[governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance

[John Curran]

On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance
> ...
> "It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."

It is a very good thing that the US Congress is discussing this policy statement, 
as a clear statement of the USG position on Internet Governance (backed by 
consistent USG activities in Internet Governance) would help prevent confusion 
when discussing the Internet Governance topic in a global context.

The challenge is that the Internet has enabled remarkable change throughout the 
world, in a wide range of human endeavors, and many of these accomplishments 
and freedoms have been enabled by the generally unregulated nature of the Internet.   
However, the deregulated nature of the Internet has been historically facilitated by 
a "close working relationship" with parts of the USG (DoC/NTIA) with respect to 
critical Internet resource management, and furthermore other parts of the USG 
(DHS, DoJ/FBI) are engaged on occasion in various law enforcement matters 
which impact the Internet.  Additionally, in the near future the folks at FCC may
have to take measures regarding the carriage of voice traffic on the Internet to 
protect the characteristics that it presently has over the traditional trunked voice
network.

A policy statement which promotes a global Internet "free from government control"
but does not recognize the various agencies need to take actions which may affect
the Internet could consequentially create significant confusion within the US about
existing and near-term US agency activities with respect to the Internet.

An obvious solution would be to make clear that the mechanisms for performing
Internet Governance (meaning specifically the establishment of the standards, 
processes, and policies for management of common global infrastructure unique 
to the Internet) shall be based on the open multistakeholder model and free from
government control, but furthermore that this policy does not preclude governments 
from taking measures necessary to fulfill their public policy obligations to their
constituency.  Such an exclusion would provide the freedom for governments to
take actions within their own borders as needed to accomplish their (presumingly 
well-formedand representative) national policy objectives.  (Note - I expect it 
unlikely that a USG policy statement would discuss what other governments 
may do with respect to the Internet, but even if the USG simply states this 
reality for its own activities, it would quickly raise the matter by inference.)

The counterargument to such an approach should be obvious to readers of this
list; governments do not necessarily have a great track record with respect to 
taking only those actions which represent the will of the people, whether it be 
also taking actions solely in the interest of the government or business sector. 
By stating that governments may implement measures within their own borders 
to meet their public policy objectives, the USG would be asserting a position
which previously has been argued against due to the implications for human
rights and free speech globally.

I have stated previously that the Internet community has not provided a clear
framework for government engagement in "Internet Governance" in the larger 
context, that being both the management of common global infrastructure unique
to the Internet as well as the processes by which governments should engage
to accomplish their public policy objectives.  I will observe that the absence of 
a clear model for governmental engagement is actually unfortunate in two aspects:
first, as governments awaken to the need for engagement with respect to the
Internet, the lack of an Internet community model for accomplishing their public 
policy goals leads governments to look to older organizations which may not be 
well-suited to the task; and secondly (and perhaps not quite as obvious) is that 
a clear model for how governments engage to accomplish their Internet public 
policy obligations might serve as a roadmap for how the USG evolves from 
its present unique circumstances in these matters.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.  This message has not been reviewed by any
                 organizations and does not represent any official position.  Do not 
                 stare directly at this message or permanent damage may occur.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130417/dc8d6a38/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t