[WSIS CS-Plenary] Toward an Internet Gov caucus position paper

[Milton Mueller]

In the words of our illustrious caucus co-chair (Jeanette H.):

"The active members of this list seemed to agree that it would quite 
good if this caucus managed to produce a position paper that would 
contribute to the debate on Internet Governance that will accompany 
the formation of the UN working group."

It was also agreed that we should take the relevant section of 
the CS Declaration as a starting point, and discuss how to modify
it. That is what I do in this post. 

A summary of the CS Declaration's main points relevant to IG are:

 * Governments should not take over the ICANN function and should not be exclusively responsible for IG
 * The special US oversight role over ICANN and the root zone file (mistakenly identified as the "root servers") should end when "the conditions for system stability and sound management can be guaranteed"
 * There should be "public interest monitoring" and analysis of Internet governance-related IOs such as ICANN, WIPO, OECD, WTO, etc.
 * A "multi-stakeholder observatory committee" should be established to perform this monitoring and analysis

In terms of modifying this statement, I think a lot of work needs to be done. At the time it was written it probably did a good job of staking out basic CS attitudes toward some key Internet governance issues, both broad and narrow. The debate has progressed significantly since WSIS Phase 1, however, and in its current form the statement does not contribute much.

* At a minimum, we need to correct the error and properly identify what ICANN does and what aspect of it is supervised by the U.S. Dept of Commerce. The root servers are actually owned and operated by independent organizations and have no contractual relationship either with ICANN or the U.S. DoC. ICANN does, however, have some MoUs with the USG and the U.S. Dept of Commerce does oversee the contents of the root zone file. 

* In addition, I personally would want to closely re-examine those words about when USG oversight should end; the qualification about "guaranteed" conditions for "system stability and sound management" sounds a bit too restrictive for me. If a new statement is not to be completely irrelevant, a firm position on this issue must be taken

* The "observatory committee" strikes me as an idea who time has come and gone. Most of what it was supposed to do has been superseded by the SG's Working Group. (Maybe we can claim that our call was heeded? ;-) ) 

* A revised statement should take some position on how to deal with multiple, overlapping internet governance regimes. See my discussion of this in the Internet Governance Project's paper on principles and norms
http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/IGP-UNICTTF.pdf
 
A more aggressive approach to revision could do any or all of the following:

* Identify which of the multiple Intgov regimes are failing, or where contradictions or loopholes exist

* Articulate specific critiques and supports of ICANN, e.g. oppose the use of Internet resources as leverage for regulation and control, and call for consistency of its governance mechanisms with the end to end principle; approve its incorporation of direct CS input into its processes, with perhaps some critique of its bowdlerized At-Large mechanisms 

* Articulate specific critiques of ITU and address the ITU-ICANN relationship

* Address in a more substantive way the relationship between developed and developing countries in governance institutions. The current language, which basically says that inclusiveness is good, rather begs the question of what institutional reforms would actually improve the situation.

* Take a position on IPR

* Take a position on spam control

* Take a position on privacy specifically as it relates to Internet governance and surveillance

--MM