Lecture 1: Introduction to Internet Governance

Today’s lecture
 Part 1

 Welcome to course structure

 Part 2

 Defining Internet Governance

 Part 3

 Guest lecture: Evolution of Internet governance (by Adam Peake, ICANN)

What is this course about?

 Internet: “network of networks”: no single point of control

 Can it be governable?

- It is governable, policies needed to be created by someone

- It is not true that the internet could not be regulated

 Who sets the rules and standards, who develops and implements policies?

 How?

- There is no one internet, there are different autonomous systems communicating

with each other, the internet is a mesh of systems and networks in which there is no
single point of control where these systems communicate.

1
Why Internet Governance?

- In the past, people drafted the internet and did not know how it worked.

- Proposal for digital sovereignty by the European Union might change internet in the
way we know it.

- These two things are rooted in different perceptions.

- The communities of Internet governance and Cybersecurity are rooted in different

perceptions of governance/regulation of internet.
- Cybersecurity people (not per se technical people) always consider Cybersecurity
from national security lands (from the lands of regulation).
- The Internet governance community was deeply rooted in a different perception and
different ideas, it was mostly society and academia, technical people who developed
these internet standards.  this is when these two communities came closer
together  the clash was inevitable.

- The Cybersecurity vision has a lot of consequences for Internet governance.

- The Internet governance community, which was much more flexible and much more
open to by the stakeholders and has influenced the Cybersecurity community as
well.

 Cybersecurity community is getting more open and flexible.

- Because internet is everywhere, these two communities intertwined.

- We cannot consider Cybersecurity without considering how the internet is governed.

2
Course roadmap
(see slide)

Approach
 Explanation

 Argument

 Tool

Practical information

3
Literature

- Readings add to the lecture, but most questions from the exam will rely on the
lecture.

Acronyms
- These are important within Internet Governance.

- After each lecture, a list of essential acronyms will be posted.

Acronyms: let’s start

 IGF – Internet Governance Forum

 ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

 WSIS – World Summit on the Information Society

Part 2: Defining Internet Governance

Internet governance: why do we need to define it?
 Misinterpretations: regulation and control vs governance

 Misinterpretations: governance vs government  still people equal these concepts

with each other

4
Internet governance: in search of a definition
 “Internet governance is a difficult horse to catch”. – Ziewitz and Pentzold, (2014).

 It is because this issue is so loaded with various aspects since internet is

everywhere and part of our lives  it connects us.

- Once we start unpacking, we discover new aspects and new players and these
players have been constantly changing.  the domains and the governments have
been constantly changing.

“Internet” and “governance”

 What is being governed?

 Why “governance”?

What is being governed?

Internet architecture: an hourglass
 Applications: social media, messaging, blockchain…

 Physical infrastructure: (submarine) cables, satellites…

- Everything that enables physically to transmit data.

- This is the usage of the internet, the bottom level has no idea what is going on on the
top as it is just transmitting.  these two layers depend on each other

5
- Computers can speak to each other because of protocols, which values need to be
recorded somewhere such as dictionaries.

- Internet is technology but we are humans  computers need to know where to

transmit.

- You need to identify the unique identifier, which is the IP address  we humans
cannot remember this.  we need letters since we are humans.  somebody has to
keep the record of this and assign it which is happening on the technical/logical layer
 this is where it becomes unambiguous and agnostic  it does not care what is
happening on the top.

- It is also the vulnerability  stealing a computer  the technology will not care; it
just transmits information.  to develop it, you do not need to negotiate with those
layers  you can innovate without needing any permissions  this is what it makes
great  the standards are open and free.

- Who are we governing?

6
Why “governance”? Why not “regulation”?
Governance as a concept
 State “command-and-control” models: outdated  increasing complexity

 Changing role of state authorities  you need some mechanisms of social control 
governance cannot control everything anymore.

 Coordination, cooperation, negotiation with other stakeholders

 Emphasis on the process, interaction between the actors, accountability, legitimacy

 what would be the law and how would it be developed?

- It also focusses on the accountability of those who govern.

Governance and Internet

 Internet: “network of networks”

 Governance: “Coordination and regulation of independent actors in the absence of

overarching political authority” (Mueller, 2010, Networks and States, p. 8)  there is
the need for the coordination globally.

 Governance: more decentralized, less hierarchical, less top-down control

mechanisms  not because people and governance and people do not want to, but
because they cannot.

 Strong reliance on collaborative models of governance

 The multistakeholder model (as opposed to the multilateral model)  the

multistakeholder model where everybody who theoretically has a stake as opposed
to multilateral where governments come together to decide by themselves.
Sometimes, multilateral is working within the internet domain, but this is more
something for in the past.

7
Internet + Governance: scoping the issue
Governance of what?

 Infrastructure

 Logical (or technical)  the internet connectivity itself

 Economic/social  the internet usage in which internet is used everywhere

- Which of these layers do we govern?

8
Defining Internet governance: narrow approach
 Narrow approach

 Internet infrastructure (mainly Domain Name System, IP addresses, protocols,

root zone servers, etc.)

- However, others would argue that Internet Governance should include the broader
approach.

 Broad approach

 Law, economy, development, culture, and any other aspects

9
Scope: governance “of” and “on” the Internet
 Governance of the Internet

 How technical bodies govern logical layer and Internet infrastructure

 Governance on the Internet:  referring to governance of its usage

 Privacy and data protection

 Cybersecurity

 Cybercrime

 Child protection

 Jurisdiction

 Development

 And many others

- The difference between these two lies in infrastructure, connectivity and the usage
of the Internet itself, of the network, and on this network.

10
Internet governance: narrow vs broad scope
“A complete analysis of Internet governance requires that we address both narrow issues
implicated by the institutions that govern the technical infrastructure and architecture of
the Internet and the broader issues that are implicated by the ways in which the Internet
transforms policy” (Solum, 2009, p. 52).

- Should we focus on narrow or the broad scope?

- Some argue that the narrow perspective is indeed too narrow.

- The complete analysis of Internet Governance and the complete understanding of it

will require that we look not only at the technical bodies and institutions, but also at
broader issues  because the technical issues are intertwined with the broader
issues of the internet use, and one influences each other.

Definitions of Internet governance

Internet governance: “official” definition
 “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”. (World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), 2005)

- Process of application and development.

- This definition covers Governance “on” as well as “of” the Internet.

 Internet evolution will refer to how infrastructure develops, how the standards
develop, how technical bodies are governed in the network itself.

 Whereas the use of Internet will refer to this upper layer, will refer to application
and to all the plethora of issues from Cybersecurity and jurisdiction to
development and parliament.

11
Internet governance: other definitions (1)
 “Internet governance’ describes an open and constructive decision-making and
dialogue process of all social groups that serves to raise awareness of problems and
to find possible solutions” (German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and
Energy).

- Internet governance has been approached from various angles by a variety of

scholars.

- The definition above is very much focused on the process itself. On the openness of
it, they say this is for all social groups that serves to raise awareness of problems and
to find possible solutions.

- The definition does not say what is governed, it only answers the question “how”.

Internet governance: other definitions (2)

 “Internet governance refers to the rules, policies, standards and practices that
coordinate and shape global cyberspace”. (Milton Mueller, Georgia Tech, Internet
Governance Project)

- The definition above is not about “who governs” for example, it is about the final
outcome of rule, policies, standards and practices.

- By what the Internet is governed  “global cyberspace”

 So probably this definition covers Governance “on” and “of” the Internet as well.

Internet governance: other definitions (3)

 “Internet Governance generally refers to policy and technical coordination issues
related to the exchange of information over the Internet”. (Laura DeNordis (2010))

- The author of the definition above refers Governance to issues, not given its process
or the stakeholders, but policy and technical coordination issues related to the
exchange of information over the Internet.

- Again, this definition can be considered quite broad.

12
Which definition to use?
 Contested term  Internet Governance

 No single correct answer  you can use whatever definition you want

 For this course, we adopt a concept rather than a definition: the broad scope of
Internet governance

- We have the issue of critical Internet resources of how technical bodies govern the
Internet.  but we will also see how geo-political tensions influence this.  how
some other issues influence this technical government and how these two are
connected to each other.

 We are not just going to learn about some geography behind Internet
Governance and its standards  We are going to learn the multitude of geo-
political issues and tensions and look much broader than just the technical layer
of the Internet.

What’s on your reading list this week (and why is it there?)

1. The article puts the issue of Internet governance into the broader concept of
governance and regulation and tries to frame Internet governance not only as
governance itself or some regulatory tools, but as a form of coordination  not only
coordination, but reflexive coordination  not only how we develop the protocols of
the Internet, but how the Internet community is able to stop and rethink  what are
the triggers for this?  you do not have to agree with the concept of reflexive
coordination, but it covers the concept from quite an interesting perspective.

2. This article refers to the evolution of Internet governance, however, this article is
about the evolution of academic thinking and scholarship approaches to Internet
governance.  It just shows you how the academic thinking and approaches
developed in this field.

13
Part 3: Guest lecture: Evolution of Internet Governance
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
 Responsible for the unique assignment of names and numbers, the Domain Name
System, and policies for Generic top-level domains (gTLDs) and Country code top-
level domains (ccTLDs)

 Example: 192.0.33.8 or http://www.iana.org

- We as human beings will not remember the series of numbers, which will be used by
computers across the Internet in which they also use other protocols that will tell
computers how to respond to particular requests.  these things are coordinated by
ICANN  assigning names and numbers to Internet service providers and other
people that build networks.

- These names remain stable over time.  however, the technical infrastructure that
is represented by their protocols and numbers and others changes massively.

What is the DNS?

 “the hierarchical and decentralized naming system used to identify computers
reachable through the Internet or other Internet Protocol (IP) networks” (Wikipedia)

 The “address book” of the Internet  also used by us and the networks themselves
 the transmission layer between the technical layer and the content layer on top,
it is the logical infrastructure that connects us between those two parts.

- The Domain Name System is also coordinated by ICANN?

14
What are Internet Identifiers?
 The Internet is a mesh of networks whose operators agree to communicate using
predefined protocols (“TCP/IP”)  (“Transmission Control Protocol”/”Internet
Protocol”)

 Networks use identifiers to name or number individual computers (hosts) so that

these can communicate

 At ICANN, these are names, numbers and protocol parameters  protocol

parameters are cones that allow computers to instruct each other on what to do and
how to respond to things.  the most common protocol you use is HTTP (hypertext
transmission protocol).  rules of communication

 Internet protocols are developed and defined by the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF)  which is composed out of a volunteer group.

 Publications called Requests For Comments (RFCs), are the equivalent of a technical
manual of the Internet  they describe different elements of the Internet

15
Why do we engage? The Internet
 RFC1310: “The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of
autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host communication
through voluntary adherence to open protocols and procedures defined by Internet
Standards.” (around 70.000 autonomous networks)

 The Internet is a global collaboration

 Internet grew outside traditional government/multilateral arrangements

 The media is one of the highest regulated things within our society, such as news
papers and television which were always already regulated (about media). 
once the Internet evolved, random anybody can do it which is the notion of
permissionless innovation.

 Allows permissionless innovation  means that if you have a good technical

idea, you go to the IETF, you develop that idea, it becomes a standard of the
people adopted.  easily start a web page and make money for example.

 We can be both producers and consumers of services and content  which is

unique of the media

 We all have a stake  depending on how we want to get involved in this

network.

Evolution of the Internet

16
 - It is partially true that the Internet has its roots in the Cold War.
- The idea of a system where information could flow from the dots to the other dots.
- The traffic may bounce across the network instead of going straight.
- If one of the central nodes is taken out, it will not work is the idea.
- ARPA network  defend the US department? It is more about the money rather
than defense  finding funding is important.

NSFnet 1991 (US National Science Foundation)

- The picture above is an example of what it looked like at that time.

The Internet 2015

17
  Vast complexity (IPv4 only):

 700,000 networks in the global routing tables

 Europe (green), 190,000 networks

Changing economy and society (snapshot!)

