003, all governments agreed that: "Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".

A number of countries believe that the present governance arrangements for "oversight" of Internet core resources reflect the Internet’s origin in research and academic networks, and are not well adapted to today’s environment.

Some believe there should be a single venue to discuss issues related to Internet governance, while others are of the opinion that such an approach would not be possible, given the broad range of topics.

Developing countries have already noted that it is hard for them, with limited resources, to keep track of all these processes, and that they do not feel that they are adequately represented in Internet governance structures.

Many countries also have concerns that just one government – the United States – has a special and contractual relationship with ICANN. When ICANN was established with the assistance of the US Department of Commerce and other actors in 1998, the US government said that its oversight role would end in September 2000. Some argue that the US government’s special and contractual relationship with ICANN brings with it influence over ICANN decision-making.

More recently, in June 2005, the US government announced a new set of principles affirming that, for the time being at least, it would "maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file" and that "The United States will continue to provide oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus and meets its core technical mission."

In the same document, the United States "recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD. As such, the United States is committed to working with the international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet’s DNS."
 

The arguments for maintaining the status quo focus on the fact that the current bodies involved in Internet resource administration have done a good job in dealing with the rapid growth and deployment of the Internet, and have been able to respond quickly to demands.

It is frequently argued that the private sector should lead because of its ability to innovate quickly; the involvement of governments, it is said, would simply politicize the Internet’s management.

Some also maintain that the US government’s oversight role has never interfered in ICANN’s decision making processes.
 

Those who advocate a change in the status quo argue that the current scheme lacks international legitimacy, and that ICANN will be always subject to US national law and therefore an instrument of disproportionate US influence.

Those of this persuasion contend that the current arrangements which give the US government final authority over country’s presence in cyberspace (ccTLDs) are a risk to the national sovereignty and security of states, particularly those that do not have good relations with the US.

They also note that the original promise by the US government to withdraw from ICANN oversight by September 2000 has not been honoured.

While few dispute the fact that the current governance structure is suitable for managing technical issues, many believe it fails to appropriately recognize the public policy role of governments.

The WGIG report went to the 19-30 September meeting of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom-3), for discussion in advance of the second World Summit on the Information Society, to be held in Tunis, 16-18 November 2005.

After a slow start characterized by polarized positions, the pace picked up following the release of a draft focus document by the Chair, Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan. From the beginning of the second week, groups settled down to drafting text for the WSIS output document on issues ranging from spam and cybercrime to interconnection costs and — most particularly— management of critical Internet resources such as the Internet’s domain name and IP addressing systems.

No proposal was made to end ICANN’s technical role, and the US government has stated that ICANN should focus on its core technical mission. However, this still leaves unresolved how countries discuss and reconcile their differences on public policy issues — and whether this should happen within an institutionalized framework. If so, what form should this take?

Unable to come to agreement in the short time left to it, PrepCom-3 agreed that nine proposals from governments would be forwarded for further consideration, together with a Chairman’s "Food for Thought" document on Internet governance. These government proposals are:

Almost all of the proposals above call for the establishment of a new Internet governance forum (which would not have decision making powers), as suggested by the WGIG.

Where these proposals fundamentally differ is with regards to the concept and practical arrangements for an "oversight" function. For example:

A consensus text on Internet governance will be sought for the Summit. Already, as regards the concept of the forum, there appears to be sufficient consensus for it to be established. However, there are many different views on the lifetime, exact purpose, mandate and institutional form of such a body.

Finally, however, delegations’ position on the question of "oversight" remains highly polarized. Since the Summit outcome is predicated on a consensus text, it is to be hoped that all parties will eventually find a compromise position.

That said, it is unlikely that these issues will be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties at WSIS Phase 2. This suggests that the topic of Internet governance will find its way onto the agendas of future intergovernmental conferences, including the ITU’s quadrennial Plenipotentiary Conference to be held in November 2006.