[governance] Re: enhanced cooperation

[KovenRonald at aol.com]

Dear All --

The speech below by Richard Beaird, the No. 2 of the US Delegation at the 
Prepcoms and both WSIS summits, gives a US vision of the way forward, including 
the USG's understanding of "ehanced cooperation" (centered on cybercrime), 
ICANN's role and that of other international organizations, including ITU, etc. 
While Beaird says he is speaking in a personal capacity, his speech is 
distributed by the US State Department. 

The text shows that much of the speculation on this list may differ from the 
focus of the core players. It suggests, at the very least, that such 
speculation should take into account the policy approaches of such players. Now that 
China has just surpassed the United States as the country with the largest 
community of Internet users, one might also consider more carefully China's 
approach to the future of the Internet, including the Internet Society of China's 
draft "Norm" for Internet as a "harmonious" environment in which allegedly 
negative content is eliminated.

Best regards, 

Rony Koven
World Press Freedom Committee

 
 Speeches: Perspectives on Internet Governance – What Might the Future Hold?
Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:40:47 -0500

 Perspectives on Internet Governance – What Might the Future Hold?
 Richard C. Beaird, Senior Deputy Coordinator for International 
Communications and Information Policy
American Bar Association Business Law Spring Meeting
Hilton Anatole, Dallas, Texas
April 11, 2008
 My remarks today focus on the key international developments that have 
formed the basis for the debate on Internet governance. The presentation will 
necessarily be selective in the examples and themes it discusses. In so doing, I 
understand that my presentation will satisfy some, and others will be 
disappointed that much was left out. Finally, the opinions and themes expressed here are 
my own.
 I would like to order my remarks around three principal benchmarks:
     1.      the original vision and the International Telecommunication 
Union (ITU);
     2.      the World Summit on the Information Society; and
     3.      the emergence of cybersecurity as a policy driver.


 In so doing, I hope to support the central thesis of this presentation: that 
despite considerable economic and technological change, policy debate, and 
different national agendas, existing international organizations and practices 
have adapted to the changing Internet environment, and in so doing, they have 
ultimately supported the resilience of the original U.S. Internet governance 
vision.
 There are presently over 1 billion Internet users. Nothing in history 
matches the expansion of the Internet as a global medium of communications, 
information storing, retrieval and sharing. In the compressed period from 1995 to the 
present, the Internet has become an essential part of our lives. Gathering in 
Geneva, in 2003, Heads of State and Ministers attended the first phase of the 
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). At that Summit, and at its 
subsequent phase in Tunis in 2005, the integral part played in our lives by 
information and communications technology (ICTs) including the Internet was made 
clear in the final agreed upon documents. Heads of State and Ministers agreed 
that their “challenge was to harness the potential of information and 
communication technology” to eradicate poverty and hunger, achieve universal education, 
promote gender equality, to combat a variety of infectious diseases, ensure 
environmental sustainability, and to promote global peace and prosperity – among 
other stated goals.
 The beginning and the ITU
The story is now legend. Two young government engineers, Bob Kahn and Vint 
Cerf, developed the TCP/IP protocol as a further means to ensure network 
redundancy in support of our national security. Jon Postel, working on the research 
project known as the Terranode Network Technology (TNT) which was part of a 
contract between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the 
University of Southern California (USC), coordinated the IP numbering system by 
allocating blocks of numerical addresses to regional IP registries. The 
registration and propagation of .com, .org, and .net was performed by Network 
Solutions under a 5 year contract with the National Science Foundation that expired 
September 30, 1998. The “Green” and White” papers were released in 1998. And 
the initial Memorandum of Understanding was signed in November 1998 between 
the Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbering (ICANN).
 From the beginning the U.S. Government was opposed to a “monolithic 
structure for Internet governance.” Instead, the government sought “to create 
mechanisms to solve a few, primarily technical (albeit critical) questions about 
administration of Internet names and numbers.” The government’s goals have also 
remained remarkably constant from the dawn of that policy formulation in the 
late 1990s:
     1.      ensure the stability of the Internet;
     2.      support competition and consumer choice;
     3.      rely on private sector to perform the technical management of 
the Internet; and
     4.      ensure international input in decision making.