 1980s on, globalization and neoliberal policies

 International business / international business influence, and market-oriented

policies

 1984, privatization and introduction of competition in telecommunications,

media liberalization

 Clinton (1993-2001) embrace of electronic commerce, Internet, minimal regulation

and reduced role for government

 Recognized this phenomenon of electronic commerce and Internet was global

Evolving Internet – ARPAnet/NSFnet 1980s/90s

18
  NSFnet

 2,000 Internet connected computers in 1985

 2 million+ Internet connected computers 1993

 NSFnet privatization 1993-95 (growing number of private networks since late

1980s)

 Domain Names

 1993 awarded a 5-year contract to Network Solutions (NSI), 7,500 names

 120,000 names in 1995, NSF allowed NSI to charge for name registration

 2 million names in 1998 when NSF/NSI agreement expired

 All change: Mosaic / Netscape 1993/1994 (iPhone 01/2007)

Creation of ICANN
 June 1998 Statement of Policy: Management of Internet Names and Addresses “to
facilitate its [USG] withdrawal from DNS management”

 A globally representative, stakeholder-led non-profit organization, based on bottom-

up coordination to manage the Internet’s system of naming and addressing: The
DNS.

 Emphasized a role for governments equal to other Internet users

 ICANN established September 1998

 (2nd quarter 2021, 367.3 million domain name registrations across all TLDs)

Internet – question of control

19
  Q. Earlier 1990s, who is in control:

 Decides who can provide service / gets a license

 Sets prices?

 Decides who can connect and how?

 International traffic exchange?  who decides the rules?

 A. No one: global distributed autonomous networks (note. Except naming and

addressing)  the network operators set their own rules

Internet Governance: WSIS and IGF

WSIS: World Summit on the Information Society (2003-2005)
 Tradition of UN Global Summits – to set global principles, norms and high-level
actions on global issues (e.g. 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development
“Rio Earth Summit”)

 Recognizing the potential of e-commerce and the Internet, UN General Assembly

1998 decision to hold a Summit on Information Society

 Two phases Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) (“prep comms” from 2002)

 WSIS was to place the question of Internet governance on diplomatic agendas

 Multistakeholder governance and processes which was new in the international

relations (IR) field  there are still governments who prefer the multilateral
model for example and do not want to include other stakeholders.

 Internet governance: introduced to the WSIS process during the West Asia regional
prep comm in February 2003 – context was ICANN: equitable access to “critical
Internet resources”

 A question of control, of ICANN and other multistakeholder organizations (control

points in a distributed global network)

 A first Internet governance in this narrow form became a focus

 Internet governance would be one of two most contentious issues in the Tunis phase
(other was finance and digital divide)

20
  The Geneva phase gave us a definition of Internet governance

Defining Internet Governance: outcome from Geneva

 Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG, multistakeholder WG)

 “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” (emphasis mine)

 Both governance Of and On the Internet

 Important, not just about “critical Internet resources” – the realm of digital and
cyber

Geneva to Tunis
 The WSIS Tunis Agenda for the Information Society elaborated on the question of
Internet governance and adopted a definition

 The Agenda lists Internet governance issues, and establishing the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF), a multistakeholder body and space for dialogue among
equals, but convened by the UN Secretary General

 Reaffirmed the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in “the management of the

Internet” both technical and policy issues

 Day-to-day technical and operational matters should be the responsibility of the

existing private sector organizations

 International public policy issues responsibility of government

 These are still contested, anticipate will be the subject of discussion during WSIS+20
(2025)

 The World Summit is every 5 years.

IGF: Mandate from the Tunis Agenda

21
  72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to convene,
by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder
policy dialogue – called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). …

IGF Athens 2006 to Addis 2022 – about the IGF

 Held under the auspices of the UN – but organized by all stakeholders as peers

 Some UN rules of procedure

 First IGF: in many respects, an experiment in multilateral diplomacy truly a

multistakeholder event with participation of states, business, and civil society

 Interesting organizational structure for its main events and workshops, national and
regional IGF initiatives

IGF Athens 2006 to Addis 2022

 Mandate initially for 5 years (2011) and extended again in 2015 for a further 10 years

 The IGF does not receive funding from the UN

 Critics: IGF was only a ‘talk show’ without any tangible results in the form of a final
document or plan of action

 Truth: IGF doesn’t really produce tangible outcomes, but it has provided valve to
release pressure to discuss governance mechanisms in other forums (this period now
ended)

 Important goal now is to contribute more concrete recommendations

 Value of national and regional IGFs (100+)

And after the IGF?

22
  July 2018: UN Secretary-General High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation, to
consider:

 The social, ethical, legal and economic impact of digital technologies in order to
maximize their benefits and minimize their harm

 The future of ‘digital governance’ (an evaluation of the IGF, consideration of

other mechanisms)

 September 2021, Global Digital Compact – proposed by the UN Secretary-General

 UN process to “outline shared principles for an open, free and secure digital
future for all”

 Digital connectivity, Internet fragmentation, usage of data and privacy,

application of human rights online, regulation of AI and emerging tech,
promotion of a trustworthy Internet… But under the UN General
Assembly

 WSIS+20 – UN process review 2025 of the World Summit outcomes

 Tensions have always been there, and they will remain.

- The technical function of the Internet works well.  Governments can influence
this?

Multistakeholder established, but…

23
- It is a primarily state process over the General Assembly?

- Bring expertise in the room from the stakeholders

- The multistakeholder processes are still being challenged as governments want to

exert more control, and therefore the expertise is not in the room.

 Message: Multistakeholder approach still under threat

24
Lecture 2: Internet governance: models, actors, and
processes
Today’s lecture
 Part 1: Models of Internet governance

 Part 2: Internet governance: actors and processes

 Part 3: Midterm assignment: Information and Q&A

Part 1: Models of governance

Models of governance: why?
 Essential debate: government and governance

 Definitions of internet governance:

 “…development and application by governments, the private sector and civil

society, in their respective roles…” (WSIS)

 “…open and constructive decision-making and dialogue process of all social

groups…” (German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy)

- In this last definition, the government is not mentioned

Governance vs Governments
 Balance of power between sovereign nation-state governance and non-territorial
and privatized mechanisms

 New global institutions and erosion of traditional political/governance structures

 Two models: multilateral and multistakeholder

25
Traditional mechanisms: sovereignty and territoriality
Traditional command-and-control mechanisms
 Sovereignty

 Territoriality

 State/government solely establishes and enforces the rules

 International level: treaties and policies developed by states (multilateral

governance)

- Multilateral governance existed even before the emergence of the Internet

Pre-Internet: regulation of (tele)communications

 Monopolies: owned by the state

 State control: regulation, licensing

 International level: International Telecommunications Union – ITU (multilateral) 

more than 100 years old and existed before the UN.

- Governments are still trying to bring the best service to their customers

Intergovernmental (multilateral) model

 Traditional approach

 Laws and regulations negotiated by nation state’s representatives

 Examples: any traditional international organization (United Nations agencies)

Internet: challenging (and changing) traditional mechanisms

Internet, power, and control
 Internet: a network of networks

 Decentralised
 Owned/managed by private actors
 Transborder
 Global

26
  Governance: how to “rule”?

 Sovereign states vs decentralized networks

 Non-territorial, non-hierarchical environment
 Traditional government structures vs new global institutions

“Internet governance is about governance, not governments” (Laura DeNardis, (2014). The
Global War for Internet Governance. P. 11)

Setting the standards: early days

 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF): RFCs (Request for Comments)

 Process: open and public

 Later: creation of governance structures such as ICANN (Internet Corporation for

Assigned Names and Numbers)*

 New model of governance: multistakeholder model

 *note: ICANN functioned under US government stewardship until 2016

- IETF is not a private company  it is a nonprofit organization. One of the first

privatized non-governmental organization (not private).

- Various companies adopted this standard by putting community in trust  it is

flexible without a formalized structure.

- Emergence of new model of government: multistakeholder model  involves every

stakeholder concerned.

Multistakeholder model

27
  Emerged as a compromise between private and public interests

 Involves every stakeholder concerned

 Open

 Consensus-based

 Transparent

 “Equal footing”  every stakeholder has the same weight.  into the processes, not
only in speaking.

 Government: just another stakeholder

 Example: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Models: do they compete and conflict?

 International level: Multilateral model

 Only states can participate

 Governments are in full control of negotiations on laws, rules, and regulation

 Nation state (traditional model):

 Command-and-control
 Hierarchical structures

 Multistakeholder model

 Non-hierarchical
 Consensus-driven
 Equal footing
 Open participation

- According to Mueller, these models cannot coexist. However, actually they do.

Models: drawbacks?

28
Multilateral & traditional model
- Minority of other stakeholders are not hurt.

- Cannot meet the challenge/openness of the internet, so it is very conservative.

Multistakeholder model
- Consensus takes longer including its implementation

- Negotiations take longer

- There is a risk of capture

- Accountability is a problem (which relates to the risk of capture)

Drawbacks
 Multilateral model

 Exclusive
 Non-transparent
 Not always able to meet the challenges of Internet governance

 Multistakeholder model

 Risk of capture  who dominate the rules?

 Legitimacy issues
 Accountability issues
 Diversity and inclusion for certain stakeholder (e.g. developing countries, civil
society organisations)  because developing countries do not always have the
capacity or money.  however, they could have participated in the multilateral
model as this does not require capacity.

Models: conflict or coexistence?

29
Example: Freedom Online Coalition (FOC)

Is FOC primarily multistakeholder or multilateral?

- It is primarily multilateral, there is no equal footing as states participate primarily.

Multistakeholder governance

30
  Cybersecurity  most of the time relates to national security issues/multilateral
model

 Internet Governance  the idea of the multistakeholder model  it influences

Cybersecurity processes in the sense that it made it more open.

Internet governance models debates

 Is Internet governance truly multistakeholder?

 Does the traditional multilateral model endanger the multistakeholder model?

Part 1: Acronyms
 IGF – Internet Governance Forum

 ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

 WSIS – World Summit on the Information Society

 ITU – International Telecommunications Union

 IETF – Internet Engineering Task Force

 RFC – Request for Comments

Part 2: Internet governance: actors and processes

Where are we?

31
Internet governance: “official” definition
“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”.
(World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), 2005)

- It mentions the actors

“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”.
(World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), 2005)

- However, there is a small ticking bomb in the respective rules, what are they?

Governance by whom?
 No unilateral system

32
  Who is developing policies and performing other tasks?

 Industry
 “New” institutions such as ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers) or IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)

 Governments  they govern

 International organisations

 How?

- Internet is the decentralized governance, you have to remember this, the variety of
stakeholders dealing with different issues.

Internet: decentralized governance

 Internet: from scientific project to “Internet of everything”

 Variety of stakeholders and actors

 Variety of processes

 Decision-making: institutional actors? ICANN, IETF, ITU and others

 However: social media implement policies, courts establish practices, national

governments adopt laws

- Various types of regulation not only by law, but also by various standards.

Polycentrism (Scholte, 2017)

 Trans-scalarity  national, global scale

33
  Trans-sectorality  not only public or private, it is about more sectors

 Diffusion  no single center or single point of control for decision-making

 Fluidity  new actors are coming into these spaces; new processes are being
created

 Overlapping mandates  every issue in internet governance is not a child of one

buddy. Many stakeholders are involved so overlapping mandates

 Ambiguity in hierarchies  decisions are taken by various groups?

 No final arbiter  there is no real kill switch for the whole world, ICANN is regulated
by various stakeholders.  one of the weaknesses since you can mitigate issues?

Processes vs institutions
 “For empirical work, studying a centralized institution is a lot more convenient than
having to identify and study a wealth of disjoined, messy and globally distributed
processes that together produce governance.” (van Eeten & Mueller (2013). Where
is the Governance in Internet Governance. New Media & Society. 15. P. 729

Internet governance: key issues and actors

 Infrastructure later: key issues

34
  Interconnection  how to connect it transborder
 Universal access  how to bring access to internet to remote villagers and
ensure everyone has it
 Adoption of new technologies
 Standardisation  of this physical network
 Telecommunication regulation (spectrum, competition, etc.)

