Internet Governance.doc

7/30/2019 Internet Governance.doc

1/12

12

Internet Governance

1.1 Introduction:

Policies and mechanisms for Internet governance have been topics of debate between many

different Internet stakeholders, some of whom have very different opinions for how and indeed

whether the Internet should facilitate free communication of ideas and information.

The Internet is a globally distributed network comprising many voluntarily interconnected

autonomous networks. It operates without a central governing body. However, to maintain

interoperability, all technical and policy aspects of the underlying core infrastructure and the

principal name spaces are administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and

Numbers (ICANN), headquartered in Marina del Rey, California. ICANN is the authority that

coordinates the assignment of unique identifiers for use on the Internet, including domain names,

Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, application port numbers in the transport protocols, and many

other parameters. Globally unified name spaces, in which names and numbers are uniquely

assigned, are essential for the global reach of the Internet. ICANN is governed by an

international board of directors drawn from across the Internet technical, business, academic, and

other non-commercial communities. The government of the United States continues to have the

primary role in approving changes to the DNS root zone that lies at the heart of the domain name

system. ICANN's role in coordinating the assignment of unique identifiers distinguishes it as

perhaps the only central coordinating body on the global Internet. On 16 November 2005, the

World Summit on the Information Society, held in Tunis, established the Internet Governance

Forum (IGF) to discuss Internet-related issues.

1.2 Formation and growth of the network

The original ARPANET, one of the components which evolved eventually into the Internet,connected four Universities: University of California Los Angeles, University of California

Santa Barbara, Stanford Research Institute and Utah University. The IMPs, interface

minicomputers, were built during 1969 by Bolt, Beranek and Newman in accord with a proposal

by the US Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which funded thesystem as an experiment. By 1973 it connected many more systems and included satellite links to

Hawaii and Scandinavia, and a further link from Norway to London. ARPANET continued to

grow in size, becoming more a utility than a research project. For this reason during 1975 it wastransferred to the US Defense Communications Agency.

During the development of ARPANET, a numbered series of Request for Comments (RFCs)

memos documented technical decisions and methods of working as they evolved. The standardsof today's Internet are still documented by RFCs, produced through the very process whichevolved on ARPANET.

Outside of the USA the dominant technology was X.25. The International Packet Switched

Service, created during 1978, used X.25 and extended to Europe, Australia, Hong Kong, Canada,

and the USA. It allowed individual users and companies to connect to a variety of mainframesystems, including Compuserve. Between 1979 and 1984, a system known as Unix to Unix Copy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_networkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_del_Rey,_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_namehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zonehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANEThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Los_Angeleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Santa_Barbarahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Santa_Barbarahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Research_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt,_Beranek_and_Newmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Advanced_Research_Projects_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Information_Systems_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Commentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Packet_Switched_Servicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Packet_Switched_Servicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compuservehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_networkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_del_Rey,_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_namehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zonehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANEThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Los_Angeleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Santa_Barbarahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_Santa_Barbarahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Research_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt,_Beranek_and_Newmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Advanced_Research_Projects_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Information_Systems_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Commentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Packet_Switched_Servicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Packet_Switched_Servicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compuservehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP


2/12

12

Internet Governance

Program grew to connect 940 hosts, using methods like X.25 links, ARPANET connections, and

leased lines. Usenet News, a distributed discussion system, was a major use of UUCP.

The Internet protocol suite, developed between 1973 and 1977 with funding from ARPA, wasintended to hide the differences between different underlying networks and allow many different

applications to be used over the same network.

RFC 801 describes how the US Department of Defense organized the replacement of

ARPANET's Network Control Program by the new Internet Protocol during January 1983.During the same year, the military systems were removed to a distinct MILNET, and the Domain

Name System was invented to manage the names and addresses of computers on the "ARPA

Internet". The familiartop-level domains.gov,.mil, .edu, .org,.net, .com, and .int, and the two-lettercountry code top-level domainswere deployed during 1984.

Between 1984 and 1986 the US National Science Foundation created the NSFNET backbone,

using TCP/IP, to connect their supercomputing facilities. The combined network became

generally known as the Internet.

By the end of 1989 Australia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, NewZealand, and the United Kingdom had connected to the Internet, which now contained over

160,000 hosts.

During 1990, ARPANET formally terminated, and during 1991 the NSF ended its restrictions on

commercial use of its part of the Internet. Commercial network providers began to interconnect,extending the Internet.

Today almost all Internet infrastructure is provided and owned by the private sector. Traffic is

exchanged between these networks, at major interconnect points, in accordance with establishedInternet standards and commercial agreements.