 In the early period of Internet governance debate, the International 
Telecommunication Union figured prominently. The Internet Society expressed interest 
in the ITU playing a more operational role once the contract of Network 
Solutions expired in 1998. This idea did not gain full international support. But 
there was an international gathering hosted by the ITU in Geneva in 1997 to 
discuss the transition from Network Solutions to a different arrangement, and a 
Memorandum of Understanding was developed for the ITU to act as a depository for 
the domain name system. A place for the ITU in the Internet field was forever 
set. However, the scope of ITU’s involvement remains an ongoing issue. In the 
ITU’s evolving role with respect to the Internet, it should be underscored 
that the ITU’s role remains anchored in the membership of the ITU, with full 
recognition of the essential place of the private sector.
 By looking at the resolutions adopted in 1998 at the Minneapolis 
Plenipotentiary, at the Marrakech Plenipotentiary in 2002, and those adopted at the most 
recent Plenipotentiary in 2006 in Antalya Turkey, the evolution of the ITU in 
the Internet space is revealed.
 Resolution 101 of Minneapolis concerns “Internet Protocol (IP)-based 
networks,” and resolution 102 deals with “Management of Internet domain names and 
addresses.” The two resolutions set a vision for the role of the ITU: resolution 
101 considers that the Internet is an important engine for global growth and 
that it is replacing existing services and introducing new ones and “voice 
over Internet is being developed rapidly.” The resolution calls for a 
clarification of the role of the ITU in the Internet space and resolves that the ITU 
should collaborate with other international organizations on matters “related to 
IP-based networks.” Resolution 102, “Management of Internet domain names and 
addresses,” considers that the “methods of allocation of Internet domain names 
and addresses should not privilege any country or region of the world to the 
detriment of others.” It also considers that “the management of the Internet 
is a subject of valid international interest and must flow from full 
international cooperation.” The resolution calls upon the Secretary-General of the ITU “
to take an active part in the international discussions and initiatives on 
the management of Internet domain names and addresses,” with particular 
attention to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
 By 2006, and as a result of the Antalya Plenipotentiary, the subjects 
covered by the same numbered resolutions have expanded. The resolutions now consider 
the vital role that the Internet plays in broad social terms. All three 
sectors of the ITU, namely Development, Standardization, and Radio are to be 
involved in matters related to the Internet. This broad perspective is captured by 
the title of new resolution 102: no longer is the resolution only about the “
management of Internet domain names and addresses,” but it is about “ITU’s role 
with regard to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet 
and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses.
” New technologies and applications are to be considered, including Next 
Generation Networks, IPv6, ENUM and Internationalized Domain Names. Finally, the 
current versions of the Internet-related resolutions give full acknowledgement 
to the World Summit, its results, and its implementation.
 The World Summit on the Information Society
As many of you may know, the World Summit on the Information Society was held 
in two phases, Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005). In 2001, the ITU Council (the 
46 country governing board of the ITU) issued a decision to endorse the 
holding of a World Summit on the Information Society at the highest possible level 
in two phases, which was further endorsed by UN General Assembly in Resolution 
56/183, adopted on 31 January 2002. The Summit, in the words of this 
resolution, was “to be convened under the patronage of the Secretary-General of the 
United Nations, with the International Telecommunication Union taking the lead 
role in its preparation.”
 From the many negotiations – often intense, always complicated, and 
sometimes confusing – involved in the WSIS, I wish to focus on two results of the 
World Summit:
     •      the clarification of the U.S. position regarding Internet 
governance through the Four Principles of June, 2005 and the so-called “WSIS 
compromise”; and
     •      emergence of a future global agenda contained in the follow-up 
and implementation of the results of the WSIS.


 In Geneva in 2003, the Summit asked “the Secretary-General of the United 
Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance.” This working group 
issued its report in June 2005. It defined Internet governance as follows:

 Internet governance is 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.