 Infrastructure layer: key actors

 ITU and National Telecom Authorities International Organisation for

Standardisation (ISO)

 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

 Network operators and Internet exchange points

 Industry Associations

 Logical layer: key issues

35
  Names
 Numbers
 Protocols and standards?

 Logical layer: key actors

 ICANN
 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
 Number Resource Organisation]
 (NRO) + 5 Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)
 IETF
 Standard development organisations (ETSI, W3C…)

 Economic/societal layer: key issues

 Cybersecurity and cybercrime

36
  Harmful content
 Human Rights
 E-commerce and trade
 Intellectual property and copyright (and many others)

 Economic/societal layer: key actors

 National governments
 Intergovernmental organisations
 Civil Society
 NGOs
 Industry
 And many others

Internet governance: layers, key issues, actors

37
Example: key issue, human rights

Example: governments as key actors

38
Mapping actors and processes (don’t forget about fluidity!)
 Infrastructure layer: ICT regulators, industry, standardization bodies

 Logical layer: ICANN, IANA, IETF, RIRs, W3C (protocols on the top of core standards)

 Economical/societal layer:

 A lot of actors and processes are country-specific

 Overlapping mandates
 Global level: Internet Governance Forum, processes Intergovernmental
organisations (e.g. UNESCO, ITU)

“Traditional” actors and new actors

- Infrastructure should not be duplicated.

- No need to build infrastructure, new players are entering (for example: connectivity
provided to Ukraine by Elon Musk).

- Infrastructure was locked to certain actors, however, are open to new actors now.

Understanding processes and actors

39
  Who is responsible? Who takes the leading role in the process? Is there an
institutional actor?

 Who has a stake? Stakeholders: government, business, technical community, civil

society, academia, end-users?

 Is the process open for participation of various stakeholders/stakeholder groups?

How are they participating?

Example: Internet governance and cybersecurity

- Cybersecurity is the perfect example to show the coexistence of multilateral and
multistakeholder models and open/close processes.

- Despite all the fears that Internet could not cope with everything during COVID, the
logical layer seems robust.

- Zoom in a particular issue, look in more detail to stakeholders. Try to think who has a
stake.

Internet governance and cybersecurity

40
Acronyms

41
  IGF – Internet Governance Forum

 ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

 WSIS – World Summit on the Information Society

 ITU – International Telecommunications Union

 IETF – Internet Engineering Task Force

 RFC – Request for Comments

 DNS – Domain Name System

 W3C – World Wide Web Consortium

 NRO – Number resource organization

 RIR – Regional Internet registry

 ETSI – European Telecommunications Standards Institute

 IEEE – Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

 IANA – Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

 ISO – International Organisation for Standardisation

What’s on your reading list this week (and why is it there?)

42
 1. DeNardis, L. & Raymond, M. (2013). Thinking Clearly About Multistakeholdeer
Internet Governance

2. Scholte, J. (2017). Polycentrism and Democracy in Internet Governance. In U. Kohl

(Ed,), The Net and the Nation State: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Internet
Governance.

Part 3: Midterm assignment: Information and Q&A

Practicalities
 Deadline: 10 October 2022, 23:59. Submissions made after the deadline will not be
graded unless you have an extension granted by study advisors.

 Deadline extensions: If you have personal circumstances that warrant an extension

of the deadline, please contact the study advisor of your main program.

 Remember: under the current regulations, the lecturer is not in the capacity to make
decisions on granting individual extensions. Contacting the lecturer directly will delay
the process of granting you extension, so please contact the study advisors first.

 Submissions should be made through Brightspace.

 Assignment grading is anonymous. Therefore, you are asked not to include your
name in the document you submit.

Critical evaluation of a definition: what’s this?

 Remember: ”critical” doesn’t mean saying that definition is bad or wrong. It means
providing your opinion on this definition:

 To what extent is this definition good?

 To what extent is this definition accurate? How well, in your opinion*, does it
reflect the nature of Internet governance?

 To what extent do you agree or disagree with this definition? Or with some of its
elements?

 *Informed opinion, supported by literature and other sources

Critical evaluation of a definition: where to start?

43
  Think about the elements of this definition: what are they? What does each of them
mean?

 Do they all – together and separately – reflect the nature of Internet governance
properly?

 Is every one of these elements necessary? Does the definition include all (in your
opinion) essential concepts/elements? Are there any critical elements missing?

 Is this definition sufficiently broad? Or sufficiently narrow? Or maybe too broad/too

narrow?

 Is it precise enough, or are there any ambiguities?

 Is there a need to reconsider/update this definition?

 Note: You don’t have to answer all of these questions. They are just pointers.
Feel free to ask your questions!

Writing your essay

 Justify your argument and support the discussion with the arguments from the
literature and (if you wish) from other sources.

 You can use both sources that agree and disagree with your argument.

 Think of the flow of your argument.

 Make a conclusion based on your arguments.

 Don’t forget about appropriate signposting and overall structure.

 Remember: there is no right or wrong answer, it’s the quality of your arguments
that counts.

 Word count: maximum 1200 words (+10%), references not included.

Grading criteria

44
Important: plagiarism
 You are expected to abide by the norms governing academic honesty.

 You must write your assignment in your own words.

 Whenever you take an idea, findings, or passage from another author, you must cite
accordingly, i.e., referencing in the text or in footnotes.

 When a passage is literally copied into your work, quotation marks must be used.

 Your assignment will be checked for plagiarism. If plagiarism is detected, the

Examination Board will be notified, and you will be sanctioned accordingly.

Try to stay focused

 Do not forget that your goal is to evaluate a definition critically.

 Focus on the task. You have only 1200 words.

Lecture 3: Technical layer of Internet Governance

45
Today’s lecture
 Part 1: Technical layer of internet governance: setting standards and managing
critical internet resources

 Part 2: Case study: ICANN and multistakeholder governance of critical internet

resources

Critical internet resources: what are they?

 Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance 2005:

 Administration of the domain name system and Internet protocol addresses (IP
addresses)
 Administration of the root server system
 Technical standards
 Peering and interconnection
 Telecommunications infrastructure, including innovative and convergent
technologies

Critical Internet resources: where?

Our focus today: governance “of” the Internet (logical/technical layer)

46
Internet standards
Internet standards
 “The Internet works because it is based on a universal technical language”

Standard-setting
 “Powerful seat of authority” (DeNardis, 2014, P.65)

 Internet standards-setting: a new form of policy-making

 Standards developments are driven by interests (market interests, public interest)

 New global private institutions rather than traditional authorities

Technical standards
Authority: traditional organisations and private bodies

47
  IETF (no formal membership)

 ITU (intergovernmental)

 W3C (membership-based)

 IEEE (membership-based)

Internet protocols: IETF

 Enabling exchange of information on the Internet: technical ‘rulebook’

 Transmission control protocol and Internet protocol (TCP/IP) and other crucial
protocols: setting the technical and governance standards (IETF)

 IETF: no formal membership, based on “rough consensus”, open

 IETF work: mailing lists, working groups, three annual meetings

 IETF standards: available for free

RFC (request for comments)

 Thousands of RFCs

 Not all of them become standards (RFCs evolve, can compete, be informational...)

 Process: submitting RFC, peer review, revisions based on comments

 Approval of the Internet Engineering Steering Group: “proposed standard”

 Both proposed standards and formally adopted standards are used

 Following the standards: your autonomous network can connect, share resources
and access (you can be sender or recipient)

- Systems based on trust

What do they look like?

48
Unique identifiers
- Computers need to know where to send it and where to find it.

Internet identifiers
 Internet: a mesh of networks

 Agreement to communicate using predefined protocols (“TCP/IP”)

 Networks use identifiers to name or number individual computers so that these can
communicate

 Names and addresses must be uniquely assigned

Names and addresses

 IP addresses: hard to remember
49
  IPv4: 192.0.43.22
 IPv6: 2001:0db8:ac10:fe01:0000

What are “unique identifiers”?

 Domain name (iana.org)

 IP address  without this being unique, computers cannot communicate.

 Names
 Numbers

50
Protocol parameters: what are they?
 Internet devices use predefined protocols to communicate (e.g. TCP/IP)

 To enable communication, this “language” has to have agreement on numerical

values

 Example: “404” (not found): computers “know” that 404 is a special answer that
something can’t be found

 “404” is a protocol parameter

- There are thousands of them.

Governance of the logical layer (unique identifiers)

 Someone has to:

 Agree on protocols and develop them

 Assign the names and addresses
 Ensure that names and addresses are unique
 Keep the records

 Important: root zone file (here is the record in) (a database to translate all the
unique top-level names into IP addresses)

51
Who governs?
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA):
 Protocol parameters

 IP addresses (numbers)

 Domain names

 Keeps the record of all identifiers to avoid confusion

 Processes the change requests to the root zone file

IANA: governance?
 IANA functions are strictly technical

 It is a database

 IANA does not set policies

 IANA does not govern

Who governs? Putting pieces of the puzzle together

 Protocol parameters

 Numbers

 Names

Protocol parameters
 Goal: to enable communications for equipment and software from various vendors

 Example: “404” (not found):

 Computers have to know that “404” is a special answer that something can’t be
found

 Somebody has to argee that “404” is a special unique message

 Somebody has to keep a record of it and let everybody know that “404” is used

52
Protocol parameters: who governs?
 Policy: Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

 Oversight: Internet Architecture Board (IAB)

 Maintenance, publication, and requests to modify a registry: Internet Assigned

Numbers Authority (IANA) – this is like a “dictionary of numerical values”

Who governs? Putting pieces of the puzzle together (1)

Numbers
 Internet protocol addressing system (IP addresses)

 IPv4  we run out of them (192.0.32.7)

 IPv6 (2001:0000:4136:e378:8000:63bf:3fff:fdd2

- They are not compatible

53
IP addresses allocation: IANA to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)

- It takes a block of IP addresses and passes it  you have to develop policies for this
 keep it between regional communities

Numbers: who governs?

 Policies: Regional internet address Registries (RIRs)

 RIRs coordination: Number Resource Organisation (NRO)

 Policy coordination: ICANN’s Address Supporting Organization (ASO)

 Allocation to the RIRs and registry maintenance: IANA

54
Who governs? Putting pieces of the puzzle together (2)

- IANA keeps the record.

55
Domain name system (DNS)
- It is a very hierarchical thing.

 Generic (gTLD)  .org

 Country Code (ccTLD)  .nl  belonging to country codes

 Internationalised domain names (ccTLDs and gTLDs)  .6r  they are not written in
Latin script

Root zone servers: 13 servers, 12 operators

- This is the ultimate authority

 All 13 servers store a copy of the same file

 The file is the main index of the Internet’s “address book”  It has all the names and
numbers and know how to resolve all the domain names?

- Stability comes from redundance  you should not store at one place.

- Operating this as a voluntary activity without getting money for it  It is not a

business but rather a public service.

- Root zone servers try to find the fastest way/route  therefore it is not regional in
any form.

56
Names: who governs?
 Policy and advice: ICANN community of volunteers

 Contracts, policy implementation and compliance with policies and standards: ICANN
Org.

 Coordination of changes to root zone: IANA

- Changes to the root zone file are done by IANA

- Everything leads to IANA

Do you see a point of control? If yes, where is it?

- IANA  if something goes wrong with IANA, it so goes with the internet

57
IANA is a function of ICANN

A moment to reflect: power and control

- For many years IANA was controlled by ICANN including political issues.

58
Power and control
 Transnational institutions: policy development and technical coordination

 Unique identifiers: point of control

 Governance vs government

 Where are the governments in this puzzle?

Part 2: Case study: ICANN and multistakeholder governance of critical internet resources
Where are we now?

IANA
 Protocol parameters
 IP addresses (numbers)
 Domain names

59
ICANN and the US government stewardship: historical context (1998-2016)
- ICANN was in a way under the US government
- ICANN itself was created and under symbol control of the US government

A bit of history
 Legend: Jon Postel was keeping a list of unique identifiers in his notebook

History
 Early Internet: name resolution used a host file named HOSTS.TXT

 Maintained by the NIC (Network Information Center) at the Stanford Research

Institute
 Network administrators: updates via email

 Ideally: everyone had to update to the latest version

 Released once per week

 Downloadable via FTP

HOSTS.TXT: problems
 Naming contention

 Edits made by hand to a text file (no database)

 No good method to prevent duplicates

 Synchronization

 No centralized way to ensure that people were using the same version of the file

 Bandwidth

 Significant bandwidth required just to download the file

60
Domain names
 Early: 1990s unique names identifiers system: controlled by the US government
(Postel got money from the US government for a research project)

 US Government’s choice: continue its unique role or internationalise core functions?

