Private Sector Engagement in Multistakeholder Internet Governance

MIND #2
Internet Policy Making
Inhaltsverzeichnis
PDF Download

---

Responses - Stakeholder Private Sector

Theresa Swinehart, Verizon Communications

Abstract
The responsibility to create functioning multistakeholder models lies not only with institutions, enabling stakeholders to contribute. It also lies with those stakeholders, including the private sector, to engage and participate in substantive work.

Private Sector Engagement in Multistakeholder Internet Governance

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was historical in many ways. The 2005 Tunis Agenda encapsulated and confirmed at a global level that it is necessary to involve all stakeholders to shape the evolution and use of the Internet. Bertrand de La Chapelle’s article (“Multistakeholder Governance”) touches on a wide range of important topics relevant to multistakeholder models, lessons learned and potentials for improvements.

It has been an evolution:

The article observes that “...dynamic tensions appear between a technically borderless Internet and bor- dered nations. Furthermore, separating territories becomes less important than managing ‘commons’ and growing cross-border interactions. Both national regulations and international processes clearly encounter operational and legitimacy limits in an intercon- nected and interdependent world ...”. This is a topic of discussion across stakeholder groups, including governments.

It is, however, worth reflecting briefly that as the Internet has evolved, so have organizations and entities playing a role in the Internet’s eco-system. These include the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) formed in 1986, the Internet Society (ISOC) founded in 1992, and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) formed in 1994. These organizations have engaged in Internet policy or standards work through consensus building processes. As the Internet was evolving, so were discussions on how to address Inter- net policy issues. In addition, as the Internet became more important to national economies and consum- ers, governments around the globe began taking a stronger interest in Internet policy and governance of the Internet.

In 1997, Martin Bangemann, European Commis- sioner for Industrial Affairs, Information & Telecom- munications Technologies, urged for a “new world order for global communications”. He suggested in his speech that an International Charter should “cover issues such as global standards to ensure global interoperability, mutual recognition of authorizations and licenses, digital signatures, encryption, different aspects of content regulation, including protection against illegal and harmful content, customs, data privacy and protection”, and that importantly it should be agreed at a global level and be industry-led.

Likewise in 1997, the United States issued the “Framework for Global Electronic Commerce”, and the first principle in this framework noted:

“1. The private sector should lead. The Internet should develop as a market driven arena not a regulated industry. Even where collective action is necessary, governments should encourage industry self-regulation and private sector leadership where possible.”

In 1998, through the US Administration’s Green Paper and White Paper, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was formed, establishing the private sector-led multistakeholder model responsible for the technical coordination of the Internet’s domain name and addressing system.

In 1999, the Global Business Dialogue on E- Commerce (GBDe) was launched in an effort to bring together business for global coordination on self- regulatory approaches for global e-commerce. And in 2005, at the conclusion of the WSIS, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established.

During the evolution of the above discussions, the private sector has continuously engaged and, together with other stakeholders, contributed to the realization of multistakeholder models. The IGF and ICANN serve as two global examples of models and alternatives to government-only oversight and regulation. Other models exist at regional levels and for subject areas.

While the focus of the paper “Multistakeholder Governance” is on multistakeholder governance mod- els, it is useful to note other forms of policy setting, including for example, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Internet Principles,the 2011 G8 Declaration, and the US Cyberspace Policy Review.These and other initiatives put forward relevant principles for the continued development of the Internet, innovation and investment, and importantly reiterate the value of multistakeholder approaches and the engagement of all stakeholders in policy development processes.

Operationalizing multistakeholder models:

The article “Multistakeholder Governance” notes that early multistakeholder governance approaches have worked effectively, and discusses principles and practices to apply and pitfalls to avoid when implementing newer models. These topics contribute to discussions on how to effectively operationalize various elements of multistakeholder models.

Principles and traits evident in the IGF and ICANN, including openness, transparency, equal footing, a bottom-up agenda-setting, iterative consultative pro- cesses, self-organizing, and self-improvement are of paramount importance to guarantee efficient opera- tions. But it is equally important to avoid certain pit- falls by, for instance, ensuring inclusive participation, addressing information overload, synthesizing discussions, preventing captures, reaching closure and building legitimacy. While these are clearly not exhaustive, they are also not unique. They are, and can be, topics faced by stakeholders in other forums.

The Internet’s multistakeholder models are dealing with complex issues. The Internet is a global medium that does not recognize national boundaries, and issues inherently relevant to the Internet have global implications. Policy issues involve technical and operational aspects, and solutions should not hamper innovation, investment and development, within or outside jurisdictions. Additionally, the Internet has contributed to the rapid development of new business models and opportunities. User bases reflect a wide range of demographic and geographic stakeholders, and technology has empowered users and provided new mechanisms for engagement. It is the complexity of the issues and the wide range of stakeholder interests that adds to the challenges faced by multistakeholder models. In this regard, it is the responsibility of the institutions to operationalize well, and for stakeholders to engage, contribute towards improvements, and “walk the talk” of engagement.

Legitimacy may be afforded to an organization, but it must also come from the diverse range of stakehold- ers across geographic boundaries. Multistakeholder organizations in the Internet’s eco-system will con- tinue to evolve and need review mechanisms that allow them to continue to improve in what is a con- stantly changing environment.

The multistakeholder models in the Internet’s eco-system have important mechanisms in place to enable engagement that supports their work and outputs. Bertrand de La Chapelle’s article provides an impor- tant overview of a wide range of topics relevant to multistakeholder Internet governance. The models that are emerging are part of an evolution. The engagement of relevant stakeholders, cultural values and geopolitical factors needs to be embraced in the management and operations of these multistake- holder models. In order to operate effectively, there must be effective transparency, cultural and stake- holder awareness, strong consensus building, clear processes and procedures, and appropriate operational support.

The responsibility for achieving this lies not only with those working to make engagement and participation in these models easier for stakeholders. The responsibility also lies with the stakeholders themselves, including those from the private sector, who need to engage and participate in substantive work, and to further contribute to operationalizing multistake- holder models.