Internet Governance[fr][de] 

The United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance defines internet governance as "the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet." WGIG defined four key areas concerning internet governance: 

1. Infrastructure - meaning the domain name system and IP addresses
2. Internet issues such as spam, security and cybercrime
3. Intellectual property and international trade
4. Expansion, particularly in developing countries 

Unlike the international Telephone Network (which is governed by the International Telecommunication Union , a UN body), the internet is governed by a private-sector non-profit association. This organisation, called ICANN (for 'Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers') acts under US Law and under a memorandum of understanding with the US government, which expires on 30 September 2006. ICANN's monopoly has lately been challenged by a number of governments worldwide, including the UK Presidency of the EU and the European Commission. 

More about technical details at stake in the discussion on internet governance. 

The EU and other countries around the world have acknowledged the success story of the internet under US governance, but challenged the United States sole control of internet governance.  

In the 2005 negotiations with the US, the EU was ready to leave governance of the internet in the hands of ICANN. But the EU negotiating delegation, headed by the UK Presidency, wanted ICANN to bypass the US administration in cases where political advice is needed and to go instead to its Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC ). This body was created in 1999,  and it is open to participation by representatives of national governments, each of which may appoint a representative; around 100 countries have already done so. The EU wants to encourage more governments to send delegates to the GAC, and it wants to open the body for private-sector participation.

The United States are afraid that this kind of European multilateralism could endanger the very existence of the internet. A June 2005 notice from the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration listed four principles of the US negotiating strategy: 

• The United States Government intends to preserve the security and stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS).
• Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD).
• ICANN is the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS.
• Dialogue related to Internet governance should continue in relevant multiple fora.  

In November 2005, an agreement was found between the EU and the US to leave the supervision of domain names and other technical resources unchanged - that is, in the hands of the US. It states: "We recognize that the existing arrangements for Internet governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium that it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations." 

In return, a new purely consultative international forum was established, the purpose of which is to strengthen governments' standing on internet policy issues, including the address system. The new body, called the Internet Governance Forum , meets for the first time in Athens on 30 October - 2 November 2006. It is convened by the United Nations secretary general and has no power beyond the ability to bring together all the stakeholders in the Internet. 

On 29 September 2006, one day before of the expiry of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that tied ICANN to the US Department of Commerce, both parties signed a new agreement, which leaves more freedom to ICANN in that:

• ICANN will no longer have its work prescribed for it. How it works and what it works on is up to ICANN and its community to devise;
• ICANN is no longer  required to report every 6 months as it has been under the MOU. It will now provide an annual report that will be targeted to the whole Internet community, and;
• There is no requirement to report regularly to the DOC. The DOC will simply meet with senior ICANN staff from time to time.

Information Sociewty Commissioner Viviane Reding welcomed the September 2006 agreement for the future work of ICANN as "a very important step towards full private-sector management of the internet, on which the EU has been working with various US administrations since 1998". She added: "We in Europe trust ICANN’s expertise and the unique multi-stakeholder model of consultation it represents. We consider ICANN to be best placed to ensure that the internet's international dimension is taken into account in organising the internet’s root directory. The European Commission will follow closely ICANN's transition to full independence in the next three years. With our advice, we will contribute to this transition to ensure that it takes place transparently, reflecting the interests of industry and civil society alike.”

Addressing the Wireless Communications International annual conference on 30 June 2005, the US Assistant Secretary at the Department of Commerce Michael Gallagher said the US should "maintain its historic role in authorising changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file". Therefore “the United States will continue to provide oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus and meets its core technical mission.”  This statement is in line with what other US government officials have said  before .

Ambassador David Gross, coordinator for international communications and information policy at the US State Department, said: "We've been very, very clear throughout the process that there are certain things we can agree to and certain things we can't agree to. We will not agree to the UN taking over the management of the internet. Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable. It's not a negotiating issue. This is a matter of national policy." After the 15 November 2005 compromise (see "Issues"), Ambassador Gross commented: "I didn't think it was possible. We did not change anything about the role of the US government. It's very significant."

David Hendon from the  UK Department of Trade and Industry and the spokesman for the EU delegation, said: "I think the U.S. is overreacting. But I think it's a tactical overreaction for the negotiations. [...] We expected this proposal to move the summit along from the stalemate. It is unreasonable to leave in the hands of the US the power to decide what happens with the Internet in other countries."

German industry associations BDI and BITKOM said: "We believe that a radical overhaul of the present Internet governance architecture is not only unnecessary, but also threatens the stability and security of the Internet itself. Beyond dispute: The technical management of the internet requires international cooperation. But up to now, the work of private organizations – namely in naming and numbering issues – has proved of value. [...] Industry does not oppose a further adjustment of existing processes. But the dynamism of the Internet requires an evolution within the existing decentralized and collaborative structure. This means that policies and guidelines have to be developed through a bottom-up approach. The creation of a new institutionalized inter-governmental oversight is the wrong approach."  

The Association for Progressive Communications (APC), an international network of civil society organisations, said: "The Internet [...] must be seen as a global public infrastructure. In this regard we recognise the Internet to be a global public good and access to it is in the public interest, and must be provided as a public provision."