 ITU? “No thank you

Creation of ICANN
 1993: US National Science Foundation subcontracted domain name system to
Network Solutions Inc. (5-year contract)

 1995: National Science Foundation allowed Network Solutions Inc. to charge a fee
for domain name registration (competition and introduction of new top=level
domain names)

 Global resource – global coordination body?

 1998: Creation of Internet Cooperation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

61
US and ICANN (1998-2016): symbolic oversight or real control?
 Three instruments to (potentially) control ICANN:

(1) IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) contract: between the US

government and ICANN to perform technical functions on the IANA

 Any changes in the root zone file must be audited and approved by the US
Department of Commerce (The most important!)

(2) Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the US government

(3) Contract between US Department of Commerce and VeriSign Inc. (US company)
on root servers

- Not only had the US control over the root zone file, but also over some resources?

Most important: IANA function and root zone file

 Symbolic oversight or real implications?  Oversight was to a large extent symbolic

 Post-Snowden (2013): issues power and control over ICANN became a big
controversy  so for the US it became problematic to maintain this control as the
US government created IANA?

- US government tried to negotiate since they do not wanted to have veto?  ICANN
Board made the decision.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) announcement:

IANA transition
 Giving oversight to the community: promise since ICANN’s inception

 2014: US oversight becomes problematic

 14 March 2014: US Government announces transition of the stewardship of the

IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community

 Transition to be complete by the 30 September 2016

62
National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) requirements:
IANA transition
 Transition proposal must have broad community backing and:

 Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;

 Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
 Meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the
IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) services; and
 Maintain the openness of the Internet

National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA): governments are

not welcome
 NTIA “would not accept a plan that replaced NTIA’s role with a government-led or
intergovernmental organization solution”

Transition (2014-2016): two processes

1) IANA Stewardship Transition: proposal to transition the stewardship of the IANA
functions to the multistakeholder community

2) Enhancing ICANN Accountability: make ICANN accountable in the absence of a

contractual relationship with the U.S. Government  this one is still ongoing (more
effort)

- 2) policies created by IANA itself can affect IANA  community had to come up with
checks and balances, if it goes wrong with IANA what do we do?

63
Process 1. Transition of the IANA stewardship: PTI (Public Technical Identifiers)

- When something goes wrong  they can break the contract and choose another
organization.

- Establish checks and balances all the time.

64
Process 2. Accountability: new community powers
- Create community powers without US Government having to approve?

- ICANN also functions as an organization on the bylaws which the community can
reject?

- If ICANN Board want to change bylaws, they need the majority to approve.

- ICANN community can recall the entire ICANN Board.

- Separate parts of the community can come together and launch a new process?

- At the absence of a government, who has the objection of human rights?

65
Transition: community effort

- 600 hours of calls and meetings

- ICANN Board consist of 21 people (half of them are chosen by the community) 
half community, half broad pool?

66
IANA transition, governments and political battle
 Inside ICANN: debates on ICANN “immunity” (not possible) and the role of the
governments

- Office For Foreign Asset Control

- Incorporation of US territory control means that ICANN is not immune to the US

system.

 Outside ICANN: “giveaway” problem (USA)

- Obama giving away the internet

- The root zone file is US property and cannot be given away?  We did not know if
the transition would happen.

- Once contracts expire, lost the case and transition happened?

- Now ICANN is an independent entity

Post-transition ICANN: multistakeholder governance

ICANN’s Mission
 Ensuring the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems

1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain
Name System

2. Coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the

registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains (gTLDs)

3. Facilitates the coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name
server system

4. Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol
numbers and Autonomous System numbers

67
ICANN: ccTLDs and gTLDs
 Country code top-level domain names (ccTLDs):

 Memoranda of Understanding, adherence to technical standards, non-binding

policies

 Generic top-level domain names (gTLDs):

 Contracts, binding policies

ICANN and gTLDs

ICANN: contracted parties

68
ICANN: not only contracts

ICANN Ecosystem
 Global Multistakeholder Community of volunteers

 ICANN Org (ICANN staff)

 Directors: representatives from the global community

69
ICANN Ecosystem: multistakeholder community
 Supporting organisations (SOs):

 Making policy

 Advisory committees (ACs):

 Providing advice to the ICANN Board (no policy function!)

70
ICANN’s multistakeholder community
 Making policy

 Three Supporting organisations (SOs):

 IP addresses
 Country Code Top-level domains (ccTLDs)
 Generic Top-level domains (gTLDs)

 Providing advice

 Fours Advisory committees (ACs)

 Governments and intergovernmental organisations

 End users
 Root server operators
 Security experts

Supporting Organizations (SOs)

 SOs are responsible for developing policy recommendations in the areas they
represent

 ASO

 Address Supporting Organisation: 15 volunteers – 3 from each of the

Regional Internet Registries (RIRs): global Internet Protocol (IP) Address
Policy

 ccNSO

 country code Name Supporting Organisation: global policies relating to

country code top-level domain name (ccTLD) policies (.nl, .uk) – made up
of ccTLD managers

 GNSO

 Generic Name Supporting Organisation: divided into 2 houses (contracted

and non-contracted parties) – work on generic top-level domain name
(gTLD) policies (.com, new gTLDs)

Advisory Committees (ACs)

71
  ACs give advice and make recommendations

 ALAC (At Large Advisory Committee)

 Represents the interests of individual internet users. Supported by five

Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) and over 220 At-Large Structures
(ALSes) and volunteers from around the globe

 GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)

 Provides advice on public policy issues, particularly on interactions with

policies and national laws or international agreements

 RSSAC (Root Server System Advisory Committee)

 Advises on the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the

Internet’s Root Server System

 SSAC (Security and Stability Advisory Committee)

 Advises on security and integrity of the DNS

How does the community develop policy?

How can Advisory Committees participate/intervene?

72
Governments: “just another stakeholder”: Mechanisms for limiting governments’
power/influence at ICANN
 Participation only in an advisory capacity via GAC (Governmental Advisory
Committee)

 GAC provides advice only on public policy aspects within ICANN mission

 GAC is not a decision-making body

 ICANN board: mechanisms for rejecting GAC advice

Are governments really “just another stakeholder”?

73
  Participation in GNSO policy development processes and calls for consensus on the
GNSO level

 However, GAC processes: only governments

 The ICANN Board cannot simply reject the GAC consensus advice:

 Higher threshold for rejection (may only be rejected by a vote of no less than
60% of the Board)

 Processes for consultation if rejected

 Currently: community concerns about GAC interventions

Government: why are they interested?

 Point of control: both technical and proxy for content

 Interests in geo names and indicators

 Trademarks protection

 Security of critical aspects of the Internet

ICANN multistakeholder model: debates

 Legitimacy?

 Accountability?

 Inclusion?

 Replication?

 Threats?

 Lessons learnt?

Take a moment to reflect: ICANN’s role on the technical layer

74
Food for thought: Russia’s war in Ukraine and “Internet sanctions”
 28 February 2022: Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine sent the request to
ICANN and RIPE NCC (Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre, one of
the RIRs):

 to remove the Russian top-level domain names from the DNS root zone

 to shut down DNS root servers located in Russia

 to revoke the right to use all IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.

 2 March 2022: ICANN rejected the request

 10 March 2022: RIPE NCC rejected the request

Why didn’t ICANN and RIPE disconnect Russia?

 ICANN, letter of 2 March 2022:

75
  “Our mission does not extend to taking punitive actions, issuing sanctions, or
restricting access against segments of the Internet – regardless of the
provocations. <...> To make unilateral changes would erode trust in the
multistakeholder model and the policies designed to sustain global Internet
interoperability.”

 RIPE NCC, letter of 10 March 2022:

 “Blocking or withdrawing resources from our registry would be unlikely to have

immediate impact on interconnection or traffic in Russia, but it could have
unpredictable consequences in terms of harming the global coordination that is
necessary for stable Internet operations.

 This is an outcome that would play into the hands of those who want a less open
Internet that can be used to enforce political decisions rather than allow open
communications across the globe”.

Acronyms

What’s on your reading list this week (and why is it there?)

76
Lecture 4: Internet Governance and Human Rights
77
Today’s lecture
 Part 1: Final exam: what to expect and how to prepare. Information and Q&A.

 Part 2: Human rights and internet governance

 Part 3: Human Rights in the context of internet architecture and unique identifiers
(Guest lecturer: Avri Doria)

Final exam: what to expect?

 Several questions testing your knowledge and understanding of the course material

What are the usual questions types?

- Based concepts, models, characteristics, etc.

See the slides for preparation strategies and examples

Part 2: Human rights and internet governance

78
Where are we?

- We are at the issues part.  the other issues will relate to this the issue of human
rights as it is the main issue.

Remember Day 2 lecture?

Human rights: what are they?

79
Human rights: basics
 Inherent to every human being, universal and inalienable

 Not granted by states

 Right to life, dignity, equality, prohibition on slavery and torture, and many other

 Civil and political rights

 Social, economic, cultural rights

Human rights: international regime

- 1948: people wrote their freedom of expression  important document (Universal

Declaration of Human Rights (1948))  it is not a law, but a declaration which is
aspiration of post-WW2 hoping for better.

Human rights: absolute and qualified

80
  Individuals are entitled to human rights

 However:

 Absolute rights: cannot be restricted (e.g. freedom from torture)

 Qualified rights: can be restricted by law to achieve a legitimate objective:

 Freedom of expression

 Privacy

 Right to liberty

 And many others

Human rights: role of states

 States: positive and negative obligations

 Positive:

 Protect human rights (protect individuals and groups from abuse)

 Fulfil human rights (positive action to facilitate)

 Negative:

 Refrain from interfering with or violating human rights

What about business and human rights?

 Question:

 Should business/private industry have human rights-related responsibilities?

- Remember: Human rights are sort of state obligations.

Business and human rights

 Corporate activities: global, far-reaching impact on human rights

81
  Obligations of states vs the role of corporations?

 2011: UN “Ruggle Principles” (John Ruggle):

 “Principle 11.
 Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should
avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse
human rights impacts with which they are involved.”
 One of the steps to make the world better

In a nutshell
 States: duties to protect and fulfil human rights and refrain from violations

 Business: respect for human rights (public commitment, avoid infringements,

identify, prevent, mitigate, procedures for remedy)  this is not a duty
Internet and human rights
Internet: “a new frontier”?
 Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948:

 “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

 Internet knows no frontiers

Internet and human rights

82
  How can the Internet enable human rights?

 Freedom of expression
 Political rights
 Increased transparency
 Privacy  this can also be broken by the Internet

- Freedom for peaceful assembly, it can coordinate people

- Freedom of speech which is enabled by the Internet
- Promotion of Human rights, it helps empower them

 How can the Internet enable human rights violations?

 Cultural, political, religious censorship

 Restriction on access to information
 Surveillance and monitoring

- The right of privacy can be used to violate privacy on the Internet in terms of data,
intercepting/monitoring communications, etc.

 Internet can enable human rights but also facilitate violation on a scale?

Internet and human rights: what is affected most of all? (Important to remember)

83
  Freedom of expression

 Freedom of seek, receive and impart information

 Assembly, association and participation

 Privacy and data protection

Emerging “new” rights: debates

 Internet access

 (access to infrastructure? Access to content?)

 Net Neutrality  this is argued to be the basic human right in the debate

 (equal treatment of all types of content)

 “New” rights or enablers of existing rights?

International organisations: UN Human Rights Council

 Resolution in 2012: human rights existing offline must be protected online

 Resolution in 2018: “same rights that people have offline must also be protected
online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers
and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with article 19 of <..>

Human rights protection online

 “Same rights that people have offline must also be protected online”

 How?

- Various documents/reports trying to interpret the protection of human rights online,

but we are not yet there.  there is no exact framework which tells how to protect
them.

