Why Internet Governance Matters

Come September, the United States government will relinquish its control of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN). Following that, some governments are announcing their positions on the coming arrangement of oversight powers. African countries, including Ethiopia, are, for the most part, quiet.

What should be done to vitalise the Internet governance (IG) policymaking and break this discomforting quiescence?

Internet is, and increasingly continues to be central to the life and business of people, operations and growth of enterprises, and the security and prosperity of nations. Thus, Internet and its governance can only be of utmost interest to any country.

Unfortunately, IG is filled with hazy, winding and controversial issues. This is abundantly evidenced with the outcome of fora on IG. More often than not, they end up with cumbersome conclusions or with divergent positions. Similarly, expositions on the subject matter are mostly a collection of differing explanations.

The best treatise, to my knowledge, deals with the subject matter of IG either in a very limited scope or in rubrics as does Jovan Kurbalija’s book, which is recognized by the Internet society. A look at a publication of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), which is the host of the African IG Forum Secretariat, titled, “Africa Speaks”, also showcases how complex the issues of IG are in spite of the author’s attempt to structure and organize the topics. This publication is an interesting compendium of selected voices of Africans as compiled by Olivier Nzepa (PhD).

When approached in rubrics, the debate on IG may be better structured, but that does not make it simple or straightforward. Even single topics can be extremely contentious and very much polarising. A good case in point is the issue of net neutrality.

When people try to explain net neutrality, they are more likely to go into a circular reasoning and leave one undecided on the issue. This is the case even when supported with the recent “Bright Line Rule” decision of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Interestingly, technology adds to these complications by either introducing new issues or making some issues obsolete.

If so, how should such a complex multidimensional set of issues be dealt with?

The first challenge is to determine the most viable and expedient future scenario of IG development to which a nation would direct its efforts. A few distinct lines of development for IG are commonly cited by wonks from advanced nations.

The first and the most radical one is cutely known as the ‘clean slate’. This scenario aspires, by replacing the bottom-up approach of the past Internet development with a top-down one, to elegantly clear the present spaghetti bowl of IG issues. Developments in this area remain privileged information. In other words, we have no idea what this approach really brings for developing countries.

The other possible course of development is what some call ‘Balkanisation’ of the Internet. This happens when every country individually or in collaboration with others builds independent system of Internet critical resources. This scenario, without clearly offering visible advantage over the current system, risks the relative degradation of Internet access for developing countries.

In fact, it may turn into what Vint Cerf, an honored Internet pioneer, describes as warring fiefdoms. A Balkanised Internet system may, thus, put developing countries dependent and marginalized.

The third case is the evolutionary process of the existing IG system. This is highly contended but also actively embraced by the major powers of the world.  As mentioned above, the ongoing deliberations on the current IG issues are complex. It even gets embroiled, every now and then, as it did following the National Security Agency (NSA) revelations. Following that, many countries expressed their dissatisfaction.

Some even threatened to opt out of the existing Internet system.  In Parallel, many countries also continue to consolidate their networks within the Internet of our time.

A typical example is China’s agreement with ICANN to consolidate the L-Root server’s instances and ensure the resilience of its domain. That is definitely a ringing statement of confidence in the existing system. Most of all, it has been evolving to accommodate technological changes and international demands as negotiated and discussed through various forums. For Ethiopia, as well as all African countries, this is, from a practical and logical point of view, the best track they could work on.

The next step would be to identify useful measures that help mount successful and beneficial positions within the chosen track of development of IG. The following three broad areas could be starting points.

It is important to building technological capability. Core network technologies are generated in the West. Nevertheless, there is ample room for developing countries to enhance their capability in their use; the higher the national technological capability, the deeper a nation’s insight for making sagacious IG policy and practice and the higher the latitude of discretion on IG issues.

The tug-of-war between technological solution and agreed rules is always evident even in developed countries. For example, an important UN privacy report, by David Kaye, special rapporteur, advocates the use of encryption technologies. Another important example is the tendency of law enforcement bodies of the West to skip the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) agreements and their preference for technological ability to disable malicious servers directly.

Yet another key important point is keeping tabs of the IG discourse and enhancing the understanding of local interest groups by encouraging the formation of various forums. This will have double advantage. On the one hand, it helps clear misconstrued misgivings about some IG issues. On the other hand, it heightens the negotiation and policy-making faculties of the nation.

Not least, it is critical to articulate national interests in generic concepts: That would provide the nation with a set of principles or criteria to vet proposals by other parties. The significance of a well-formulated set of principles as a decision tool can easily be understood by considering the current contention on multi-stakeholder versus multilateral approach to ICANN oversight.

These measures would provide a fecund ground for vitalizing Ethiopia’s, and for that matter, that of any developing country, IG policy-making and practice locally as well as internationally. And this could help gain a steady grasp of the mosaic of IG.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.