Internet Governance Panel Policy priorities for the maturing Internet

Changes in the Global Communications Sector Public Sector activities Balancing of national interests in a common framework Inter-Governmental Treaties International Agencies Coordinated Regulatory Recommendations Private Sector activities Market dynamics of providers and consumers Moderation of the market through competitive supply disciplines Demand determines supply Deregulation Competitive suppliers operating in an open market Reserve regulatory powers to ensure open market behaviour and fairness outcomes This slide notes that the communications sector has undergone quite fundamental change over the past decade, and the historical model of regulated national public sector monopoly service providers is being replaced by a model of private sector investment in service provision, where the strictures of competition are intended to mediate supply and demand. The general intent is to support a more flexible, efficient and effective communications sector which is focussed on meeting customer needs in the most effective manner possible. The public sector involvement transforms into one which oversees the competitive market, ensuring that attempts to apply distortions to the market can, ultimately, be corrected through the actions of public oversight. The role of service provision is passed into the private sector in a manner that supports competitive supply in all facets of the supply function.

The Broad Policy Questions What is the role of international public policy setting in the context of international public communications services as they relate to the Internet? Do the institutions and roles that already populate this public inter-governmental space collectively form the best vehicle to support this international public policy setting role going forward, or do we need to consider fundamental changes to this model that more accurately reflect the evolving roles of the public and private sectors? In this context, what then is the role of international public policy setting? In this form of market-mediated supply functions, are international issues being progressively transformed into aspects of international trade? Does such an environment provide adequate protection for developing economies? Are social priorities being adequately considered in such a framework? This leads onto a more basic question of whether the existing international institutions, such as the ITU, appropriately positioned to meet these public policy challenges, or should we be considering changes here in order to bring the international institutional framework into better alignment with the emerging information society?

IP Address Policies Does the current address distribution system accurately reflect both the needs and requirements of all interested parties as well as the common constraints? What is the most appropriate way to balance local requirements against common constraints? What are the risks and opportunities when considering changes to the current structure? The basic area of activity of the RIRs is that of the distribution of infrastructure tokens (“addresses”) in a manner that supports the stable and reliable operation of the Internet. The RIRs use an open ‘bottom-up” policy process that brings interested parties into direct dialogue, so that various forms of requirements and objectives can be melded into a set of policies that express commonly acceptable intent as well as self-imposed commonly acceptable constraint. It is reasonable to pose the question as to whether this framework meets the needs of all interested parties, or are there aspects of this process that advantage or disadvantage particular actors, or disenfranchise legitimate interested parties from the process. It is also reasonable to pose the question as to how a collection of local requirements can be balanced against a commonly accepted set of constraints. When considering various changes to this structure what are the associated risks and opportunities? Should the process evolve reflect the changes in, and interests of, the constituency of interested parties in address distribution policies? Should the process be placed in direct juxtaposition with other forms of distribution mechanisms, allowing a form of competition in this activity? How can effectiveness of a particular process be assessed?