House of Commons - Documents considered by the Committee on 26 March 2014

Documents considered by the Committee on 26 March 2014 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents

6 Internet Governance

(35811)

6460/14

COM(14) 72

Commission Communication: Internet policy and governance: Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet Governance

Legal base	—
Department	Culture, Media and Sport
Document originated	12 February 2014
Document deposited	17 February 2014
Basis of consideration	EM of 11 March 2014
Previous Committee Report	None; but see (30708) 11222/09: HC 428-xiv (2010-11), chapter 7 (26 January 2011), HC 428-iii (2010-11), chapter 2 (13 October 2010), HC 5-xii (2009-10), chapter 1 (3 March 2010) and HC 19-xxv (2008-09), chapter 1 (21 July 2009)
Discussion in Council	To be determined
Committee's assessment	Politically important
Committee's decision	Not cleared; further information requested

Background

6.1 ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) was formed in 1998 by the US Administration. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world. On the "What does ICANN do" section of its website, it explains:

"To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer — a name or a number. That address must 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.

"In more technical terms, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) coordinates the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, which are key technical services critical to the continued operations of the Internet's underlying address book, the Domain Name System (DNS). The IANA functions include: (1) the coordination of the assignment of technical protocol parameters including the management of the address and routing parameter area (ARPA) top-level domain; (2) the administration of certain responsibilities associated with Internet DNS root zone management such as generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domains; (3) the allocation of Internet numbering resources; and (4) other services. ICANN performs the IANA functions under a U.S. Government contract."[20]

6.2 Besides providing technical operations, ICANN also defines policies for how the "names and numbers" of the Internet should run via what it describes as a "bottom-up, consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder model":

— members of sub-groups raise issues at the grassroots level which, if within ICANN's remit and on further consideration are deemed worth addressing, are passed to the Board for a vote.

— ICANN's volunteer Working Groups provide the arena in which all advocates can discuss Internet policy issues, thus assuring broad representation of the world's perspectives and preventing capture by any single internet interest;

— the public sector, the private sector, and technical experts are treated as peers; the ICANN community incorporates registries, registrars, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), intellectual property advocates, commercial and business interests, non-commercial and non-profit interests, representation from more than 100 governments, and a global array of individual Internet users: "All points of view receive consideration on their own merits. ICANN's fundamental belief is that all users of the Internet deserve a say in how it is run."[21]

6.3 The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held in two phases: the first in Geneva in 2003 and the second in Tunisia in 2005.[22] The UN created the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to continue the work of the WSIS. The IGF has brought together people from government, private sector, the technical community and civil society to discuss Internet governance issues at a series of annual meetings since 2006 in, according to its website, "an informal setting, free from binding negotiations". The Ninth Annual IGF Meeting will be held in Istanbul on 2-5 September 2014.[23]

The 2009 Commission Communication

6.4 This Communication analysed progress on Internet governance in the previous 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 (see our first Report under reference for further details).

6.5 In 2009, the then Minister (Lord Carter) saw the future role of governments in the process of ensuring that the Internet remained secure, stable and interoperable, as it underwent fundamental changes, as the key issue. UK policy was "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 reflected a European consensus opposing any proposed recourse to wholly inter-governmental oversight. While having helpfully underscored this principle, the Commission's proposal for a new mechanism for external intergovernmental oversight threatened to play into the hands of those members of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) who were seeking to extend its inter-governmental mandate to include Internet public policy issues. The then Minister preferred instead to build upon the ten year experience of the ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and further strengthen its membership — particularly bringing in China and Russia — working methods, and ways of influencing ICANN's policy processes. A common European position was needed to ensure that ICANN fulfilled 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.

6.6 At that time, two key meetings were on the horizon: first, at the UN General Assembly, where the then Minister would be lobbying for a five-year, essentially unchanged mandate renewal for the IGF; and secondly, and related to this, an ITU Plenipotentiary in Mexico, which would examine 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; the UK, EU and 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, others — including China and a number of developing countries in the Group of 77 — remained to be convinced.