During 1979 the Internet Configuration Control Board was founded by DARPA to oversee the

network's development. During 1984 it was renamed the Internet Advisory Board ( IAB), and

during 1986 it became the Internet Activities Board.

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) was formed during 1986 by the US Government todevelop and promote Internet standards. It consisted initially of researchers, but by the end of the

year participation was available to anyone, and its business was performed largely by email.

From the early days of the network until his death during 1998, Jon Postel oversaw addressallocation and other Internet protocol numbering and assignments in his capacity as Director ofthe Computer Networks Division at the Information Sciences Institute of the University of

Southern California, under a contract from the Dept. of Defense. This function eventually

became known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and as it expanded toinclude management of the global Domain Name System (DNS) root servers, a small

organization grew. Postel also served as RFC Editor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suitehttp://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc801http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Control_Programhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILNEThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_Systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_Systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.govhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.govhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.milhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.eduhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.orghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.orghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.nethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.inthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFNEThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Sciences_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Commentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suitehttp://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc801http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Control_Programhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILNEThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_Systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_Systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.govhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.milhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.eduhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.orghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.nethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.inthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFNEThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Sciences_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments


3/12

12

Internet Governance

2 Definition:

What is Internet Governance and what is the Internet?

The discussion then very quickly turned to the issue of finding a working definition of Internet

Governance, which many countries missed in the process so far and which occupied theconsultation for the rest of the day.

The frustration about the absence of a working definition at the current stage of the WGIG

process reflects the fact that many where unsatisfied by the decision to have issue papers createdbefore being able to relate to an overall definition. Only an agreed upon definition in their view

could lead the way in the process.

Not surprisingly, the participants were not able to find common ground in this regard. While

there was broad agreement on the notion that a definition should reflect the openness and thedynamic of the internet, a lot of different proposals were made about which other aspects such a

definition should encompass and which structure it should have. Some preferred a very brief andtechnical definition, but many governments wanted to see the specific aspects reflected whichthey regarded as important. Somehow it seemed that people wanted to see just everything in the

definition, including items which in fact would belong into a final report.

However, some interesting contributions have been made which should be mentioned here:

Milton Mueller (Internet Governance Project / University of Syracuse) pointed out that the

Internet is a software protocol and does itself not contain a physical infrastructure. As such herelated to his own proposal of a narrow technical definition such like TCP-IP as a protocol for

interconnection of different kind of networks.

WGIG member Wolfgang Kleinwchter (University of Aarhus) again pointed out that a

definition has to address the complexity of the issue as there is no simple solution for theproblem. In relation to Robert Kahns definition of the internet as a network of networks,

connected by a common protocol, Internet Governance according to Kleinwchter has to be

understood as a mechanism of mechanisms. The task would mainly be to link this mechanismtogether and subdivide several definitions of single aspects under one umbrella. In this regard,

one should focus on the totality of the structure, not on certain single issues.

WGIG member Bill Drake (CPSR) proposed that a first part of the definition could contain a

descriptive (factual) phrase followed by a second part covering the prescriptive (normative)

aspect. But the definition should definitely be broad enough to capture all necessary aspectsunder it.

Due to the request of several participants, an internal compilation of definitions on Internet

Governance done by Richard Hill from ITU, which already had been circulating at the firstWGIG meeting in autumn, was presented via projector. This paper that will also be made

available on the WGIG website then guided through the rest of the discussion which will be

continued tomorrow morning.


4/12

12

Internet Governance

Chairman Nitin Desai desperately tried to remind participants several times that they only have

to deal with the Internet and not repeat the whole WSIS process and deal with all WSIS issues.

But as the WGIG consultations are right before the PrepCom, it seems delegates are alreadywarming up for the general debates on the information society.

During 1979 the Internet Configuration Control Board was founded by DARPA to oversee thenetwork's development. During 1984 it was renamed the Internet Advisory Board ( IAB), and


The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) was formed during 1986 by the US Government to

develop and promote Internet standards. It consisted initially of researchers, but by the end of the

year participation was available to anyone, and its business was performed largely by email.

From the early days of the network until his death during 1998, Jon Postel oversaw addressallocation and other Internet protocol numbering and assignments in his capacity as Director of

the Computer Networks Division at the Information Sciences Institute of the University of

Southern California, under a contract from the Dept. of Defense. This function eventuallybecame known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and as it expanded to

include management of the global Domain Name System (DNS) root servers, a small


After Jon Postel's death during 1998, the IANA became part of the Internet Corporation forAssigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a newly created Californian non-profit corporation,

initiated during September 1998 by the US Government and awarded a contract by the US

Department of Commerce. Initially two board members were elected by the Internet communityat large, though this was changed by the rest of the board during 2002 in a little- attended public

meeting in Accra, Ghana.

