AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION THE FUTURE OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE New York 9 August 2008 Markus Kummer Executive Coordinator Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) http://www.intgovforum.org/

Content: Where have we come from? What is Internet Governance? What is the IGF? The broader context.

The Internet as a bone of contention The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) put a new issue on the agenda of international cooperation: the Internet. Recognition of the importance of the Internet as backbone of globalization. Clash between the Internet community and governments. Two visions of the world: Bottom-up distributed cooperation vs. Classical intergovernmental cooperation.

WSIS Principles - The management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic. Open to interpretation: what does it mean? Traditional IGO cooperation vs. bottom-up multistakeholder co-operation?

Internet Governance after WSIS Not just Internet names and addresses: ‘Internet governance’ includes other public policy issues, such as: critical Internet resources; security and safety of the Internet; developmental aspects; issues pertaining to the use of the Internet. - reinforces the concept of multistakeholder cooperation

A government takeover? - WSIS seen by many as an attempt by governments to take over the Internet. - This did not happen: WSIS gave existing institutions good marks. WSIS adopted a new model of multi-stakeholder cooperation for policy dialogue: the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). => A major shift in international cooperation: governments accepted other stakeholders as equals.

An Internet takeover? Are governments learning from the Internet community? - Are governments adapting to new forms of economic and social organization and decision-making? - Governments recognize the need to cooperate with other players: they cannot do the job alone!

Preliminary Synthesis: multistakeholder cooperation Multistakeholder cooperation between: - Governments - Intergovernmental organizations - Internet institutions - Private Sector - Civil Society - Academic and Technical Communities

Roles of stakeholders - Different roles for different stakeholders. - Governments are the ‘decision makers’, but… - …decisions need to be based on solid understanding of issues. - Need for dialogue between private sector, civil society, the technical community and governments. - Governments need to signal issues of concern. - Other stakeholders need to advise on feasibility and consequences of envisaged solutions.

What is the IGF? Easier to define what it is not…: …not a new organization; …not a decision-making body; …no defined membership. == >widely divergent expectations.

The IGF as an experiment Based on the convening power of the UN ‘Soft governance’ approach. IGF has no decision-making power, no power of redistribution. IGF has the power of recognition: can identify issues of concern; can draw attention to an issue; can put an issue on the agenda of international cooperation. - Can shape public opinion and decision making.

Five broad themes: Access Diversity Security Openness Critical Internet resources

One cross-cutting priority : development Internet governance to be placed in WSIS and MDG context (‘digital divide’). “Internet governance for development” Two aspects: - Effective and meaningful participation in Internet governance arrangements; Building of capacity to address Internet governance issues. That is help those countries and institutions who had not in the past participated in Internet Governance arrangements do so. Building capacity includes, technical and knowledge transfer (i.e. best practices), strengthening institutional frameworks at the local and regional level not just at the international level, encouraging policy coherence at all these levels. 13

Policy coherence and coordination Need for policy coherence at all levels: International Regional National => International coordination needs to build on coordination at the national and regional levels. => Coordination needs the involvement of all stakeholders at all levels.

National vs. international policies - Much of the discussions deal with international factors. - However: National policies are equally important. Enabling environment at national level is a key factor in all policy areas. - Enabling environment is also key factor for development and deployment of Internet.

Methodology How to achieve policy coherence? ‘Through negotiations on a common framework… …or through exchange of information and sharing of “best practices” on “Internet friendly” policies? No “one size fits all” solution! Different solutions adapted to different needs.

The Internet model Can governments learn from the Internet and the Internet community? The Internet as a decentralized network has the intelligence at the edges. - The Internet maximizes users’ capacity to create and adapt. - The Internet community’s open, distributed and bottom-up decision-making processes point towards new governance models.

The broader picture The discussion on Internet governance is also to be seen in a broader context. Governments need to work with other stakeholders to tackle global problems: climate change, HIV/AIDS, food crisis, fuel crisis, financial crisis etc. The Internet is part of ‘our common future’ and linked to sustainable development. The Internet contributes to the problem, but can also be part of the solution.

Towards ‘networked governance’ Internet favours participatory forms of governance (=‘good governance’). The Internet can be an enabler for ‘networked governance’ = new forms of economic and social organization and decision-making. ‘Networked governance’ is needed to cope with emerging global problems and achieve sustainable development.

Conclusion - Athens and Rio confirmed the value of a multi-stakeholder dialogue: - Win-win situation for all stakeholders - there is value in being involved: - From a policy perspective: contribute to a decision-shaping process; - From a technology perspective: learn about new needs, trends and solutions.