2 Internet Governance
| (30708)
11222/09
COM(09) 277
| Commission Communication: Internet governance: the next steps
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department | Business, Innovation and Skills
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 12 August 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | See HC 5-xii (2009-10), chapter 1 (3 March 2010) and HC 19-xxv (2008-09), chapter 1 (21 July 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 On its website, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN) explains that "to reach another person
on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer
— a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers
know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique
identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't
have one global Internet."[7]
2.2 ICANN was formed in 1998 by the US Administration.
It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants
from all over the world. It coordinates and oversees the day-to-day
management of the domain name system (the DNS) of unique identifiers
for communicating on the Internet. It says it is:
"dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable
and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy
on the Internet's unique identifiers. ICANN doesn't control content
on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn't deal with
access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the
Internet's naming system, it does have an important impact on
the expansion and evolution of the Internet."[8]
The Commission Communication
2.3 The Communication provides an analysis of progress
on Internet governance in the last ten years, the public policy
issues involved — from finding ways to ensure that citizens
can benefit fully from the Internet's potential as well as dealing
with inappropriate content, consumer protection and jurisdiction
in an increasingly global world — and the role of governments
in the process, where "users will inevitably turn to their
governments if there is any major national disruption to their
Internet service, and not to the various Internet governance bodies."
2.4 It identifies three basic factors in the success
of the Internet's rapid development:
— An
open and interoperable architecture, based on the origins
of the Internet in research and academia;
— Private sector leadership, which
facilitated the move of the Internet from academia to society
at large and which "continues to deliver important policy
objectives and needs to be maintained and supported";
— The multi-stakeholder model, which
has led to "processes to initiate and develop consensus in
Internet governance policies."
2.5 The Internet's growing importance for society
as a whole "increasingly requires governments to be more
actively involved in the key decision-making that underlies the
Internet's development". But "private sector initiative
must be maintained … Private sector leadership and effective
public policies are not mutually exclusive".
2.6 The Commission then reviews its involvement since
1998 in Internet governance, including the development of ICANN,
and seeks to identify a number of public policy principles and
proposes an approach for moving forward international discussions
on these matters, with calls for more transparency and multilateral
accountability in the governance of the Internet. The technical
aspects are summarised and analysed in the previous Committee's
Report of 21 July 2009.[9]
2.7 The Communication anticipates the expiry in September
2009 of an agreement known as the Joint Project Agreement (JPA)
between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce that has provided
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) with oversight of ICANN's affairs. The expiry of the JPA
does not affect the US Government's oversight of changes to the
root zone file[10] managed
by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority — IANA (which
is part of ICANN).
2.8 In his accompanying 9 July 2009 Explanatory Memorandum,
the then Minister (Lord
Carter of Barnes) endorsed the Commission's attribution of the
success of the Internet over the last 20 years to "private
sector leadership and unhindered innovation at the edge, rather
than through any central command structure." He noted that
this private sector-led, bottom up model for Internet governance
is consistent with Paragraph 48 of the Declaration of Principles
by the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS, 2003-2005)
which states that the "international management of the
Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with
the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
society and international organisations."[11]
2.9 In addition to ICANN, the then Minister also
noted the Communication's reference to the Internet Governance
Forum (IGF) which was created by WSIS and announced by the UN
Secretary General in 2005 as an annual multi-stakeholder forum
for addressing Internet issues which, given the global nature
of the Internet, it is not possible for any individual country
or single group of stakeholders to address.
2.10 He described the "key issue at the heart
of the Communication" as "the future role of governments
in this process of ensuring the Internet remains secure, stable
and interoperable as it undergoes some fundamental changes at
a time when the final phase of the US Government's process of
privatising ICANN with the ending of the JPA."
2.11 While reaffirming that governments do not need
to be involved in the day-to-day management of the Internet, the
Communication argues that private sector bodies like ICANN need
to be made accountable to the international community; notes that
there is no international consensus for creating a new inter-governmental
organisation that would undertake oversight and external accountability;
and, as part of an evolutionary approach to ICANN, recommends:
—
a mechanism for "multilateral accountability" in place
of the current US oversight of the root zone;
— the securing of public policies based
on "multilateral intergovernmental cooperation";
— a leadership role for the EU in this
"evolutionary process."