Some governments were calling for a role to be played by an inter-governmental organization on

Internet Governance matters. However, our experience indicated that such governments variedas to what part of Internet Governance they felt should be addressed by an inter-governmental

organization. Some included ICANNs functions while others did not. It was a confused debate.

It seems that several of these governments were from countries where government has primaryor majority control over many infrastructures, but where teledensity may remain a challenge, and

Internet access may be limited.

Many governments from developing countries are seeking a one-stop-shop for advice on Internet

policy matters. Many of these governments believe strongly that such a body should be within

the UN framework. Some governments raised concerns that ICANNs Governmental AdvisoryCommittee, as an advisory body, is not an adequate forum for their input into matters related to

the technical management of the Internet.

3.1 Issues of internet Governance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Sciences_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Sciences_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Commentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANNhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not-for-profit_corporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accrahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghanahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Sciences_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Commentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANNhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not-for-profit_corporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accrahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana


5/12

12

Internet Governance

The Internet emerged in the 1990s as a thoroughly transnational infrastructure for

communication and commerce. All three components of Prof. Jan Aart Scholtes definition of

global civil society are visible in Internet governance:

It requires civic groups (as well as governments and business) to regularly deal with cross-

border questions

It involves intensive use of transnational modes of communication

Civil society activities related to the Internet have, more often than not, cross-border solidarity

as a premise

In fact, Scholtes concept of cross border seems too pallid and weak when speaking of the

Internet. Non-bordered or radically re-bordered might be better. With Internet we are often

dealing with communicative activity that has little relation to territorial boundaries but follows

its own virtual, networked structure. At other times we are forced by policy conflicts and

governance vacuums to ask whether national borders should be actively re-asserted by technicalmeans in order to regain control that was lost during the Internets accidental rise.

3.2 Internet as tool supporting policy action vs. Internet as object of policy action :

Much of the literature on global civil society and networking has focused on the use of theInternet by activist groups. This report is not primarily concerned with the Internet as tool;

rather, it examines the ways in which transnational politics are fostered by contention over the

substantive policy issues raised by the growth of the global Internet itself. Digital networking isnot an exogenous, taken-for-granted feature of the international environment. It is a capability

whose form is relentlessly targeted by interest groups, governments, public policy makers, and

civil society policy activists. These political actors strive to shape the availability, cost, openness,freedom, privacy, content or some other aspect of the Internets performance or structure. Thegrowing importance of the information sector in the overall economy and society raises the

stakes of these efforts.

3.3 Whats behind the notion of Internet Governance?

One can look at the public policy issues fostered by the internet in two distinct ways. One cansee in them continuations of long-term issues in mass media and telecom-munication regulation

and technology policy that emerged from the era of nation-states. On the other hand, one can also

see how digital convergence and the global nature of the Internet pose new problems in public

policy and regulation, and how they challenge old policy paradigms and old institutions. It is bestto keep both perspectives in mind.

Internet governance used to just mean ICANN-related issues; today, we include under that

rubric almost any policy issue related to the Internet, including standardization and resourceallocation. The Internet can be and is being used to provide mail, voice telephone service,

newspapers, broadcast television, music, libraries, and government services. This unification of

the platform for all modes of communication and information known as digital convergence


6/12

12

Internet Governance

makes all the policy conflicts and issues that were spread out over old media part of Internet

politics today.

Thus, in addition to the need for globally coordinated assignment and allocation of Internet nameand address resources, and the dominant position of one government, the United States, in that

process, there are: tensions between Internet haves and have-nots; jurisdictional conflictsamong states over control of online expression; battles over the protection of trademarks and

copyrighted material online; battles over the openness or proprietary nature of standards;multilingualism in Internet standards; conflicts among industry, users and states over online

surveillance and privacy; the need to control transborder spam and cybercrime; and others.

But it would be wrong to look at these as an unconnected grab-bag of issues. In reality theyreflect a more coherent structure of geopolitical conflict over the growing importance of online

interactions in commerce, culture, government and education, and over the distinctly

transnational environment fostered by the internet. The best way to understand this holistically is

to briefly recount what happened around the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).

3.4 The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)

The push for a global Summit on information society issues came in 2001, when the

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) succeeded in linking the promotion of

information and communication technology to the development goals of the United NationsMillennium Declaration. Feeding on concerns about a global digital divide, WSIS was

intended to highlight the importance of the ITU and to marshal corporate and state support for

the finance and construction of telecommunication and information infrastructure in undevelopedand developing countries. The self-declared purpose of WSIS was to formulate a common

vision and understanding of the global information society, and to harness the potential of

knowledge and technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration.

