ITU vs ICANN

[icanfellows]

At the recent ITU Plenipotentiary, the ITU vs ICANN debate reared its head in several ways. The following article by Kieren McCarthy gives the longstanding debate some interesting context. Your thoughts are welcomed.

 

From http://gibc.biz/2010/10/us-government-misplaced-concerns/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The US government has called concerns about its unique position in Internet governance “misplaced”.

USG representative, Philip Verveer, was speaking to the in-house media team at the ITU Plenipotentiary, taking place in Mexico this month, and spoke directly about the biggest topic on delegates lips: the role of the ITU, and of the United States government, in Internet governance.

“There is anxiety about the United States somehow pulling the plug – disconnecting a country from the Internet,” Verveer acknowledged, “but that really has no reality associated with it. I can understand, given the importance of the Internet, how some administrations could have concerns about it – but it is a misplaced concern.”

The US government has historically had a very strong role in the creation and governance of the Internet, having funded much of the early research that made the network possible. It retains much of that influence thanks to contractual agreements it has with ICANN and VeriSign, two companies that oversee and determine core elements of the Internet’s infrastructure. Many of the Internet’s most significant infrastructure companies are also based in the United States and so subject to US law. But Verveer argues that the government maintains a hands-off role when it comes to those organisations.

The issue of Internet governance is a hot topic at the 2010 Plenipotentiary, with several papers put forward by ITU member governments explicitly calling for the treaty organisation to take a much stronger role within ICANN, as well as expand its influence in other Internet arenas, including the provision of IP addresses and in cybersecurity.

What’s on the table?

A common proposals document put forward by the Arab States, for example, contains one proposal – by the representative of Syria – that argues “the current domain name system does not fully reflect the diverse and growing language needs of all users because the supervisory entity, ICANN, an American corporation, is subject under its agreement with the United States government, represented by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States of America”.

It calls for the government body within ICANN (the Governmental Advisory Committee, or GAC) to be given oversight powers of ICANN, “such that the latter becomes subject to GAC decisions”. And it suggests that GAC is reformed along the same lines as the ITU Council.

A similar proposal has been put forward by Russia and its block of supporting countries (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan etc). Its proposal points to the “need for intergovernmental organizations to play a greater role in resolving international Internet governance issues.” It argues that the GAC should be given a veto over decisions by the ICANN Board.

The Brazilian government has suggested a more diplomatic approach to the same end, arguing for the creation of an “Internet study group” that would, among other things, look at the GAC’s current advisory role and review whether it provides governments with adequate influence. That study group would be formed within the ITU, rather than the GAC.

US government response

Verveer has clearly seen the proposals and pressed a firm but diplomatic line in the interview (which you can view in the box, top-right). “We have very serious interests in trying to make sure that Internet remains free from any obstacles that would prevent it from being able to continue to grow and prosper in an organic way,” he told interviewer David Reid.

“Our concern – genuinely – is that if Internet were subject to inter-governmental controls, there are two things we would like to avoid: one, any limitation on the dynamism of Internet… we would very much like to not to see any limitations on how it might grow and evolve; and two, the United States has a very strong commitment to freedom of expression and the free flow of information. This is widely but not universally shared among nations.”

Reid raised the fears some have that the US government is in a position to “pull the plug” on countries through foreign policy decisions and the contractual relationships it has with Internet infrastructure organisations such as ICANN. “That concern is felt in many places but is somewhat misplaced,” Verveer argued. “The Commerce Department is not telling ICANN or anyone else involved in the Internet – the Internet Engineering Task Force, among others – how to proceed with their business. This anxiety about the US somehow pulling the plug – disconnecting a country from the Internet – really has no reality associated with it.”

Analysis

Clearly the different sides in this debate are laying out their arguments in as broad a way as possible in order to gather support from as many countries as possible.

What is intriguing from an Internet governance perspective – and reflecting significant change since the last Plenipot four years ago – is that governments are now arguing about their role within ICANN, rather than about replacing or restructuring ICANN.

This is mostly due to the fact that the US government has reduced its direct influence over ICANN through a new agreement it signed with the organisation in November 2009 called the “Affirmation of Commitments”, and because ICANN has finally made available Internet domains in other languages (called “internationalised domain names”), which was a source of significant tension for countries whose language doesn’t use Latin characters.

So while not even the Arab states advocate stepping outside of ICANN, the United States government has also not refused to accept inter-governmental power over the Internet organisations over which it has most influence, but instead has pointed to concerns that would need to be addressed first.

What will emerge at the end of the Plenipotentiary is difficult to know, particularly at this stage. What is clear is that there are serious discussions and a lot of pressure being applied to change the current Internet governance structures. Much of that work will be done by a new, rapidly formed working group that met for the first time earlier today.