6.7 The Committee provided the House with further updates in its second, third and fourth Reports under reference; the last two on the basis of letters from the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries (Mr Edward Vaizey), from which the Committee concluded that the preferred UK/EU approach had finally been successful.[24]

The further Commission Communication

6.8 This Commission Communication builds on the 2009 Communication. It does not call for any new international legal instrument. Instead, it focuses on the main areas of current debate, namely "the development of Internet governance principles, cooperative frameworks and core Internet functions": it makes proposals for how to strengthen the current multi-stakeholder model, and looks ahead to some of the key issues that must be addressed in the context of Internet governance in the future — "namely the strong interplay between technical norms and Internet policy, the key challenges in rebuilding trust, and conflicts of jurisdictions and laws". Many of the issues presented will, the Commission says, be the subject of further specific consultations with stakeholders.

6.9 The Commission proposes the following basis for a common European vision for Internet governance:

· "to defend and promote fundamental rights and democratic values, and multi-stakeholder governance structures that are based on clear rules that respect those rights and values;

· "as a single, un-fragmented network, subject to the same laws and norms that apply in other areas of our day-to-day lives; and where individuals can benefit from their rights, and from judicial remedies when those rights are infringed;

· "governed by a genuine multi-stakeholder model

· "where the necessary inter-governmental discussions are anchored in a multistakeholder context in the full understanding that the Internet is built and maintained by a variety of stakeholders, as well as governments;

· "where decisions are taken on the basis of principles of good governance, including transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness of all relevant stakeholders;

· "with a strengthened and reformed Internet Governance Forum;

· "with a globalised Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)."

6.10 The Commission says that since 2009 ICANN has taken welcome steps towards the internationalisation of Internet core functions and organisations. However, the Commission notes, ICANN's status under Californian law with a contractual relationship to a single country has not changed:

The Government's view

6.11 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 11 March 2014, the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey) highlights and comments upon the following aspects of the Commission Communication (our emphasis):

A PRINCIPLES BASED APPROACH TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE

"The Commission says that they will facilitate discussions amongst stakeholders, including via multi-stakeholder platforms and the EU High Level Internet Governance Group (HLIG).

The UK Government believes that building a consensus at global level on one set of high level principles can offer an important opportunity to establish common ground. Provided that they identify areas of genuine global consensus, such a set of principles could act as a valuable guide to how we should approach discussions in the future about internet governance issues and as a useful global reference point for those discussions."

A COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK ON GLOBAL INTERNET ISSUES

"The European Commission in its Communication states that it is important that stronger interactions between stakeholders involved in Internet governance should be fostered via issues-based dialogues, instead through new bodies. They state that they will engage with relevant stakeholders to:

· "Strengthen the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), taking into account of the Recommendations of the Working Group on improvements to the IGF;

· "Clearly define the role of public authorities in the multistakeholder context, consistent with an open and free Internet; and

· "Facilitate issues-based multi-stakeholder dialogue and decision-making across organisational boundaries.

"The UK broadly agrees with this approach. The internet has been so successful because of its multi-stakeholder model of governance and Europe should continue to support that model. We need to be cautious about defining too rigidly the role of public authorities. There is a risk that attempts to codify exact roles and responsibilities will lead to an inflexible structure which is unable to respond effectively to emerging challenges and opportunities and which will stifle the dynamism and innovation of the internet. The UK strongly agrees that issues-based dialogue is the right approach and we do not need to identify or create new bodies to deal with internet issues.

"We agree that the IGF should be strengthened. The IGF has played an important role in bringing stakeholders together to discuss issues, develop consensus and identify solutions. The IGF needs to find ways to become more easily navigable, however, and to have more structured discussions. A strengthened secretariat capacity could help in this process and help ensure that all stakeholders are able to take part."

TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE CURRENT MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCESS FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE

"In the Communication the European Commission state that they are firmly committed to the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. They also propose to launch an online platform named Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO) where the latest information on Internet governance issues can be accessed by the global community.

"The UK welcomes this commitment to the multi-stakeholder model. We believe that the GIPO initiative has the potential to be an important tool to make it easier for stakeholders who do not have significant resources to navigate and engage in multi-stakeholder processes. It will be important to ensure that GIPO complements and does not duplicate work happening elsewhere."

TECHNICAL NORMS SHAPING OF THE INTERNET

"The European Commission proposes to convene a series of workshops with international experts in law, ethics, social sciences, economics, international relations and technology with the aim to provide actionable recommendations to ensure coherence between existing normative frameworks and new forms of Internet-enabled norm setting. The UK will be interested to follow the discussion in these workshops."

BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE INTERNET

"The Commission state that they will be working with both the European Council and Parliament to achieve rapid adoption and implementation of key legislation, including the reform of the data protection framework and the proposed Directive on network and information security, in order to strengthen trust online."