1

As WSIS unfolded, its agenda morphed in two important ways. First, public interest advocacygroups transnational in scope and emboldened by the burgeoning anti-globalization movements

at the turn of the century mobilized around WSIS. Attendance statistics show that their efforts

attracted a growing number of non-state actors into the process. The civil society activists tried to

broaden the scope of the discussions beyond the construction of infrastructure, promoting abroad range of equity and human rights claims related to communication-information policy.

They also set up their own internal organizational structures and, under the rubric WSIS Civil

Society, strove to intervene in the process as the peers of governments and business.

Another unexpected turn came when conflicts among states over the Internet Corporation forAssigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), came to dominate the WSIS agenda. In so doing,

WSIS inaugurated an explicit debate over the role of the nation-state in Internet governance

generally. It did this first by openly challenging the institutional innovation that was ICANN, andthen by broadening the discussion into an attempt to define the proper roles and

responsibilities of governments with respect to other stakeholder groups. This fostered a new

politics by forcing governments, business and civil society to confront both the de factoprivatization of many aspects of Internet governance and the contradiction between the territorial
http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html#1http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html#1


7/12

12

Internet Governance

jurisdiction of the nation-state and the globalized communication and information flows

facilitated by the Internet.

3.5 DOMAIN Name System:

Domain names are a convenient, user-friendly mapping system.

They are not a directory service.

The internet was designed to and could work without them.

The domain name appears to the right of @

Each domain requires a single registry

Some sub domains are run from different registries, eg .com.au

Generic top level domains (gTLDs); and

Country code top level domains (ccTLDs)

gTLDs were: .mil, .gov, .edu, .int, .net, .org, and .com

Now include: .aero, .museum, .pro, .coop, .biz, .info, .name

applications being considered for more.asia, .tel. .travel.

3.6 ROOT Server system:

The root nameserver system is a database held on 13 computers.

It points queries in the DNS to the nameservers of the Top Level Domains, which in turn,point to the nameservers of second level domains.

The authoritative A root server is maintained by Verisign, under contract with the US

DoC.

Many of them are run on a volunteer basis, by 10 organisations.

A model MoU between ICANN and the RSOs remains unsigned


8/12

12

Internet Governance

4 Impact of the IGF on Local, National and Regional Levels

One of the main challenges in modern diplomacy is how to synchronise global policy processes

with developments on the regional, national and local levels. A disconnect among those policy

levels could reduce relevance and legitimacy of global processes. The IGF added emphasis on

vertical communication with the various stakeholders on regional, local and national levels.

In this part of the research study the main focus is on the spread of the IGF-related knowledge

and information on local, national and regional levels. The results of the online survey 1 showed

that 129 of the respondents (53,97% of the total sample) communicated IGF relevant knowledgeand information on the level of their local communities, 54 (22.59%) did so with the people from

their local administrations, 82 (34,31%) of them communicated with the representatives of their

national administrations, 83 (34,73%) with the people from respective NGO communities and 69respondents (28.87%) communicated with the members of the respective business sectors. Only26 (10,88%) out of 239 respondents did not undertake any form of communication about IGF

relevant knowledge and information in their home countries.

The survey shows that the IGF participants did their part in spreading the relevant knowledge

and information to the greatest extent. This result presents a very optimistic overall picture oftop-down communication initiated at the IGF, but as the following sections show there is both

need and space for further development of the communication between the IGF and national

level and local policy communities.

We also included a question (see Question 4. in the second section of the online questionnaire)on participants perception of the IGF developments in their local communities. Of course, it

cannot be expected that the IGF process was able to reach the level of local communities easily,

for in most cases this level would be mediated through the levels of national administration in therespective countries, not to mention the time needed to simply spread the knowledge and skills

necessary for local initiatives. However, the survey asks about IGF related happenings in the

participants immediate environments. They were offered a forced-choice question to evaluatethe IGF developments in their local communities and their responses indicate that 29,71%

percent believe that the IGF process did not reach their local environments and do not believe

that the impact will become significant or visible for some time, 42,26% believe the impact ofthe IGF in their local communities to be visible but not too significant, while 9,62% believe that

the IGF impacts in their immediate environments were both visible and significant, resulting inchanges that are consequences of someones knowledge or effort following their involvement in

the IGF process.
http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/impact/Study/display.asp?Topic=Local#1http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/impact/display.asp?Topic=Questionnairehttp://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/impact/Study/display.asp?Topic=Local#1http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/impact/display.asp?Topic=Questionnaire


9/12

12

Internet Governance

Due to the time necessary for results to be evident on the local level, evaluating the impact of the

IGF on the changes in local communities worldwide is the most severe question in this research

study, but the results are nevertheless interesting: the process was at least visible in the localcommunities of almost 52% of our participants. Forty-four (18,41%) participants did not answer

to this question. This impact of the IGF should be viewed relative to the approximately 54% of

our participants claiming they communicated relevant knowledge to the members of their local

communities and the 23% who communicated with the representatives in their localadministrations. In light of this data and the global nature of the IGF process in itself, the impact

as perceived on the level of local communities is surprisingly strong.