States and human rights violations online: examples

84
  Internet shutdowns (limiting access via infrastructure) violate freedom of
expression, freedom to peaceful assembly, freedom of association

 Restrictions on content (blocking, filtering) violate freedom of expression  this

can be lawful

 Surveillance (mass and targeted, governmental and private) violates the right to
privacy

State, private companies, and Internet: what about human rights?

 States: human rights obligations

 Infrastructure and services: private companies

 Content and user’s data: in the hands of the private sector

Digital “global default”

- This is not in the readings

 “private actors establish boundaries to human rights online – most notably freedom
of expression, data protection, and privacy – in accordance with their respective
business models” (Zalnieriute, M & Milan, S. (2019))

Human rights and private companies: solving the problem?

 Governments’ attempts to solve the problem: regulation, e.g.

 GDPR
 EU Digital Services Act

 Private parties attempts: oversight, e.g. Facebook’s Oversight Board (effectiveness?)

- Effectiveness: it is a big issue as Facebook’s policies were not obligatory

A brief introduction: Human rights and internet governance: technical/logical layer

85
Why the logical layer?
 Human rights:

 Debates over content and privacy (societal/economic layer)

 Debates over internet shutdowns, filtering and blocking information flows
(infrastructure layer)
 Technical/logical layer?

 Narrow technical mission of governing organisations

 Internet architecture/unique identifiers: what are the implications for human rights?

 Belief: take human rights into account while shaping/designing internet architecture

Case: ICANN and human rights

 IANA transition (2014-2016): accountability issues

 Human rights: respect vs enforce

 Ruggie principles and ICANN: operations vs policy function

- Issue: is it about respect or enforcement of human rights?  ICANN is developing

policies for domain names as it bears more policy function.

Why couldn’t ICANN commit to Ruggie Principles?

 Ruggie principles are designed for companies’ operations (e.g. supply chains)

 ICANN and contracted parties: investigating business practices and working

conditions in hundreds of domain name registrars around the world?

 Potentially: ccTLDs located in the countries that violate human rights?

 Opening the doors for litigations and making ICANN an enforcer of human rights?

 Human rights are affected by ICANN’s policy-making (policies can violate privacy,
enhance surveillance practices, restrict freedom of expression via restriction on the
use of generic domain names or content regulation initiatives)

- If ICANN develop a policy like this, they will violate freedom of expression.
ICANN and human rights: solution

86
  Solution: human rights as a core value in the ICANN bylaw (to complete the IANA
transition)

 Post-transition: commitment to interpret the bylaw and implement it

 How to implement it? Still a work in progress  even 60 years after transition

ICANN bylaw: human rights core value

 “Subject to the limitations set forth in Section 27.2, within the scope of its Mission
and other Core Values, respecting internationally recognized human rights as
required by applicable law. This Core Value does not create, and shall not be
interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission, or beyond
obligations found in applicable law. This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to
enforce its human rights obligations, or the human rights obligations of other
parties, against other parties”

ICANN and human rights bylaw: how to implement?

- Community has to figure out how to take human rights into account when they
develop policies.

87
ICANN’s policy development process and human rights?

- Still to a large extent work in progress

Human rights and IETF

 IETF: Research Group on Human Rights Protocol Considerations (from 2015)

 Aim: to research whether standards and protocols can enable, strengthen or

threaten human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (Research Group’s Charter)

Human rights and IETF: are protocols neutral?

 Supporters of human rights considerations:

 Internet protocols can enable human rights (not enforce and not protect)
 Example: enable privacy through including privacy considerations in RFCs

 Critics (Mueller & Badiei, 2019):

 Focus on Universal Declaration and Covenants
 Translation of legal concepts into technical standards is not straightforward (e.g.
privacy means confidentiality, but freedom of expression?)
 How will engineers take decisions to balance conflicting rights?
 Protocols: ex-ante, effects on human rights: ex-post

88
More about IETF, ICANN and human rights in Part 3 (guest lecturer: Avri Doria)

What’s on your reading list this week (and why is it there?)

1) Franklin, M.I. (2019). Chapter 1. Human rights futures for the internet. In: Research
Handbook on Human Rights and Digital Technology

- Give more idea of human rights

2) Mueller, M. & Badiei, F. (2018). Requiem for a Dream: On Advancing Human Rights via
Internet Architecture.

Take a moment to reflect

89
Part 3: Guest Lecture Avri Doria: HR & ICANN & IETF

Human rights
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

 International Covenant on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)

 International Convenient on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)

 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979)

 Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities (2006)

UN Human Rights Council (2012)

 Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online,
in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and
through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.

90
Key Human Right Treaties

UN Special Rapporteur Freedom of Expression

2015
 Governments should promote the use of strong encryption and protect anonymous
expression online.

2016
 Private entities should ensure the greatest possible transparency in their policies,
standards and actions that implicate the freedom of expression and other
fundamental rights.

 Private entities should also integrate commitments to freedom of expression into

internal policymaking, product engineering, business development, staff training and
other relevant internal processes.

91
Relevance of human rights to internet protocols and policy
 WSIS Tunis Agenda (2005)

 42. We reaffirm our commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and
use information, in particular, for the creation, accumulation and dissemination
of knowledge. We affirm that measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability
and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect
the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant
parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration
of Principle.

 NetMundial (2014)

 Human rights are universal as reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and should underpin Internet governance principles.

 Rights that people have offline must also be protected online , in accordance
with international human rights legal obligations, including the International
Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

92
Acronyms
 IETF: Internet Engineering Task Force

 RFC: Name for IETF/IRTF repository documents – historical: request for comments

 UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

 IRTF: Internet Research Task l Force

 H§RPC: Human Rights Protocol Considerations

Fundamental questions
 Are Engineering decisions value neutral?

 When engineering tradeoffs are considered, what is the role of human rights?

 How does one design a protocol such that it is an enabler of human rights?

 Should protocols be judged against human rights requirements?

 What should be the focus of efforts? Measure of impact? Both or neither?

IETF & Privacy

 Security & privacy

 Trust by users in security and privacy on the Internet is a critical part of its
success. A range of components, including robust implementations, careful
deployment, and appropriate use of security technologies, is required to create a
trusted Internet.

 The IETF Security Area, with more than 20 active Working Groups

 Enabling secure and privacy-preserving communications;

 Helping collect, verify, understand, and update the state of network end-points;
and

 Providing protocols and applications the means to handle the authentication,

authorization, and accounting of users, applications, and devices.

93
RFC 6973
 Abstract

 This document offers guidance for developing privacy considerations for

inclusion in protocol specifications. It aims to make designers, implementers, and
users of Internet protocols aware of privacy- related design choices. It suggests
that whether any individual RFC warrants a specific privacy considerations
section will depend on the document's content.

Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group

 The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group chartered to research
whether standards and protocols can enable, strengthen or threaten human rights,
as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

 The research group takes as its starting point the problem statement that human-
rights-enabling characteristics of the Internet might be degraded if they are not
properly defined, described and sufficiently taken into account in architecture and
protocol development. Not protecting these characteristics could result in (partial)
loss of functionality and connectivity.

Output of HRPC Research Group

 RFC 8280

 Attempts to bridge language of rights and protocol technologists

 Did ethnographic analysis of the IETF RFC repository

 Developed hypothesis on the relationship between protocol elements and rights.

 Suggested considerations that protocol designers can use when developing or

evaluating protocols.

 Now using, and testing, those considerations for usefulness.

94
Guidelines for Human Rights Considerations

Guidelines for Human Rights Considerations, cont’d

95
Mapping example 1
 Connectivity

 Privacy

 Security

 Content Agnosticism

 Internationalization

 Censorship resistance

 Open Standards

 Heterogeneity support

 Freedom of Expression

96
Mapping example 2
 Connectivity

 Decentralization

 Censorship resistance

 Pseudonymity

 Anonymity

 Security

 Freedom of Assembly & Association

97
Other HRPC topics under discussion
 Freedom of Association

 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hrpc-association/

 In 11th revision at this point

 Ongoing discussions

 Standards and Politics

 Anonymity

 Internet Filtering

 Is it sufficient to study protocol design or do implementation, deployment and

use need to be taken into account. (my continuing issue of interest)

 Respectful language issues in technical terminology; e.g. master/slave protocols

and black lists

Some existing work

 IETF

 Privacy, several RFC including:

 RFC 6973 Privacy considerations for Internet Protocols l RFC 7626 DNS
Privacy Considerations

 RFC 7721 Security and privacy considerations in IPv6 Address Generation

mechanisms

 RFC 7819 Privacy considerations for DHCP

 RFC

 RFC 7775 HTTP Status Code 451

98
  IRTF

 RFC 8280 Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations

 Guidelines for HRPC

 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines/

Other related research efforts

 IRTF

 GAIA-GlobalAccesstotheInternetforAll https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/gaia/about/

 PEARG-PrivacyEnhancementsandAssessments Research Group

https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/pearg/about/

Acronyms

99
  ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

 FOI: Framework of Interpretation

 GPI: Global Public Interest

 PDP: Policy Development Process

ICANN: Articles of Incorporation & Bylaws

 From Articles

 ...the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article IV hereof, pursue the

charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and
promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet
by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“Bylaws”).
Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any
determination of such global public interest shall be made by the
multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder
community process.

 From Bylaws

 Section 1.2. COMMITMENTS AND CORE VALUES

In performing its Mission, ICANN will act in a manner that complies with and
reflects ICANN's Commitments and respects ICANN's Core Values, each as
described below.

 (viii) Subject to the limitations set forth

in Section 27.2, within the scope of its Mission and other Core Values, respecting
internationally recognized human rights as required by applicable law. This Core
Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on
ICANN outside its Mission, or beyond obligations found in applicable law. This
Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations, or
the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties.

100
Human Rights & GPI
 Section 27.2 HUMAN RIGHTS

 (a) The Core Value set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii) shall have no force or effect
unless and until a framework of interpretation for human rights ("FOI-HR") is (i)
approved

 Completed Human Rights as a Core value is now fully part of the Bylaws and of the
definition of ICANN’s GPI commitment

 Board is required to take the GPI into account with every decision it makes, and must
include the explanation as part of recording the decision

 In 2019, the Board developed a framework that facilitates a bottom-up

multistakeholder-driven understanding of the GPI issues relevant to each Board
decision.

 The Human Rights Bylaws is a fundamental part of the GPI Framework that should
be considered in the creation of recommendation and decision making.

101
Status on GPI
 The GPI Framework, including a specific task for Human Rights, is integral to the
analysis being done on major projects. Currently it is a Board project though it
attempts to be transparent and involve the community.

 At the end of the year the framework will be reviewed and updated, if necessary,
after community comment.

 Since GPI, including Human Rights analysis, should come from the bottom up
processes, we are in the process of trying to integrate the framework into the
bottom up multistakeholder processes, i.e. the Policy Development Process (PDP)

Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIA)

 When developing corporate or operational policies, and executing its operations,
ICANN the organization should take the Human Rights Core Value into account. In
order to do so ICANN the organization should propose a framework to the
community, which should include multistakeholder involvement in its development,
and regular review....”
and,
 “...ICANN’s Mission, Commitments and Core Values, including the Human Rights
Core Value, should be taken into account by the SOs and ACs, and ICANN the
organization when considering policy matters. The Board will need to take into
account ICANN’s Mission, Commitments and Core Values, including the Human
Rights Core Value, in considering all matters before the Board, which also includes
advice given by the GAC...
HRIAs
 May 2019 - Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) of ICANN's organization
operations produced by contract to ICANN

 Human Right Working Party (HRWP)

 October 2019

 Sample HRIA for ICANN Policy Development Processes (PDP)

 August 2022

 Human Rights Impact Assessment for ICANN’s System for Standardized

Access/Disclosure (SSAD) and Operational Design Assessment (ODA)
Recommendations

102
 There is a lot of opportunity for those who want to write HRIAs

103
Lecture 5: Cybersecurity, Internet fragmentation, and future
challenges for Internet governance
Today’s lecture
 Part 1: Internet governance and cybersecurity

 Part 2: “Internet Fragmentation” – a problem or a myth?

 Part 3: Internet governance: future challenges and emerging issues (Guest lecturer)

Part 1: Internet governance and cybersecurity

Where are we?

