Internet Governance may be one of the most understated, under-recognized issues today, relative to its impact on Internet-using society as we know it. And as far as landscapes go, the current one sits slightly closer to that of an asteroid belt than a Japanese rock garden.
At least, that's how ICANN may feel in the wake of last week's “” panel at themeeting in Toronto.
First, some background: ICANN is the, an international non-profit responsible for the world's top level domains (TLDs). A TLD is the suffix of a website domain name: it's the “.com” in, or the “.ca” in, or the“” in adult websites. For a more complete overview of ICANN and ICANN 45, see.
Returning to the topic at hand: if the entire Internet were a single city,would be the equivalent of urban planning and traffic policy. There are annual municipal council meetings in the form of the UN's(IGF), whose seventh annual meeting takes place this November in Baku, Azerbaijan. The panel in Toronto thus offered stakeholders a crucial opportunity to share regional developments, raise key issues, and exchange views in preparation for the IGF and additional conferences (see:,,). Given discursive sheers, a topiarist might prune four themes from the discussion that unfolded: regional IGFs, the role of governments, multi-stakeholder models and “Enhanced Cooperation”, and the role of international telecommunications regulations.
To begin, lest anyone think this is a case of one IGF to rule them all, the panel exchanged updates with representatives from the first, first,first,,,,,, and. Issues included: need for infrastructure enhancement, legislative facilitation of internet and communications technology, telecommunications tasks, bottom-up community initiatives, public,and trust on the Internet,,, and a desire to see concrete results from IGFs. Speakers reiterated the need to ensure ideas and concerns flow from national, to regional, to international levels, in a way that results in understanding, good decisions, and infomed policies.
Such decisions and policies often come from government, so it's no surprise thatformed another theme.of ICANN's Country Code Names Supporting Organization (), which specifically steward country code TLDs (ccTLDs)—thinkand .ca—occupy a unique role in this context. They have close working relationships with their respective governments but must remain sensitive to the surrounding policy environment. According to CIRA president and CEO Byron Holland, this sometimes sparks tension with their on-the-ground work overseeing theand operating “the blinking lights and routers”.
While according to ICANN veteran,said blinking lights and routers are filling increasing space in high-level government portfolios,a fine line typically exists between participation andwhen it comes to government. ICANN'sdoes not change this. With the Internet Governance landscape undergoingupheaval and, however, all involved have placed particular emphasis on hearing equally from all voices, all sectors, and all levels of civil society, while mitigating excess. Still, as some have, such an endeavour is.
This brings us to the nebulous concept of “”. The “creative ambiguity”-infused term has engenderedsince its 2005debut, from minimally impoving status quo to striking a special. The panel made clear, however, the undesirability of a single comprehensive body for Internet Governance, which could undermine the multi-stakeholder philosophy and prove too close to government-like or intergovernmental Internet regulation for comfort.
This is why many havewith the International Telecommunication Union () and its upcoming World Conference on International Communications () in Dubai. Founded as the International Telegraph Union in 1865, the ITU has since evolved with the times and appears intent on continuing the trend. To what extent is a question that will be answered at WCIT, which will see the International Telecommunications Regulations () updated for the first time since 1988.
While panellists appeared wary of potential ITU encroachment upon Internet processes, AT&T'sreminded participants that ITRs nevertheless serve an important purpose, and that what circumstances ultimately necessitate is that ICANN maintain a clear position of distinguishing between internet governance, broader internet policy, and traditional telecommunications regulation. Still,that the ITU will attempt to “”. The ITUthis notion; others suggest fears areif not, and problematic if one looks at it from a.
At the end of the day, a reminder by ICANN board memberwould seem to be an appropriate conclusion, in light of yet more: ICANN has developed Internet Governance on a basis of building tangible structures and processes to solve specific problems, and stakeholders should keep this in mind during the Internet Governance equivalent of “theological discussions”. After all, no matter how much planning goes into a good hedge maze, there always remains the possibility of unexpected dead ends revealed on the ground.
Cynthia Khoo is a JD Candidate at the University of Victoria.