The Internet should continue to be run by the private sector but ...

in Internet governance. The Net has become a critical resource and many Europeans now expect governments to ensure its reliability, the EC said. The constituency model used by the Internet Governance Forum and others has contributed to the Internet’s success, but the Net’s increasing importance to society as a whole means governments must be more involved in key decisions, it said. Moreover, public attitudes toward self-regulation have changed in the wake of the financial crisis, and, where critical resources are concerned, people have a “higher and understandable expectation” that governments be assertive to defend the public interest, it said. Maintaining a back-seat approach to Internet governance isn’t an option, but that doesn’t mean governments should have a stronger role in managing or controlling the day-to-day operations of the Internet, it said. The EU’s policy approach to Internet governance stresses the need for security and stability of the global Internet, respect for human rights and freedoms and promotion of cultural and language diversity, it said. Other key principles include respect for the open, interoperable and end-to-end nature of the Net and the need for private bodies responsible for coordinating global Internet resources to be accountable, it said. Indications are that ICANN’s joint project agreement with the NTIA will end in September, but that the U.S. intends to retain control over key addressing and naming functions, meaning the problem of “unilateral oversight” of those resources will remain, the EC said. ICANN has been successful in several areas, including keeping the domain name system stable and creating a multistakeholder forum for inclusive policy-making, but its Governmental Advisory Committee remains far from representative, it said. ICANN must be accountable not only internally to those who take part in its constituencies but also externally to the world Internet community, the EC said. The only external accountability ICANN has now is to the U.S. government, it said. The stability and management of the root zone file is of crucial importance to all countries, but there’s no consensus on whether to create a new intergovernmental body to exercise oversight or how to delegate those responsibilities to some existing organization, it said. One option would be to make ICANN externally accountable so each country can take on whatever responsibilities should properly be addressed at that level, it said. ICANN’s legal structure under California law is another problem because it raises conflicts of applicable law and jurisdictions, the EC said. There are still legitimate worries about whether a governmental committee advising a private corporation is an effective way for governments to deal with their public policy duties, and ICANN’s self-regulatory approach means that incumbent operators may inappropriately block new players from the market, it said. It proposed that the EU engage in international talks on how to boost intergovernmental dialogue and cooperation on public policy-making, starting with the need to retain private-sector leadership in the daily running of the Internet. ICANN needs internal reform to ensure full accountability and openness, and current oversight arrangements for ICANN and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority should be replaced with a system ensuring that ICANN has “multilateral accountability,” the EC said. This should be part of an evolutionary approach to let governments exercise their responsibilities, it said. It also urged the EU to start talks with U.S. government on an arrangement for IANA oversight that respects U.S. national priorities while reflecting the legitimate expectations and interests of the international community. The statement seems to propose a step backward toward a more traditional intergovernmental process instead of a transnational, multi-stakeholder process involving the public sector, civil society and private sectors as peers, said Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies professor and XS4All professor at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. While its analysis of U.S. unilateralism and ICANN is often valid, the EC makes no concrete proposals to move the debate forward except that the EU and U.S. should negotiate, he told us. If the EU wants a stronger role in shaping Internet governance, it will have to rely more on the quality of its analysis and the creativity of its reform proposals and less on claims that it has “special authority by virtue of the fact that it is composed of governments,” he said. The reason governments have been left behind in many Internet governance issues is that they don’t keep up with the “intimate intersection of technology and policy” and have nothing constructive to propose, Mueller said. The Internet Governance Project, of whose scientific committee Mueller is a member, and other civil society groups are increasingly concerned about the tendency of large government players to “go behind closed doors” to negotiate a solution in the name of the public interest while excluding the most informed and involved members of the public, he said.