Transparent dialogue on internet governance more important than ever

The internet connects people and organisations around the world, without the intervention of a central authority, by means of open technical standards and communally organised facilities and technologies, including the Domain Name System (DNS) and the allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. As a content-agnostic ‘network of networks’, in which tens of thousands of autonomous systems are connected to each other, the internet has rapidly developed to enable billions of end users all over the world to communicate for work, education and leisure, and to access public services. In the Western world, being always online is nowadays the norm. Indeed, younger people know nothing else. However, this organic unity is vulnerable, especially in the context of current geopolitical developments. What’s more, a third of the world’s population, concentrated mainly in developing countries, has no internet access at all. How can that ‘digital divide’ be removed, while also maintaining the core values that have made the internet so successful? What’s needed to keep the internet free, open, neutral and secure, so that everyone in the world can ultimately benefit from the opportunities that digitalisation and unity provide? One requirement is global collaboration involving governments, infrastructure providers, the private sector, the academic and technical community, and organisations that represent the interests of end users.

Information society

It’s now more than 20 years since the idea of working together to realise a global ‘information society’ was first discussed at the United Nations (UN). Along with emphasising the importance of a globally interconnected and neutral internet and what role various stakeholders should play. The intention was also that central, public functions such as the development of technical standards, the DNS and the allocation of the IP address space should not be politicised, and that, in that context, the neutral role of non-profit management organisations such as ICANN, the IETF and the Regional Internet Registries should be recognised and assured.

Tunis Agenda

At the UN-organised World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2005, global-level arrangements were made and codified in the so-called ‘Tunis Agenda’, subsequently adopted by the UN General Assembly. The term ‘internet governance’ was framed, along with ‘multistakeholder model’, namely an approach where the various stakeholders collaborate on an equal basis to ensure that the positive impact of the ‘information society’ is global.

Internet Governance Forum

One vehicle for discussion that came out of the WSIS was the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). And, although the secretariat of the IGF and therefore the organisation itself is under the jurisdiction of the UN, the forum’s programme has been driven by a Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) from the very beginning. The first IGF was in 2006, with SIDN involved from the outset. In the 2 decades since, the annual forums have been the primary multistakeholder platform for global dialogue regarding internet governance, albeit with a temporarily renewed mandate each year. This year’s IGF – the twentieth – took place in Oslo in June. SIDN and SIDN Fund were both part of the informal Dutch delegation. And the IGF’s mandate again expired. More about that later.

Better policy-making

One unique feature of the IGF is that it cannot pass binding resolutions or lay down regulations. Rather, it’s a platform for open, inclusive and informed debate. The networking and knowledge-sharing that take place at the forums, and the dialogue and understanding amongst stakeholders that the forums facilitate, therefore contribute to better decision-making elsewhere. Central to that process is the shared belief that effective policy-making on digital themes begins with listening to and taking account of the views of the various parties who have a stake in the relevant matters. In that context, it’s vital that the diplomats and officials responsible for public policy in their respective jurisdictions become familiar with the technical aspects of the digital developments they seek to regulate. Conversely, technical experts benefit from hearing about the policy challenges associated with the cross-border impact of internet technology.

Governance on the internet

Within the IGF, discussion focuses mainly on governance of the internet as a neutral, interconnected network of networks, and on technical aspects such as the adoption of open standards like IPv6 and DNSSEC, encryption, the rollout of fibre-optic networks and the role of internet exchange points. Gradually, however, topics related to governance on the internet have become more prominent on the agenda. Under that heading come topics such as digital rights, privacy, abuse prevention and cybersecurity, the rise of an Internet of Things, and topical matters such as misinformation, data governance and artificial intelligence (AI).

Limited influence?

The fact that the IGF has no decision-making authority is a strength. However, it also means that the IGF is regarded as a platform with limited influence; indeed, some would even say limited significance, given its perceived lack of concrete output and therefore impact. Yet, what would the world be like without the IGF and the core values it stands for? We would probably have a multilaterally regulated internet, governed by a single central intergovernmental body, such as the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU). While the value of the IGF is widely recognised, there is a sense that the annual forums and the outcome of its debates – the output – require greater visibility.

Permanent mandate

As mentioned earlier, the IGF’s temporary mandate has once again expired. As part of a formal review of WSIS, 20 years on from the Tunis Agenda (‘WSIS +20’), intended to result in a declaration by the UN General Assembly in December, renewal of the IGF’s mandate is on the agenda. Following a process of public consultation, a ‘Zero Draft’ declaration has recently been published, including the wording “We decide that the Internet Governance Forum shall be made a permanent forum of the United Nations.” The Zero Draft also says that the WSIS action lines do not require revision, and that the General Assembly endorses the Tunis Agenda, the definition of internet governance and the multistakeholder model, in the context of which there should be a focus on the protection of online human rights and closure of the digital divide. SIDN is happy with the Zero Draft, notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate VN declaration has yet to be negotiated.

Transparent dialogue more important than ever

SIDN believes that the need is not for new discussion mechanisms, but for an acknowledgement that the existing governance model, including the IGF, which has delivered for decades, remains effective and fit for purpose. WSIS +20 should contribute to the affirmation of a set of shared global ambitions. Otherwise, we run the risk that a fragmentation of standpoints will lead to the fragmentation of governance and ultimately to fragmentation of the internet itself. And that outcome is by no means an implausible scenario, given current geopolitical tensions and the efforts of some governments, UN member states, to assert (inter)governmental control, authority and far-reaching, enforceable autonomy. The IGF has played a vital role in the expression of core values, such as the protection of an open, free and secure internet for everyone, and has contributed to building global trust. That must continue. In a period when geopolitical tensions are greatly heightened and digital technology’s influence on everyday life is increasing ever more rapidly, an inclusive and transparent dialogue on internet governance is more important than ever.

Being affiliated to the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism (TCCM), SIDN has input to the UN’s WSIS +20 consultation process. Through the Netherlands Internet Governance Forum (NL IGF) , we’re also in contact with policy personnel at the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Ministry of Foreign Affairs with a view to helping them frame the Netherlands’ WSIS +20 input.