“Security has been a recurring theme in the ongoing debates about internet governance,
especially as a tool for national governments seeking to claim greater authority in the
multistakeholder system”.
 Way of governments to put their foot into the door. Governments are responsible for
security as a public rule. – Wolff, J. (2016)

104
Cybersecurity and Internet governance: conceptualizing the issue
- There is no agreed definition of cybersecurity, there is no conceptualization of this
issue.

Remember Lecture 1? Internet governance and cybersecurity: different actors coming

together
 Internet governance

 Cybersecurity

- When these two start coming together  overlap and clashes.

Contested definitions and concepts: is there a gap?

- Cybersecurity community (traditional group is rooted in national security)
conceptualizes cybersecurity different than internet governance community
(Internet governance community was dominated by the technical people and civil
society).

 different way of thinking, there is a gap in terms of how security is perceived and
conceptualized and how this conceptualization fits the model of governance.

 quite stable community  clashes in interest and how to govern.

105
Conceptualisation problems: alternative concepts?

- Cybersecurity is just one problem of making internet safe, robust, and other
processes.  Internet governance community perceives cybersecurity as one
problem of many others.
 Internet governance is part of the cybersecurity topic. It looks through their own lens.
- They are trying to hold the ground very firmly.

“Is cybersecurity eating Internet governance?” (Mueller, 2017)

Conceptualising cybersecurity in the context of Internet governance

- In the last 25 years

- How did cybersecurity got conceptualized in the debate of internet governance?

106
Conceptualising cybcersecurity in the context of Internet governance (1)

 Pre-WSIS (before 2003)

Cybersecurity in the context of Internet governance: pre-WSIS

 Cybersecurity: technical security, stability of the network

 Governance: from the cyberlibertarians to creation of new governance and

coordination institutions (e.g. ICANN)

Conceptualising cybersecurity in the context of Internet governance (2)

 WSIS and post-WSIS (2003-2011)

- WSIS started in 2003

- In 2011  reached level of connectivity

Cybersecurity in the context of Internet governance: WSIS and post-WSIS

 Recognizing the role of the governments in (cyber)security and Internet governance

 Broadening the concept of Internet governance: evolution and use of the Internet

- The notion of cybersecurity extents to ransomware, data breaches, and many other
issues.  it gets very broad as it relates to every use of the Internet.

107
Conceptualising cybersecurity in the context of Internet governance (3)

 Last decade (2012-2022)

Cybersecurity in the context of Internet governance: last decade (2012-2022)

 Last decade: ongoing securitization

 Internet governance in the context of military domain and geopolitics, broader scope
of “cybersecurity”

 Examples:

 NATO recognized cyberspace as a domain of operations in 2016

 During the IANA transition, debates in the US over losing a strategic military
point of control (cyber)  giving away IANA, the root zone server

 Widening the scope of cybersecurity from technical dimension to content

(misinformation, disinformation)  hybrid threats as well, also about content
besides technical aspects  the demarcation line was gone

Example: International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) 1988: “Digital cold war”?

 World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) 2012: ITU gaining
control over Internet?

 Russia’s proposal: “Member States shall have equal rights to manage the Internet,
including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet
numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources”*.

 Arab states’ proposal: a state shall know where the traffic is routed

 Proposed ITRs: Art. 5A, security and robustness of networks

Czech Republic, Ministry of Industry and Trade’s comment on the outcome of the WCIT
2012

108
  “The fundamental contradiction was shown at the very beginning, when the
Western countries refused to discuss the Internet and its governance, while China
and Russia, Arab and African countries under the guise of human rights and states’
rights were trying to tackle these issues.
<…>
 Countries such as Russia and China via vassal countries were clearly promoting state
control over this media, regardless of the fact that it is currently in the scope of
business of several international organizations (e.g. UN, ICANN) and multilateral
cooperation among the various stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental
organizations, industry).”

European Parliament resolution on the WCIT-12

 The European Parliament:

 “Stresses that some ITR reform proposals being presented by the ITU member
states would negatively impact the internet, its architecture, operations, content
and security, business relations, internet governance and the free flow of
information online”.

 “Believes that, as a consequence of some of the proposals presented, the ITU

itself could become the ruling power of the internet, instead of an open, inclusive
and bottom-up multi-stakeholder model”.

WCIT 2012 outcomes

 The new ITRs: signed only by 89 countries

109
  ITRs 1988 are still in force

 If there is a conflict between ITRs 2012 and ITRs 1988, the earlier ITRs 1988 prevail

 The voting results are not really accessible.

 Countries in green, new ITRs are in force.
 Countries in the EU and the US, the old ITRs prevail?  they blocked moves from China
and Russia to control over the Internet.

Internet governance and cybersecurity?

Cybersecurity, Internet security, national security?

 Internet security emerges “as a proxy for national security” (DeNardis (2014), P. 88)

110
  “Cybersecurity claims based on national security perspective intersected with and
almost transformed internet governance policy”. (Mueller (2017), P.418)

Conceptualising cybersecurity in the context of Internet governance (4)

 Last 4 years (2018-2022)

Cybersecurity in the context of Internet governance: last four years (2018-2022)

 Stronger move from technical issues to the illegal and harmful content problems

 The rise of “digital sovereignty”

 National and regional regulatory developments (initiatives) with extraterritorial

effect  idea of we have to protect our citizens

 National and regional regulatory initiatives that specifically aim at the

technical/logical layer

Emanuel Macron, IGF 2018 (Paris): data protection, security, and content regulation
 “if we do not regulate Internet, there is the risk that the foundations of democracy
will be shaken”

 “who better than these governments can set the law? That means that implicitly, we
accept that players, on the basis of economic dominance, or that a system has never
been discussed in practical terms, would be more legitimate than government with
regard to its own citizens <…>”

 Nobody talked to the community in this (harsh) way before.

The EU’s Cybersecurity Strategy for the Digital Decade (2020)

111
  “At the same time, there is increased reliance on the core functions of the global and
open Internet, such as the Domain Name System (DNS), and essential Internet
services for communications and hosting, applications and data. These services are
more and more concentrated in the hands of a few private companies.

 This leaves the European economy and society vulnerable to disruptive geopolitical
or technical events which affect the core of the Internet or one or more of these
companies”.

Internet governance, cybersecurity, and geopolitics

- Geopolitical issues are eating cybersecurity and Internet governance

Cybersecurity and Internet governance? Or cybersecurity vs Internet governance?

 Rise of regulation and more traditional state interventions

 Data localization laws, “digital sovereignty”, “technological sovereignty”, “national

internets”, content regulation initiatives aiming at various layers of Internet
governance

 Regional and national initiatives with global impact, especially those that aim at the
technical/logical layer

Cybersecurity and the technical (logical) layer: how does cybersecurity affect governance
of the Internet?

112
Security on the technical (logical) layer: a successful story?
 “Internet security governance has arguably been one of the most successful areas of
Internet governance because, despite high-profile security breaches, the Internet
overall has continued to operate”. (DeNardis. (2014). P. 106.)

However
 The pressure on the technical layer is increasing:

 Geopolitical tensions

 Issues of control over information (content)

 blocked on domain name?

 Legitimate security concerns (protection of citizens)

 concern that citizens are not safe (societal interest)  spills out to the
technical layer.  DNS will be affected for example  Politicians have to show
that they deliver

Example 1
Example 1: ITU Council working group, Russia, and internet public core
 ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues
(CWG-Internet)

 “Public core” concept (a multistakeholder Global Commission on Stability in

Cyberspace): Russia’s demand for more intergovernmental intervention

 Russian proposal: Conduct the following open consultations with all stakeholders on
the topic “The role of states in ensuring the integrity, resilience and stability of the
public core of the Internet and the need for international legal acts to guarantee the
integrity, resilience and stability of the public core of the Internet”.

 (the proposal didn’t get enough support)

The Global Commission on the Stability in Cyberspace: response

 ”Recently, the work of the GCSC on the public core has been referenced in other
documents as well, although the focus has been slightly different.

113
  Some of these proposals may even cite or reference the GCSC definition of the public
core and reproduce the norm in full, but ignore that, for reasons detailed in the
GCSC final report, the Commission considers the multistakeholder model to be a
cornerstone of cyberstability, as well as Internet governance.”

ITU: Russia’s vision of risk analysis

 “A number of operational organizations performing supranational functions in the
Internet governance are registered in the USA, and they must comply with all laws,
rules and regulations of the US judicial authorities as well as of the Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC). Decision of a national administration may restrict or affect
the accessibility of the Internet services in other countries.”

 “Operators of critical elements of the Internet basic core may be forced to comply
with the sanctions imposed by a national administration under which jurisdiction
they are located. The State is not independent in managing its online resources (IP
addresses, domain names)”.

Example 2
Example 2: EU regulatory proposals, December 2020
 NIS2: extension of cybersecurity regulation to DNS and root zone servers

 EU Cybersecurity strategy: root zone servers contingency plans  if something

happens, EU has to care about its citizens

EU Network and Information Security Directive 2 proposal

 (15)

 Upholding and preserving a reliable, resilient and secure domain name system
(DNS) is a key factor in maintaining the integrity of the Internet and is essential
for its continuous and stable operation, on which the digital economy and society
depend. Therefore, this Directive should apply to all providers of DNS services
along the DNS resolution chain, including operators of root name servers, top-
level domain (TLD) name servers, authoritative name servers for domain names
and recursive resolvers.

Root zone servers: 13 servers, 12 operators

114
Root zone servers: stability in redundancy (a lot of instances)

- If all 13 of root servers are down, it does not make sense as the instances (copies)
will stay online?

NIS2 proposal: extraterritorial claims

 Root zone servers:

- They have downtime, this is normal

 Root zone servers: operating across the globe by 12 organisations

 Only two of them are located in the EU
 How this extraterritorial jurisdiction can be claimed practically?
 Why put regulatory burden on the operators that manage servers voluntarily?
 Disregarding the current mechanisms of multistakeholder governance?
 Regulatory overreach and unintended consequences?

 DNS services definition/application:

 Overly broad reach?

European Parliament: no root zone servers!

115
 - Root zone servers will not be regulated by a Parliament.

The EU’s Cybersecurity Strategy for the Digital Decade (2020): DNS root system
 “The Commission intends to develop a contingency plan, supported by EU funding,
for dealing with extreme scenarios affecting the integrity and availability of the
global DNS root system.

 It will work with ENISA, the Member States, the two EU DNS root server operators
and the multistakeholder community, to assess the role of these operators in
guaranteeing that the Internet remains globally accessible in all circumstances”.

EU cybersecurity strategy and root zone servers: criticism

 Technical community about root zone servers:

 More than 30 years of no downtime

 Unsolicited contingency plans
 What is the problem that has to be solved?
 What is the policy imperative?

Example 3
Example 3: ICANN and content regulation

116
  ICANNN: narrow technical mission  no content?

 Governments at ICANN: pressure to tackle “DNS abuse”

 No agreed definition of “DNS abuse”:

 E.g. ccTLDs in some countries define it also as illegal content (in contrast to
technical threats)

 gTLDs have no agreed policy at the ICANN level

 DNS: a shortcut to content blocking/takedown. Collateral damage: URL vs domain

name?

 Debates at ICANN: how much can/should ICANN coordinate registries and registrars’
responses to DNS abuse? Is it a mission creep?

 some of the DNS abuse is purely technical, this is where ICANN coordinates, but it
also overlaps with other layers?

ICANN and content regulation: a growing pressure

 ICANN bylaws, Art. 1 S. 1.1:

 “(c) ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and and restrictions on) services
that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry
or provide, outside the express scope of <ICANN’s mission>. For the avoidance of
doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory
authority”.

 Current community discussions: abuse, misuse and content regulation

ICANN’s attempts to respond to pressure

117
  2020: ICANN attempts to introduce the notion of “technical internet governance”
(ICANN) as being distinct from “internet governance”

 Probable reasons:

 Response to increasing pressure to deal with issues outside of its mission

 Geopolitical threats to the multistakeholder governance model

Technical Internet governance?

Question:
 Is it a good idea to separate the concept of “Technical Internet Governance” from
“Internet Governance”?