LOOKING AT CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTIONS AND LAWS WITH REGARD TO THE GLOBAL USE OF THE INTERNET

"The Commission say that they will be launching an in-depth review of the risks, at international level, of conflicts of laws and jurisdictions arising on the Internet and assess all mechanisms, processes and tools available and necessary to solve such conflicts. All options for action at the both the European Union and International level will be carefully considered, including possible legislative initiatives or additional guidelines as needed.

"The UK will be interested to follow the work of this review."

6.12 Looking ahead, the Minister says that he has not currently undertaken any formal consultation process within the UK on this Communication; that the Council will decide over the coming months whether or not to issue Council Conclusions on it; and if such Council Conclusions are issued, he will provide a further Explanatory Memorandum.

Conclusion

6.13 We have two comments at this stage. Firstly, given the importance of the work in question, we are surprised at the Minister's seeming bystander stance towards the workshops that the Commission is proposing to organise on technical norms shaping of the Internet and its proposed in-depth review of the risks of conflicts of laws and jurisdictions arising on the Internet and assessment of options for action, including possible legislative initiatives. We would be grateful if the Minister would explain why he is apparently not planning a more active UK involvement in these important processes.

6.14 Secondly, we are puzzled by the lack of comment by the Minister on the international context. The Commission mentions two important international meetings in 2014: the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in April and the ninth annual IGF Meeting in Istanbul in September. Though he and the Commission might share a benign common vision, it would seem that others, and especially Russia, continue to have a different, and possibly malign, vision. A recent press article noted that the issue of "who controls the internet will be debated at a major international conference next year", which the author describes as "the biggest such confab since 2005".[27] As he puts it:

"Strategically, Russia has clearly set its sights on two goals: wresting control of the internet away from the US, and creating a new definition of 'cyber-terrorism' that's as loose as its own legislation on 'extremism', which has recently been used to prosecute eco-activists, peaceful protestors, independent media outlets and gay activists. Russia's suggestion is to shift control of the internet away from ICANN to the International Telecommunication Union."

6.15 The author points out that the ITU's basic charter guarantees freedom of access to the internet — "except, crucially, in cases of cyber- terrorism"; and asserts that "over the last ten years Russia has tried three times in the UN and once in the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to push through resolutions on cyber terror on the internet". Such legislation has (the author says) been opposed by the US and Europe because "the only practical implications of such a move would be to allow countries to suppress dissent, says Alexander Klimburg, an adviser on cyber security to the OSCE."[28]

6.16 Moreover, since writing his Explanatory Memorandum, the US Department of Commerce has announced that it plans to end its long-running contract with ICANN, which is set to expire next year, and stated:

"We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan."[29]

6.17 While this might lead to the sort of internationalisation of Internet core functions and organisations that the Commission (and presumably the Minister) would welcome, it is clear that it could well take a different, and unwelcome, direction. We would accordingly be grateful for the Minister's comments on these forthcoming international gatherings, and the approach that he will be taking, at a time when the future governance of the Internet would appear to be at a critical cross-road.

6.18 In the meantime, we shall retain the documents under scrutiny.

6.19 We are also drawing this chapter of our Report to the attention of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

20 See http://www.icann.org/en/about/welcome. Back

21 See http://www.icann.org/ for full information on ICANN. Back

22 See http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html. Back

23 See http://www.internetsociety.org/igf?gclid=CMWm87PKiL0CFWXnwgod76oAyw. Back

24 See headnote: (30708) 11222/09: HC 428-xiv (2011-12), chapter 7 (26 January 2011) and its predecessors. Back

25 See http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation. Back

26 A Commission footnote says: "The IANA functions include (1) the coordination of the assignment of technical Internet protocol parameters; (2) the administration of certain responsibilities associated with the Internet DNS root zone management; (3) the allocation of Internet numbering resources; and (4) other services related to the management of the ARPA and INT top-level domains (TLDs)". Back

27 Presumably a reference to the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society. Back

28 See "Putin's masterplan" in The Spectator of 22 February 2014. Back

29 Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, as cited in The Washington Post of 14 March 2014 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/us-to-relinquish-remaining-control-over-the-internet/2014/03/14/0c7472d0-abb5-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_story.html. Back



© Parliamentary copyright 2014	Prepared 8 April 2014