2.12 The then Minister outlined UK policy relating
to Internet governance, the means for governments to address Internet-related
public policy issues, including stability, security, competition,
diversity and multilingualism as being "to support the private
sector-led, bottom-up multi-stakeholder model as uniquely providing
the means to act quickly and globally to secure public policy
goals", which he said "reflects the European consensus
that any proposed recourse to wholly inter-governmental oversight
would be contrary to the WSIS outcomes." He regarded the
Commission's proposal for a new mechanism for external intergovernmental
oversight as "likely play into the hands of some members
of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) who are seeking
to extend its inter-governmental mandate to include Internet public
policy issues." Instead, the then Minister said, it was preferable
to build upon the ten year experience of the Governmental Advisory
Committee (GAC), and further strengthen its membership, working
methods and ways of influencing ICANN's policy processes. He saw
the resumption of the active participation of China, the country
with the largest number of Internet users, in the work of the
GAC at its most recent meeting in June 2009 in Sydney and the
presence of Russia as invited guest at that and two previous GAC
meetings, as "very positive signs of the increased acceptance
of the GAC as the governmental forum representing over 90% of
the world's Internet users, for discussing public policy issues
related to Internet Governance", and said that the UK would
"continue to work with ICANN in extending the reach of the
GAC to those governments not yet engaged in the process."
He regarded it as important for the Council to agree a common
European position on a successor arrangement to the US Joint Project
Agreement "for ensuring that ICANN fulfils its mandate as
the unique multi-stakeholder, private sector-led organisation
for coordinating the technical functions related to the management
of the Internet's domain name system, with the full support of
all stakeholders including governments, and without risk of capture
by any specific interests." This would continue to be a matter
for discussion between the Commission and the High Level Internet
Governance Group (HLIG) of senior policy experts from European
administrations (including the UK), at its next scheduled meeting
in September 2009. The UK would work with the Presidency and other
Member States to secure that any Council conclusions on the Communication
reflect this position.
The previous Committee's assessment
2.13 The previous Committee felt that the then Minister
had set out clearly — and in its view persuasively —
his preferred approach; and that, at this stage, which approach
would prevail was still in the balance. It therefore retained
the Communication under scrutiny, and asked the then Minister
to write after the next HLIG meeting with his assessment of how
matters then stood, and of the chance of the Council agreeing
to the sort of common European position that he advocated.[12]
The then Minister's letter of 28 January 2010
2.14 In his letter, the then Minister for Digital
Britain (Stephen Timms) provided an update on progress in developing
a common European position on the successor arrangement to the
US Department of Commerce's Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with
ICANN and "on other associated developments relating to this
policy area." The Minister noted that the Government had
always supported what he described as the US administration's
key requirements for a fully privatised ICANN:
"ICANN would be sufficiently safeguarded against
capture;
"ICANN would be sufficiently accountable to
its multi-stakeholder community and would preserve the principles
of bottom-up development of policies by those parties affected,
and would maintain the structures, practices and bylaws of the
ICANN model that had been developed by the community — including
their regular review;
"ICANN would be internationalised to allow it
to meet the needs of the global Internet community of the future;
"ICANN would be financially and operationally
secure;
"ICANN would maintain its focus on organisational
and operational excellence in performing its technical mission
of ensuring safe and stable operations relating to the unique
identifiers of the Internet, and of the IANA functions."
2.15 He then explained that the successor agreement
to the JPA, known as the "Affirmation of Commitments"
(AoC), was duly launched by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA — part of the US Department
of Commerce) and ICANN on 1 October 2009, and continued as follows:
"The AoC effectively draws a line under the
period of experiment and maturity of the previous 10 years during
which ICANN had generally fulfilled its technical mission of ensuring
that the system of unique identifiers on which all Internet communication
relies was robust and properly managed.
"Significantly, unlike in its previous agreements
with ICANN, the US Government has also made explicit in the AoC
the importance of ICANN acting in the public interest. ICANN
will be required accordingly to assess how its decisions are 'embarked,
supported and accepted by the public'.
"Accordingly, the AoC requires ICANN to undertake
annual reporting, reviews, analyses, fact-based policy development
and fully responsive consultation.
"Moreover the AoC signifies a major shift in
ICANN's relations with governments. It has replaced an essentially
bilateral relationship of accountability with the US government
with an enhanced role for the Governmental Advisory Committee
(the GAC) in reviewing ICANN's performance. This therefore would
potentially involve all governments. There are currently 94 country
members including China which rejoined the GAC in June 2009 after
several years' absence and Russia which will attend its first
meeting in Nairobi in March. The European Commission is also represented
on the GAC.