 The Tunis phase of the World Summit adopted this definition as a working 
definition, leaving open the practical possibility that the definition may evolve 
in the face of technological and other changes. Further, the working group 
identified a number of issues “of highest priority, including related issues and 
problems.” First among these issues was the administration of the root zone 
files, a system which the working group characterized as being under “the 
unilateral control by the United States Government.” This issue became the focus of 
considerable debate within the WSIS context. There were contributions on this 
subject from the EU, Russia, the Arab Group, Japan, and Iran, among others, 
to the preparatory committee sessions leading to the Tunis Summit in December 
2005.
 The United States issued its Four Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name 
and Addressing Systems on June 30, 2005. These Four Principles are the 
Administration’s fundamental position with respect to Internet governance. The Four 
Principles were the basis of U.S. positions during the Tunis phase of the WSIS 
negotiations, and in many bilateral discussions during the summer of 2005. In 
summary the Four Principles are:
     •      The United States government intends to preserve the security and 
stability of the Internet’s domain name and addressing system (DNS).
     •      Government’s have legitimate interest in the management of their 
country code and 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.


 The last principle set the stage for the ultimate compromise coming during 
the Tunis phase of the World Summit. This compromise had two parts.
 First, WSIS delegations agreed to “invite the UN Secretary-General to 
convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue.” This new forum was 
called the Internet Governance Forum. The purpose of the Forum is “to discuss 
public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance”. The Forum 
would have no “oversight function” and it would be “constituted as a neutral, 
non-duplicative and non-binding process.” In addition, it would have no 
involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.”
 Second, WSIS delegations agreed that there is a “need for enhanced 
cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out 
their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues 
pertaining to the Internet.” Further, WSIS participants agreed that “relevant 
organizations should commence a process as quickly as possible and responsive to 
innovation.”
 These two elements of the Tunis compromise, we believe, are fully consistent 
with the Four Principles. Indeed, the U.S. delegation was instrumental in the 
final stages of the negotiations in forging this compromise. What was not 
part of the compromise was the creation of a “new cooperation model” as the EU 
would have preferred. And, as a result, no remit or mandates of existing 
international organizations were changed as a result of the agreement on “enhanced 
cooperation.” Rather, the United States sees existing international 
organizations as the basis for “enhanced cooperation.”
 In this last regard, the WSIS did lay out an ambitious program of 11 action 
lines as follow-up to the conclusions reached during the two phases of the 
WSIS process. The ITU has been given the role of coordinator/facilitator with 
respect to two action lines: information and communication infrastructure and 
building confidence and security in the use of ICTs. The remaining action lines 
assigned to other organizations include such areas as access to information and 
knowledge, capacity building, ICT applications, and international regional 
cooperation.
 The Emergence of Cyber-security as a policy driver
We are all aware of statistics that try to capture the scope of cybercrime. 
It has been stated that in 2007, computer hackers tried to install 500,000 
unique viruses and other malware. This number, it is said, will likely double in 
2008. Further, the average large U.S business was attacked 150,000 times in 
2007. Regardless of the specific statistics that are used, it is clear that 
cybercriminals grow increasingly sophisticated each year, and cause serious threats 
to governments and businesses alike. There are efforts throughout the 
government to deal with these new economic and infrastructure threats.
 The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (WSIS December 2005) 
acknowledged the need “to build confidence and security in the use of ICTs by 
strengthening the trust framework.” Participants at this phase of the World Summit 
affirmed “the necessity to further promote, develop and implement in cooperation 
with all stakeholders a global culture of cybersecurity.” It was mentioned 
earlier that the ITU was given the facilitator role with respect to WSIS action 
line on building confidence and security in the use of ICTs. In 2007, the 
Secretary-General of the ITU launched the Global Cybersecurity Agenda. In so doing, 
he stated that “cybersecurity and cyberpeace are the most critical concerns of 
our information age.” He went on to say that “making a simple transaction on 
the Internet using a credit card can be fraught with danger. Imagine the 
difficulties this could pose in an increasingly networked world of e-commerce and 
e-government.”
 The Secretary-General formed a High Level Experts Group to develop advice on 
what the ITU can do with respect to cybersecurity. The report of this group 
will be forwarded by the Secretary-General to the ITU’s Council (the 46 country 
governing board of the ITU between Plenipotentiaries) on the occasion of its 
meeting this November. The Council will then decide on a course ahead for the 
