21 / 208
The working group succeeded in preparing a unanimous report,
with full agreement in some areas and an agreement to present a
range of options in the crucial area of policy oversight. The process
worked because the Working Group on Internet Governance
(WGIG) was a multi-stakeholder process where people talked
with one another rather than at one another. Secondly, the group
met with all stakeholders in open consultations at every meeting
and members participated in a large number of outreach events.
Finally, the WGIG was not a negotiating group trying to fashion
a compromise amongst different points of view. The aim was more
to understand one another and present a range of options that
need to be looked at during the preparatory process.
The report of the WGIG contains a working definition of
Internet governance: “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”.
A substantial part of the work of the group was a careful
mapping of the existing system of Internet governance and
management, with an assessment of strengths and weaknesses.
The group focused on public policy issues and its report presents
not just a listing of these, but also some notion of the most impor-
tant ones that need to be tackled in whatever process we have
for Internet governance.
The WGIG proposals for the reform of Internet governance
structures are built on the foundation of three basic agreements.
Firstly, the idea of a multi-stakeholder forum to provide a space
for a dialogue amongst different stakeholders on Internet public
policy issues. Secondly, the feeling that oversight arrangements as
presently exercised need to be modified. Third, that oversight or
governance arrangements should be concerned with certain
public policy functions and not with the technical and opera-
tional management of the Internet. The nature of the change
proposed to reflect these three basic points of agreement varies
in the four options presented by WGIG.
Each of the four options proposed for global public policy and
oversight require a change in the status quo. To summarize, the
four options are:
• An intergovernmental global Internet council is proposed for
securing coordinated action by governments on public policy
issues. ICANN would continue with its role providing tech-
nical and operational support
• No specific new oversight body is proposed, but the strength-
ening of ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
is suggested in order to meet specific governmental needs, and
ad hoc problem solving groups are to be set up as necessary
• An International Internet Council of government agencies
is to be set up, with advisory seats for the private sector
and civil society, working alongside the technical bodies of
ICANN and Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
• Three new coordinating organizations are proposed: The
Global Internet Policy Council run by government entities;
an internationalized ‘World ICANN’to continue its current
role as the technical and operational body; and the multi-
stakeholder Global Internet Governance Forum to discuss
related public policy issues.
The working group agreed unanimously on a proposal for a global
forum of all stakeholders, essentially as a space for voicing
concerns and stimulating cooperation. This forum would make
recommendations, but would not take decisions.
The Report of WGIG provides a structured basis for dialogue
and negotiation. An amicable resolution of the Internet gover-
nance issue is in the interests of all countries. The real challenge
is to recognize the global nature of the Internet and engage all
countries in ensuring its safety, security and openness. The co-
operation of all countries is necessary to cope with issues like
spam, cyber-crime, cyber-security, privacy and so on. Those who
are the key custodians of the Internet today can show leadership
by responding to what is now a widespread demand from devel-
oping and developed countries for governmental engagement on
public policy issues. Equally, those who are asking for change
must ensure that the smooth functioning of the Internet, its end-
to-end character and its openness are not compromised by a
politicization of technical and managerial decisions.
In the long run, the UN has to address the broader issue of
how best to tackle the range of policy development challenges
posed by the Information Society. These include Internet gover-
nance, e-commerce/e-finance across national boundaries,
transactions in Internet enabled services, frameworks and guide-
lines for operational activities on e-government, e-education, etc.,
issues relating to electronic media and freedom of the press and
cyber-security and privacy, to list but a few.
[
] 21
Delegates in the plenary hall at the opening of PrepCom-2 (Tunis
phase) at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
Photo: ITU/Sanjay Acharya