"The AoC identifies four issues for which separate
review teams will be established. The Chair of the GAC (currently
the Latvian representative Ambassador Janis Karklins) will be
involved both in selecting representatives from stakeholder communities
and independent experts to take part in the reviews and as an
active participant. The four reviews will cover:
"1. Ensuring accountability, transparency and
the interest of global Internet users;
"2. Preserving security, stability and resiliency;
"3. Promoting competition, consumer trust and
consumer choice;
"4. Securing Law enforcement access to accurate
and complete registrant data (known as 'WHOIS')."[13]
2.16 The then Minister then noted that, following
consultation with Member States, the European Presidency had issued
a statement:
"welcoming the reaffirmation by the U.S. Administration
of its confidence in the private sector-led, bottom-up multi-stakeholder
model for the technical coordination and day-to-day management
of the DNS, ICANN's global public interest mission and the increased
role for all governments and the GAC in enabling public policy
issues to be addressed within ICANN even more effectively."[14]
2.17 He then explained that:
"While the AoC agreement clearly demonstrated
the intention of the US administration to provide greater international
oversight of ICANN primarily through the GAC, neither the US administration
nor ICANN had detailed proposals at the time of the AoC's launch
as to how to achieve this, other than to require that the first
review on transparency and accountability should be completed
by December this year (the other three have either later or contingent
timelines). The High Level Internet Governance Group (HLIG) of
EU policymakers therefore proposed to develop a European position
on implementation generally and how the four ICANN reviews should
be conducted."
2.18 Finally, the then Minister briefly outlined
other issues that were taking place relating to Internet governance
as follows:
- the then Government's position
on whether the mandate for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
was that "this important multi-stakeholder forum should be
renewed for a further 5 year period" and would be lobbying
within the UN to achieve this;
- regarding the Plenipotentiary Conference of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Mexico in October,
he would be examining the future role of the ITU and whether it
should undertake a greater role in the Internet space, including
activities such as Internet naming and addressing which were currently
the sole purview of ICANN. The UK, the European Union and the
US remained fundamentally opposed to an inter-governmental agency
such as the ITU, as opposed to the multi-stakeholder ICANN, taking
on such a role. However, its ability to convince others —
including China and a number of developing countries in the Group
of 77 — would depend to a certain extent on the progress
made in implementing the AOC.[15]
The previous Committee's further assessment
2.19 The previous Committee judged that the outcome
thus far appeared to be satisfactory. But, as the Minister had
made clear, the battle was far from over; moreover, recent developments
in China and closer to home concerning access to the Internet
and internet security suggested that the battle lines were becoming
more, rather than less, defined. That being so — unless
each one was the subject of a new and preliminary Commission Communication
— it asked for a further update from the Minister ahead
of the two meetings to which he referred above.
2.20 In the meantime, the document was retained under
scrutiny.
The Minister's letter of 12 August 2010
2.21 In his letter of 12 August 2010, the Minister
for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries (Ed Vaizey)
says the he is now able to provide some further information and
to explain the approach the Government is proposing to take at
these two key meetings, which he does as follows:
"With respect to the forthcoming ITU Plenipotentiary
in Mexico (Guadalajara) in October it is now clear that Internet
Governance, both in terms of critical Internet resources and public
policy issues (such as cybersecurity) will be on the agenda. The
ITU (and several of its members including China and Russia) have
made no secret of their wish to become responsible (in the medium
to long term) for some of the key architecture process on the
Internet; such as the Domain Name System (DNS), currently the
responsibility of ICANN; something which, as you know, we are
opposed to. There may also be proposals tabled to widen the remit
of the ITU so it has specific responsibility for cybersecurity;
this again being a move we (and no doubt many others including
the EU and the US) will oppose.
"The UK has been active within the European
Union and in the CEPT (the wider European region of 48 countries)
to secure common proposals that will limit the activities of the
ITU in both of these areas. We are also discussing a common approach
with the US and hope to secure support of the Commonwealth at
their preparatory meeting in September.
"Our objective in the UN in December remains
for the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to be renewed
with all its fundamental characteristics unchanged, i.e. its continuation
as a non-decision making forum for dialogue, showcasing best practice
and information exchange with a bottom up multi-stakeholder process
for setting the IGF programme which will be managed by a light-weight,
independently staffed Secretariat funded by private and public
sector stakeholder donations.