ITU. But whatever advice comes from the experts group will be given against a 
background of policy and technical work already being done at the ITU, whether 
in the Standardization or Development sectors of the Union.
 There is considerable global cooperation underway on cybersecurity: I 
mentioned the ITU but there is also work being done in such organizations as the 
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO), the Council of Europe, the Asia Pacific Economic Forum 
(APEC), and within this hemisphere at the Organization of American States 
(OAS). The work underway at various universities and informal networks of 
cooperation bring together governments and a variety of stakeholders.
 Cybersecurity is one of the principal policy drivers in the Internet space 
moving the international community toward “enhanced cooperation.” Certainly, 
views on the best approach to cybersecurity are not without differences among 
key international players. The United States has ratified the Council of Europe’
s Convention on Cybercrime. We believe that this convention offers the best 
legal framework for the international community. We certainly work actively 
with many bilateral partners to assist in the development of their own national 
legal infrastructure to combat cybercrime. We believe that through these means –
 bilateral legal assistance and training and through the Council of Europe’s 
Convention there is no need for the creation of another international 
instrument for this purpose. This position has been made known at the ITU and 
elsewhere.
 We have also made clear that we believe the ITU should continue its work in 
the area of cybersecurity. However, the ITU mandate does not extend to 
cybercrime. Each international organization should continue its “enhanced cooperation”
 work and initiatives within its existing remit and mandate. Other key 
international players wish to broaden the mandate and scope of work of the ITU to 
include cybercrime and much else in the area of “information security.” 
Presently, we are debating these points within many working groups of the ITU, and 
the scope and mandate of the ITU will certainly be a major issue at the ITU’s 
Plenipotentiary in 2010.
 Conclusion
We all know that the Internet is based on a distributed design and 
decentralized control. New applications are always emerging – many call this creating 
value or innovation at the edges. We return to the working definition of 
Internet governance offered by the World Summit. It speaks of “shared principles, 
norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution 
and use of the Internet.” It also speaks of multiple stakeholders: “
Governments, the private sector and civil society.” Note that nothing in the 
definition limits our understanding of Internet governance to a single structure – 
Internet governance is clearly much broader than ICANN.
 International attention, debate, and dialogue on matters related to the 
Internet cross many organizations and regions. This fertile global dialogue has 
and will occasionally lead to negotiations and binding agreements. But to date 
the original intent of the Internet governance vision of the United States in 
1997, and as elaborated in the Four Principles in 2005 have remained viable 
and, to an extraordinary degree, accepted by the international community. At the 
core of the U.S. Internet vision is stability, competition, multi-stakeholder 
and international dialogue. It has been the case from the beginning, when the 
Department of Commerce requested comments on the registration and 
administration of Internet domain names in July 1997, to the signing of the Joint Project 
Agreement with ICANN in September 2006, to the recently concluded mid-term 
review of that Agreement.
 Two distinguished members of your Bar, Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, have 
stated that like all previous forms of technological development and forms of 
technology-based communications, the Internet has not displaced “the central role 
of territorial government in human governance.” But whereas Goldsmith and Wu 
principally address the role of government coercion in Internet matters, I 
choose to emphasize a different face of governance. It is the potential to address 
human needs, at an unprecedented level, that lies before us as a consequence 
of the emerging Internet-based Information Society. I have noted that this is 
the conclusion of those who participated in the World Summit. At the end of the 
day, the WSIS was, to a remarkable degree, affirming of human freedom and 
potential – resting on the evolution of the Internet and ICTs, and positively 
supported by governments. In Tunis, Heads of State and Ministers, for the first 
time at a global summit, recognized “that freedom of expression and the free 
flow of information, ideas, and knowledge, are essential for the Information 
Society and beneficial to development” (Tunis Commitment paragraph 4). Perhaps 
this connection between the original U.S. vision of Internet governance and the 
affirming values of the World Summit, accounts for the resilience of the 
original U.S. Internet governance vision. At the very least, we can say that all 
future agendas regarding the Internet will be judged by these values.
 Thank you.

Released on April 18, 2008


This service is provided to you at no charge by the U.S. Department of State.
 GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of U.S. Department of State · 2210 C 
Street NW · Washington DC 20520 · 1-800-439-1420




**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
listings at AOL Autos.
      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080421/0c561b2d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance