ITIF Report on ‘Cross-Border’ Internet Governance Framework Seen Difficult to Implement

The 22-page report highlights a flow chart that offered direction to governments considering Internet governance policies. If a government is considering a policy on Internet architecture that would affect nations beyond its borders, that policy should be taken to the appropriate multistakeholder forum, it said. If the proposed policy conflicts with an international agreement, the government should resolve its policy with an “adjudication process related to those commitments,” it said. If the policy doesn’t conflict with an international agreement or another nation, the country should be allowed to pursue the proposed policy. “It’s easier to get the right policy if you have the right framework,” said ITIF President Rob Atkinson, who co-wrote the report.

There’s a need to differentiate between the “goals” of Internet governance policies and the “means” used to reach those aims, said report co-author Daniel Castro, ITIF senior analyst. Castro likened the framework to the ground rules for athletics: Teams are free to play according to any strategy (Internet policies, such as privacy), so long as they play by the same rules (underlying Internet architecture, like domain names). The report illustrates that there are “fundamental disagreements over values” for the Internet, such as a Middle Eastern country’s blocking of pornography online, said Castro. The European Court of Justice’s right to be forgotten ruling is an example of a policy that should be permissible as long as that ruling doesn’t extend beyond the court’s jurisdiction, he said.

Given the Internet’s economic value, it’s “inevitable” that there will be a “collision” between governments over Internet policies, said Gordon Goldstein, managing director and head of external affairs of SilverLake, a technology investment firm. The report takes a “realist” approach to the varied perspectives of international governments, he said. “The geopolitics of the Internet reflects the geopolitics of the international system today.” A “long-term” example is NTIA’s expiring IANA contract with ICANN, he said. Whether ICANN remains a “nominal tech organization” that deals with the Internet’s naming and numbering functions and doesn’t fall under the control of governments or the ITU is a “big question” that will be determined over the next several months, if not years, he said. Goldstein said he expects a “battle” over the scope of ITU authority on Internet governance issues at the plenipotentiary in Busan, South Korea, in October and November (http://bit.ly/V4kHwI).

Just because governments have different values doesn’t mean they're not going to find common ground on outcomes, said Morgan Reed, Association for Competitive Technology executive director. A negative scenario might be ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee deciding to shut down a domain name it deems inappropriate, he said. Governments sometimes exhibit “disturbing” behavior in the interest of a “short-term payments,” such as silencing political dissent, said Reed. Efforts should also be made to ensure the Internet’s architecture isn’t available for “capture” by international governments, he said. For countries like China, Iran and Russia, the debate over ICANN’s source of authority is a “zero-sum game,” said Goldstein. Those governments favor ITU control over ICANN, he said. Goldstein commended ICANN’s leadership for maintaining that they want the nonprofit to remain a narrowly tailored technical organization and not a clearinghouse for all Internet governance issues.

The report takes a “pragmatic approach” on the Internet’s “architecture and operational aspects” and how those tools are used, said Phil Corwin, founding principal of e-commerce and intellectual property law consultancy Virtualaw, in an interview. But putting that framework into practice, given any number of “domestic political issues” in the U.S. and abroad, will be difficult, he said.