"This position was presented by the Belgian
Presidency with the support of the UK at a meeting of the UN Economic
and Social Council (ECOSOC) in New York on 16 and 19 July, a key
preparatory stage in the preparation for the UNGA decision. China
and the "Group of 77", a grouping of 130 developing
countries in the UN) stated that they will agree to renewal of
the IGF in the UNGA only if it is reformed and brought directly
under the control of the UN system. While we and other EU Member
States have accepted that there is scope for improving the IGF,
we oppose such a transfer of accountability and the imposition
of UN oversight and budgetary control because we believe it would
undermine the fundamental bottom up concept of the IGF as agreed
at the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis
in 2005. It would also open the door to inter-governmental oversight,
perhaps by the ITU in line with their ambitions for the Plenipotentiary
Conference.
"ECOSOC had been asked to adopt a resolution
drafted by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
(CSTD, another UN entity) mandating the CSTD to convene a working
group to consider how the structure and preparatory processes
of the IGF could be improved, in particular with regard to increasing
the level of engagement of stakeholders from developing countries
and disseminating the results of its dialogue more effectively.
My officials will participate in the CSTD working group to ensure
it reaches agreement on changes to the IGF which we can support,
such as a more streamlined event structure with more clearly articulated
objectives and results, better linkage between the workshops and
main thematic sessions and more effective remote participation.
Our aim, shared by many other stakeholders, is to achieve an improved
IGF event structure that is easier to navigate for stakeholders,
with clearly identified aims, a greater focus on opportunities
and challenges, and increased visibility of results derived from
such multi-stakeholder discussions, be they at the global, regional
and national levels where we have seen a rapid expansion in the
last 12 months in the number of national IGFs.
"The next key meeting in the UN process leading
up to the General Assembly decision will be the meeting in the
autumn of the GA 2nd Committee (Economic and Financial) when the
resolution on the IGF will be negotiated. Ahead of this, BIS and
our mission in New York will work with EU colleagues and other
like-minded states to ensure that the scope of the resolution
is limited to the issue of renewal for a further period (5 years)
and that it should not extend to issues relating to reform of
how the IGF is managed, conducted and funded."
2.22 The Minister concludes by undertaking to provide
a further report back on the outcome of the Plenipotentiary discussions
which conclude towards the end of October and on the outcome of
the General Assembly 2nd Committee prior to the General Assembly
vote in December.
Conclusion
2.23 We are grateful to the Minister for this
comprehensive report, which we are again reporting to the House
because of the importance of the issues in question.
2.24 We look forward to hearing further from the
Minister on the outcome of the ITU meeting. We would particularly
like to know whether China, Russia and the others referred to
by his predecessor earlier this year are now more reconciled to
the ICANN/AoC approach or whether, within the ITU and at the UNGA,
they are likely to continue to press for a more top-down, governmentally-controlled
approach; and if so, how the Government and the EU proposes to
tackle this.
2.25 In the meantime we shall continue to retain
the Communication under scrutiny.
7 See http://www.icann.org/en/about/. Back
8
Ibid. Back
9
See headnote: HC 19-xxv (2008-09), chapter 1 (21 July 2009). Back
10
According to the Internet Society, DNS root name servers "are
a small but essential part of the Internet Domain Name System
(DNS)…. The root zone file is at the apex of a hierarchical
distributed database called the Domain Name System (DNS). This
database is used by almost all Internet applications to translate
worldwide unique names like www.isoc.org into other identifiers;
the web, e-mail and many other services make use of the DNS. The
root zone file lists the names and numeric IP addresses of the
authoritative DNS servers for all top-level domains (TLDs) such
as ORG, COM, NL and AU". For further information see http://www.isoc.org/briefings/019/. Back
11
See (27466) 8841/06 HC 41-xxi (2006-07), chapter 15 (9 May 2007)
for the Committee's consideration of the Commission Communication:
Towards a global partnership in the information society: follow-up
to the Tunis phase of the World Summit on Information Society
(WSIS).
Back
12
See headnote: HC 19-xxv (2008-09), chapter 1 (21 July 2009). Back
13
For further information on the AoC, see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep09-en.htm. Back
14
The full text of which he says is available at http:/www.se2009.eu/en/the_presidency/about_the_eu/transport_telecommunications_and_energy/internet_governance_issues_during_the_swedish_precidency.
Back
15
See headnote: HC 5-xii (2009-10), chapter 1 (3 March 2010). Back
| 