An additional, open-ended question asked the participants to describe any effects, changes and/orinitiatives in their local community that resulted as a consequence of their or someone elses

involvement in the IGF process.2 Their answers included: increased awareness of the IGF

process and willingness and enthusiasm for public participation in policy development,

awareness of the IG related issues and processes in general, inclusion of IGF related issues ineducational agendas, contributions to the development of institutional policies and civil society

sector involvement in networking to spread the IGF relevant knowledge for capacity and

awareness building. From the qualitative analysis of responses it follows that, for the time being,the most relevant impact of the IGF at the level of respective local communities is the increased

visibility of the IGF process and the awareness building about Internet Governance related issuesin general.

5 Conclusion:
http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/impact/Study/display.asp?Topic=Local#2http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/impact/Study/display.asp?Topic=Local#2


10/12

12

Internet Governance

During 1979 the Internet Configuration Control Board was founded by DARPA to oversee the

network's development. During 1984 it was renamed the Internet Advisory Board ( IAB), and


The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) was formed during 1986 by the US Government to

develop and promote Internet standards. It consisted initially of researchers, but by the end of theyear participation was available to anyone, and its business was performed largely by email.

From the early days of the network until his death during 1998, Jon Postel oversaw addressallocation and other Internet protocol numbering and assignments in his capacity as Director of

the Computer Networks Division at the Information Sciences Institute of the University of

Southern California, under a contract from the Dept. of Defense. This function eventuallybecame known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and as it expanded to

include management of the global Domain Name System (DNS) root servers, a small


After Jon Postel's death during 1998, the IANA became part of the Internet Corporation forAssigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a newly created Californian non-profit corporation,

initiated during September 1998 by the US Government and awarded a contract by the US

Department of Commerce. Initially two board members were elected by the Internet community

at large, though this was changed by the rest of the board during 2002 in a little- attended publicmeeting in Accra, Ghana.

During 1992 the Internet Society (ISOC) was founded, with a mission to "assure the open

development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of all people throughout the

world". Its members include individuals (anyone may join) as well as corporations,

organizations, governments, and universities. The IAB was renamed the Internet Architecture

Board, and became part of ISOC. The Internet Engineering Task Force also became part of theISOC. The IETF is overseen currently by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), andlonger term research is carried on by the Internet Research Task Force and overseen by the

Internet Research Steering Group.

At the first World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva 2003 the topic of

Internet governance was discussed. ICANN's status as a private corporation under contract to theU.S. government created controversy among other governments, especially Brazil, China, South

Africa and some Arab states. Since no general agreement existed even on the definition of what

comprised Internet governance, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan initiated aWorking Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to clarify the issues and report before the

second part of the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis 2005. After much

controversial debate, during which the US delegation refused to consider surrendering the UScontrol of the Root Zone file, participants agreed on a compromise to allow for wider

international debate on the policy principles. They agreed to establish an Internet Governance

Forum, to be convened by United NationsSecretary General before the end of the second quarterof the year 2006. The Greekgovernment volunteered to host the first such meeting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Sciences_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Sciences_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Commentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANNhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not-for-profit_corporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accrahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghanahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Steering_Grouphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Task_Forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Steering_Grouphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genevahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Secretary_Generalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Secretary_Generalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kofi_Annanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kofi_Annanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Internet_Governancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Internet_Governancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Secretary_Generalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greecehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greecehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Sciences_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Commentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANNhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not-for-profit_corporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accrahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghanahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Architecture_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Steering_Grouphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Task_Forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Steering_Grouphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genevahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Secretary_Generalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kofi_Annanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Internet_Governancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Internet_Governancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Secretary_Generalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece


11/12

12

Internet Governance

5.2 Bibliography

www.icann.org www.icannwatch.com www.ccnso.icann.org www.aso.icann.org www.internetnz.net.nz www.aptld.org

5.3 Glossary

ICANN= Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers.

IP= Internet Protocol.


12/12

12

Internet Governance

DNS= Domain Name System.

IGF= Internet Governance Forum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum

Internet Governance.doc

Documents

Transcript of Internet Governance.doc