Food for thought

Can cybersecurity and Internet be governed in incompatible ways?
 Cybersecurity governance and Internet governance: convergence of models and
institutional arrangements

 Does cybersecurity governance pose a threat to multi-stakeholder governance of the

Internet?

 States taking leading role in cybersecurity governance: how would this influence
Internet governance?

 Can cybersecurity regulation “break” or “fragment” the Internet? E.g.:

 limiting connectivity in reaction to content threats

 “sovereign” internets

 new technical standards and internet “splintering”?

Only 2 new acronyms:

118
  WCIT: World Conference on International Telecommunications

 ITRs: International Telecommunications Regulations

Part 2: “Internet Fragmentation” – a problem or a myth?

Where are we?

Internet fragmentation: unpacking the issue

IGF 2019 in Berlin: “One World. One Net. One Vision”
 “<…> it is clear for me that we live in one world. But it is not entirely clear that we
will live only with one Net. It is a very emotional moment, when 30 years ago, we
have seen the fall of the Berlin wall. And so it is for me an enormous frustration to
know that today, not only we are still building physical walls to separate people, but
that there is also a tendency to create some virtual walls in the internet, also to
separate people”. “Today, an accessible, free, secure and open Internet is at risk of
fracturing <…>”.

Is Internet “fracturing”?
 “A growing number of thought leaders have expressed concerns over the past two
years that the Internet is in some danger of splintering or breaking up into loosely
coupled islands of connectivity”.

Internet “fragmentation”?

119
  Internet “fragmentation”: a growing concern in the absence of agreed terms and
definitions

 Splintering

 Fragmentation

 Balkanisation

The term “fragmentation”: a paradox

 ”At the heart of the Balkanization debate is a fascinating duality. The concept of
internet fragmentation could be used to arrive at two diametrically opposed
conclusions:

 The internet is now and always has been fragmented ;

 The internet is not now and never will be fragmented.”

- Mueller, M. (2017)

Fragmented Internet?
 The internet is now and always has been fragmented;

 The internet is not now and never will be fragmented.”

- Mueller, M. (2017)

 What does this mean?

Internet is inherently fragmented

120
  The Internet was created as a network of networks

 Every device connected to the Internet is connected to Autonomous System (AS)

 Autonomous Systems are self-governing, it’s already a “federation”.

Internet is inherently united

 Devices and Autonomous Systems “speak” the same language (protocols)

 They use the same system of names, addresses, and routing standards

Internet is “unifragged” (Mueller, 2017)

121
  A question for you: What should happen to make the Internet lose this connectivity
that makes it “united”?

What is the problem, then?

 The concept of fragmentation:

 “A growing number of thought leaders have expressed concerns over the past
two years that the Internet is in some danger of splintering or breaking up into
loosely coupled islands of connectivity”. – Drake, Cerf & Kleinwachter (2016)

 What does this abstract concept entail?

 Is there a real danger of “fragmentation”?

 If the Internet is not fragmenting, what is the danger? Why is there an ongoing
debate?

What does the abstract concept of “fragmentation” entail?

122
Fragmentation debates: the types of fragmentation
 Fragmentation on the technical/logical layer:

 Designing infrastructure/standards in a way that systems can not be

interoperable or exchange data

 Hampering the functioning of the logical layer

 Of the Internet

 Commercial fragmentation:

 Private sector’s terms of service, conditions, and practices impacting user’s

ability to access, send, and receive information on the Internet

 Governmental (political, policy) fragmentation:

 National approaches to restricting the global information flows

 Divergencies in how internet users, due to the policies adopted by governments,

can access, send, and receive information on the Internet

 On the Internet

Fragmentation on the technical/logical layer

123
Technical/logical layer: concerns
 The loss of interoperability: the creation of incompatible standards, adoption of
alternative protocols or alternatives to domain name system, or other
incompatibilities

 Examples of concerns: potential problems with Internationalised domain names,

incompatibility between IPv4 and IPv6, creation of alternative root

 Have these concerns become a reality? Has there been a real danger of
”splinternets”?

Example: IPv4 and IPv6 incompatibility

 IPv4: exhaustion perceived for a long time

 IPv4 and IPv6 are not compatible

 Solutions: dual stack (hardware runs IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously), tunnel
(encapsulating IPv6 packets in IPv4 packets), Network Address Translation-Protocol
Translation (translates IPv6 packets into IPv4 packets)

 Technical solutions  Internet is not broken

Alternative root (also: alternate root)

 Creation of alternative root (alternative ways to map identifiers into IP addresses) is
technically not impossible.

 IAB: strong opposition (RFC2826)

 Examples:

 New Nations: domains to unrecognised states/regions that don’t have ccTLD: .ko
(Kosovo), .ku (Kurdish people), .ti (Tibet). DNS resolution via OpenNIC

 Handshake – the use of blockchain to create alternatives to 13 root zone servers.

Doesn’t replace but complements DNS.

 DNS resolution is still here  Internet is not broken (so far!)

New IP: a threat of “splinternet”?

124
  New IP: concept proposed by Huawei and Futureway at the ITU (2019):

 Idea: developing a top-down design for the future network

 Not compatible with IPv4- and IPv6-based infrastructure

 Various networks connected via gateways

 Possibility for monitoring: a strong connection between a user and an IP address

 IETF to the ITU: “We have not seen any evidence of the need for a monolithic “New
IP” designed from the top down”

ICANN study: New IP is a concept, not a threat

 “As such, efforts like New IP may be better suited for ad-hoc deployments of highly
specialized private networks. Trying to make them into a standardized, one-size-fitall
architecture, as has been done with IP, seems overly ambitious and unlikely to
succeed.

 Due to the lack of specification, it is worth noting that it is difficult to see New IP as a
candidate for a protocol standard. Rather, it appears to be a list of perceived issues
about the current Internet architecture and a list of desired features”.

Commercial fragmentation
Commercial fragmentation: concerns
 Geo-restrictions and geo-blocking.

 Net Neutrality: attempts to treat data in a discriminatory manner based on content,

application, and equipment. Example: blocking Voice-over-IP or slowing down peer-
to-peer applications.

 “Walled gardens”: application or service provider has full control of its own digital
space via imposing Terms of Service, ”locking” the customer.

 Does this “fragment” the Internet?

Governmental (political, policy) fragmentation

What is “governmental fragmentation”?

125
  “The most common imagery of “governmental fragmentation” is of the global public
Internet being divided into so-called “Balkanized” or digitally bordered “national
Internets”. Movement in the direction of national segmentation could entail, inter
alia, establishing barriers that impede Internet technical functions, or block the flow
of content and transactions over the infrastructure.” - Drake, Cerf, and Kleinwachter,
2016

Government fragmentation: concerns

 Digital sovereignty

 Digital protectionism

 Filtering, blocking, and censorship

 Data localization requirements

China: Golden Shield and Great Firewall

 Golden Shield:

 Originally a database for police surveillance and control

 National filter for blocking politically sensitive content

 National surveillance tool

 Great Firewall:

 Filtering data flows into and outside the country with the use of Deep Packet
Inspection and IP blacklisting.

 Limiting access to foreign websites and apps

 Political tool: requiring foreign companies to comply with domestic legislation

 However: China is still connected to the global network

Russia: “Sovereign” Internet

 Securitization

126
  Data localization requirements

 “Kill switch”: external concept, adversaries can disconnect Russia from the global
network

 Russian “Sovereign Internet Law” (2018): announcement of the creation of Russian

DNS, tightening control over content via operators and “deep packet inspection”
black boxes

 However: Russia is still connected to the global network

EU: digital sovereignty

 “Faced with the "technological war" being waged by the United States and China,
Europe must now lay the foundations of its sovereignty for the next 20 years.”

 ”It is a question of making choices that will be decisive for the future of our fellow
citizens by developing European technologies and alternatives, without which there
can be neither autonomy nor sovereignty.”

 “Our digital sovereignty rests on 3 inseparable pillars: computing power, control

over our data and secure connectivity”.

EU and “Chinese firewall”?

 Study requested by the European Parliament:

 “The EU should include an action plan for a digital cloud – a European Internet –
in the Digital Services Act. <…> Setting up such a network would promote many
European companies and therefore boost business and drive innovation.

 Like the Chinese firewall, this European internet would block off services that
condone or support unlawful conduct from third party countries”.

The EU’s Cybersecurity Strategy for the Digital Decade (2020): DNS4EU initiative

127
  “The Commission also intends to contribute to secure Internet connectivity by
supporting the development of a public European DNS resolver service. This
‘DNS4EU’ initiative will offer an alternative, European service for accessing the global
Internet.”

 DNS4EU:

 Filtering capabilities

 Blocking capabilities

 Compliance with data protection laws

Sovereign internets
 Drivers/reasons are different (democratic vs authoritarian regimes):

 Legitimate cybersecurity concerns

 Legitimate concerns about protection of users from crime, disinformation, and

other threats

 Authoritarian regimes: silence dissent and protect the survival of the political
system.

 Whatever the reasons are (democratic vs authoritarians regimes), the tools are
similar:

 Data localization laws

 Various content filtering and blocking practices

 Content control in the form of takedowns

 Removal of applications

 Territorialization of information flows

“Sovereign” internets

128
  Does “sovereign” Internet mean separated Internet?

 Is Internet splintering?

Is fragmentation a myth?
Does regulation “break” (or fragment) the Internet?
 Jack Goldsmith (2019):

 “The normative challenges of internet governance are hard to resolve. But they
are not challenges that can fruitfully be addressed or even understood through
the scary-sounding but in fact empty notion of “fragmentation,” which is a
universal condition of the internet.”

 “Sovereign difference does not destroy or even degrade internet

communications. But regulation in accord with sovereign difference can happen
in many ways, and how one nation regulates the internet can have a large effect
on how people in other nations experience the internet ”.

Is there nothing to worry about, then?

 “…individual measures may not immediately break the Internet, they will lead us
down a path where we find that we have lost the properties that make the Internet
what it is. It will no longer be a global network of networks, but a tightly controlled
tool where someone else is in charge of what we see and do.

 We may think that pulling a hair or two is OK, but at some point, we’ll be bald.” -
Olaf Kolkman, Internet Society

Is “fragmentation” the correct term?

 Alternative terms:

 “Territorialisation” of the global information network (Lambach)

 “Internet conflict” (Merill)

 “Alignment” (Mueller)

Milton Mueller: the concept of “alignment”

129
  “Most of what people are now mislabeling as “fragmentation” should be called
“alignment”—an attempt to force the round peg of global communications into the
square hole of territorial states. This does not threaten the internet protocol’s
dominance, but it does erode and impair the enormous value generated by a
globally interconnected, largely selfgoverning space for trade and communication.”

The concept of “alignment” in a nutshell

 States are attempting to align control over the Internet/cyberspace with their
sovereignty and national borders

M. Mueller, “Alignment”: examples

 “Partitioning cyberspace to subordinate it to sovereign states” by:

 Content filtering

 Data localisation requirements

 Imposing mandatory Internet routing within state borders

 Requiring authorities or users to rely on local companies for equipment and

services

Do you agree with M. Mueller that the term “alignment” should be used instead of
“fragmentation”?

130
Part 3: Internet governance: future challenges and emerging issues (Guest lecturer: Jan
Aart Scholte)
Outline
 The (global) Internet

 Politics and agendas

 Governance apparatus

 Governance challenges

The (global) Internet

 5.5 billion regular users, 69% of world population (June 2022)

 Average 6 hrs 49 mins per day online

 27.1 billion connected devices (2021)

 8 bn email accounts (2022)

 4.7 billion active social media users (2022)

The (global) Internet

 Internet = infrastructure + content + data

 Infrastructure = physical + virtual

 Physical = cables, satellites, X-points

 Virtual = numbers, names, protocols

 Content = transmitted text, images, sound, etc.

 Data = info about users and usage

131
Just technical?

Highly political!
 Access: inclusion/exclusion

 Big money

 Regulatory issues

 Military applications

 Personal liberties

 Cultural sensitivities

 Democracy

 Ecological effects

Technical Access: Inclusion/Exclusion

132
  Equipment

 Bandwidth

 Languages and scripts

 Disability

 Literacy, skillsets

 Universal access necessarily a good?

Big money and economic justice

 Internet pervasive in today’s economy

 Information/communications/platform/digital capitalism

 Distributive justice – fair sharing of benefits and harms from the Internet

 Consumer protection in online business (US$3.8tr in online purchases 2021)

 Competition policy – breaking up the tech giants (EU and AU initiatives)?

Regulation: Infrastructure
 Global unity or regional and national diversities?

 ‘New IP’ from China?

 Other alternative protocols?

 Splits from the existing DNS with ‘RuNet’, EU regulation of the root zone, etc.?

 Firewalls (China, Iran, PRK)

 Shutdowns (esp. Africa)

 ‘Fragmentation’ and ‘authoritarianism’ or ‘sovereignty’, ‘security’ and ‘pluralism’?

Regulation: Data & Content

133
  Data storage and localization

 Algorithms

 Privacy concerns

 Content filtering and blockage

 Free speech and its limits

 Dis/misinformation

 Hate speech and incitement to violence

 Child protection

 Intellectual property

Cybersecurity
 Technical resiliency – keeping the Internet operational

 Hacking

 Phishing

 Surveillance and privacy

 Weaponization and cyberwar

 Criminal networks

Democracy

134
  Due participation and control by all affected parties in the policies that shape their
joint destiny

 Empowerment

 Involvement

 Accountability (transparency, consultation, evaluation, redress)

Ecology
 Carbon footprints (of data centres, etc.)

 E-waste

 Jetsetting to deliberate the virtual world (!)

 Harnessing the internet to further ecological integrity

Internet governance as complexity

 Governance ˃ government

 Liberalism → ’transnational relations’, ’multilevel governance’, ’regime complex’

 Marxism → ’nebuleuse’, ’new constitutionalism’

 Poststructuralism → ’governmentality’

 Also ’actor-network’, ’assemblage’, etc.

 My approach → ’structured polycentrism’

Governing Actors

135
  Public

 Private

 Global
 Regional
 Country
 Local

Institutional Polycentrism for Global Internet governance

136
Institutional Polycentrism
1) Transscalarity (interlinking global, regional, national and local agencies)

2) Transsectorality (interlinking official, commercial, academic-technical, civil society

circles)

3) Diffusion (scattered over many sites)

4) Fluidity (highly changeable over time)

5) Overlapping mandates (multiple agencies claim competence over the same issues)

6) Ambiguous hierarchies (often unclear lines of command between agencies)

7) The absence of a final arbiter; ‘Internet sovereignty’ an oxymoron

137
Structured Polycentrism
 ’It’s chaos, but it’s organised chaos.’

 Rhetoric of ’bottom-up’ horizontality

 ’A young woman anthropologist – that pushes all the wrong buttons’

 ’All GNSO members from OECD countries? I’m OK with that!’

 ‘I was the only old white guy from North America among the rapporteurs, so I’m
here [on the podium].’

 ’Visible’ institutional polycentrism is coupled with ’invisible’ deeper ordering

patterns

 Actions and policy outcomes shaped by structural forces, which encourage broad
probabilities if not precise predictability

 Geopolitical hierarchy of countries: continued dominance of the old global north;

moderate rise of BRICS

 Geopolitical hierarchy of regions: dominance of the transatlantic core and

marginalisation of Africa, Asia, Caribbean, Latin America, Middle East, Pacific Islands

 Geopolitical hierarchy of major urban centres over (especially) rural areas

 Social hierarchy of class: dominance of business (and professionals more generally)

 Presence of big business

 Dominance of propertied classes

 Social hierarchies of age, (dis)ability, gender, race, sexual orientation

 Cultural hierarchy of language: dominance of English, ASCII keyboard

 Cultural hierarchy of mindset: dominance of ’western’ secular, anthropocentric,

technoscientific, instrumental rationality

 Cultural hierarchy of ritual: dress code; mode of meeting; style of debate (open mike
and confrontation); insider codes; legal cultures

138
Future challenges for Internet governance in sum
 Effectiveness

 Democracy

 Fairness

 Peace

 Sustainability

 Possible trade-offs among the above?

139
Lecture 7: Governing the global Internet in a fragmented
world

Today’s lecture
 Part 1

 Course wrap-up: the future of Internet governance

 Part 2

 Discussion: Will the global Internet survive a fragmented world? Internet

governance perspective.

Part 1: Course wrap-up

Where are we? Wrapping the course

140
One Net in a fragmented world?
- Fragmentation is an important concept right now.

IGF 2019 in Berlin: “One World. One Net. One Vision”

 “<…> it is clear for me that we live in one world. But it is not entirely clear that we
will live only with one Net.” - António Guterres UN Secretary-General

UN Secretary-General: One World, but not One Net

 Maybe it is the opposite?

 We have “One Net”, and due to its technical layer, it can still fulfil its promise of
global connectivity

 We do not live in one world: our world is fragmented by social, economic, and
geopolitical tensions

 Will this lead to the fracturing of “One Net” or its governance?

 We cannot answer this question yet. Maybe in some years it might.

- Users in different countries experience the Internet differently (country specific

statements.  do not experience one internet  not the same user experience.

Is One Net under threat?

 The technical layer was not developed by the governments/regulators (Important!)

 It is based on trust of various stakeholders (in DNS, in protocols and other standards)

 It is still governed by the multistakeholder community

 However: in the future, various regulatory efforts can lead to competing standards
and the creation of a different “Internet”

- The EU is already pushing for the EU network?  Brussels effect?

- What is the UN doing in relation to Internet governance  the multilateral order is

taking over the Internet?  geopolitical tensions

141
 - Unique identifiers  internet protocols based on trust by various stakeholders 
evolved because of trust  historical legitimacy and trust by a wide spread
adoption.

- It might lead to the creation of a different net of networks  the breach of trust in
the multistakeholder model  governance might have a point here as there is a lot
of crime and it is hard to control  issue of trust and control  what is under
threat? = the multistakeholder model

- The actions show the lack of trust  break of the global multistakeholder model.

Internet governance: power and control

 “Internet governance conflicts are the new spaces where political and economic
power is unfolding in the twenty-first century”. – DeNardis (2014), The Global War
for Internet Governance. P. 1

- It is a bit of a global war for Internet governance.

Wrapping up: conceptual framework

- No questions about the first lecture on the exam as we had the essay.

- Jan Aart Scholte’s lecture will be asked on polycentrism, other guest lectures will be
less important.

- Exam questions she is sure we discussed and about materials she gave and is sure of.

142
Wrap-up: conceptual framework
 State, territoriality and sovereignty in conflict with borderless networks, shared
digital spaces, and the new transnational governing bodies

 Who and how sets the rules? Who has legitimacy to set the rules?

 Who and how implements the rules?  what kind of extraterritorial effects? How
far can states go with their rules?

 Who and how enforces the rules?  morality crimes and harmful content on the
Internet.  cannot enforce rules further than your borders

 Governance vs governments  what are those respective roles within the definition
of Internet governance? Roles of the government and other stakeholders is a real
problem.

143
Topic and issues: what is shaping the future of internet governance?
 Technical layer: the “survivability” of the multistakeholder model

 Legitimacy
 Accountability
 Diversity
 Inclusion

- Risk of capture: who dominate the rules?

 Human rights: violations are widespread, redress can be limited

 redress is in the hand of the state basically as companies just of the respect
human rights and governments have to fulfil and protect human rights.

 Cybersecurity: role of governments, extraterritorial regulation, cybersecurity as

national security, geopolitical tensions “taking over” internet governance

- It is a door to enter from national security people (Cybersecurity).

- Cybersecurity discussions shape the role of governments in governing the internet 

they want to participate more.

- These attempts will be more widespread.

- This leads to fragmentation.

 Fragmentation: states reclaiming control within their “territory”

144
Trends to watch
 Digital platforms, their role in internet governance, and efforts to counter their
dominance

 “Digital sovereignty” and extraterritorial regulation

 National regulatory developments that tackle the technical layer of the Internet

- Not only in terms of law, but also in terms of standards.

 “Sovereign Internets” (in an extreme way)

 New politically driven technical standards

- Green IP by China for example.

 Legitimacy and sustainability of the multistakeholder model: goverance “on” and

“of” the internet

The future of internet governance: multilateral and multistakeholder governance,

competing or complementary?

Multistakeholderism: is it still rudimentary?

 “…distinct, emerging (and as-yet inchoate) institution of multistakeholderism or
multistakeholder governance.” - Raymond & DeNardis (2015)

145
Governance “of” and “on” the Internet

 Governance of the internet (logical layer)

 ICANN
 NRO
 IETF
 IANA

 Governance on the internet

 IGF

The future of the IGF?

 Can the IGF be more than a talk shop?

 Intersessional work (between IGFs): towards formalizing?

 IGF’s policy networks: not binding, but will produce research and advice (not formal):

 Policy network on meaningful access

 Policy network internet environmental issues

 UN Secretary-General Roadmap for Digital Cooperation: the evolution of the IGF?

146
Need for reform?
 UN Secretary-General Roadmap for Digital Cooperation:

1. Connect
2. Respect
3. Protect

The future of the IGF: a new high-level advisory body

 UN Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation:

 Creation of a “strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body,

building on the experience of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group,
which would address urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum
discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from
the Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums”

The future of the IGF: was there a need for another high-level body?
 Civil society response:

 “No separate new structure should be created outside of the IGF architecture
that determines or shapes the IGF, its processes and procedures. Any body
created should be structured as peer and complementary to the MAG [IGF
Multistakeholder Advisory Group] and should not take decisions on behalf of the
IGF community”

Reforming Internet Governance: UN Secretary General’s proposals

 Roadmap for Digital Cooperation

 The IGF Leadership Panel (selected, August 2022)

 Global Digital Compact:

 “Outline shared principles for an open, free and secure digital future for all”

 Currently: multistakeholder consultation and input from various stakeholders

(topics such as Internet fragmentation, digital connectivity, human rights, and
others)

147
Reforming Internet Governance: other proposals
 Blair Institute, report “The Open Internet on the Brink: A Model to Save Its Future”

 D10 countries should create a Digital Infrastructure & Defence Alliance (DIDA):
Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the UK and
US.

 The UN should establish a “Strategic Geopolitical Status” designation as part of a

new geopolitical settlement with global tech.

 The UN, D10 and Strategic Geopolitical Status firms should form a Multi-
Stakeholder Panel on Internet Policy (MPIP), modelled on the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, to oversee the ecosystem.

 All countries, at minimum the D10, should create foreign-policy strategies

integrating digital, data, and technology into diplomacy.

- Instead of opening up governance of the Internet, they are trying to concentrate

governing the Internet.

Reforming Internet Governance?

 “Without direct recognition of the inherent conflict between the digital world and
state sovereignty and the need for transformative global governance arrangements
developed from the bottom up with civil society, technical community and business,
the Internet will continue to be drawn into geopolitical competition and
jurisdictional alignments that limit its potential and stunt the growth of a self-
governing global community”. – Milton Mueller (2021)

- This report results in geopolitical tensions (again).

“Of’ and “On” the internet: governance vs governments

148
  David Clark, IETF, 1992

 Emanuel Macron, IGF, 2018

- Governments are only legitimate?

Multistakeholder and multilateral Internet governance

 Threat each other?

 Coexistence?

 Interdependence?

 Governments: how to make informed decisions by enabling broader stakeholder

participation?

Example: OEWG (2019-2021)

149
  Open-Ended Working Group on security in the use of information and
communications technologies: multilateral process at the UN.

 Resolution: “provide the possibility of holding, from within voluntary contributions,

intersessional consultative meetings with the interested parties, namely business,
non- governmental organisations and academia, to share views on the issues within
the group’s mandate”.

 113 non-state organisations registered to provide input at the intersessional

meetings.

 OEWG 2019 Chair J. Lauber: OEWG is essentially an intergovernmental process, but

discussions shall remain open to various stakeholders

Challenge:
 “Reconciling” multilateral and multistakeholder governance on the Internet

What is the possible solution?

 Enabling broader stakeholder participation to make informed decisions, increase
transparency and accountability

The Internet affects so many areas of our life that no government can know enough

150