Internet governance

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Internet governance "is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of common principles, norms, rules, procedures for decision-making and programs that influence the further development and use of the Internet." (Report of the Internet Governance Working Group , July 2005)

The term Internet governance summarizes measures that are intended to ensure access, stability and openness of the Internet. Because despite the fundamentally decentralized structure of the Internet, certain essential Internet functions must be managed and limited Internet resources efficiently distributed. This applies to technical issues such as the worldwide assignment of IP addresses and the registration of domain names as well as other issues of fundamental importance, e.g. B. data security , artificial intelligence or net neutrality .

Rules and mechanisms for Internet governance are the subject of a heated international debate between many different stakeholders of the Internet. To date, there is no uniform understanding of how Internet governance should be handled internationally in the future. While the USA is the representative of the status quo, many countries, including the EU, but also many developing countries, are calling for more extensive say and participation.

background

The background to the controversial debate is on the one hand that the term has so many different facets that even the definition of the term (see above) was difficult. The core of the dispute, however, was the question of who has the supervisory function over central resources on the Internet . While the structure of the Internet is basically decentralized and non-hierarchical, there is an exception to this: the Domain Name System (DNS), consisting of 13 root servers , which is strictly hierarchical in a kind of tree structure. The DNS specifies how Internet names such as B. www.wikipedia.de can be translated into their IP addresses , i.e. 194.54.168.123. The administration of this DNS system, in which on the one hand the top domain names, that is the 'country code top level domains ' (ccTLDs) such as B.de, .fr, .uk, or 'generic Top Level Domains' (gTLDs) such as As .com, .net, .biz and the other IP address spaces are assigned, incumbent since 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ( ICANN ), the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding with the US Department of Commerce ( Department of Commerce , in short: DoC) was registered under California law. Changes to the entries in the root servers may only be made with the prior approval of the DoC. Many states have expressed concerns that changes to their country domain names are dependent on the approval of the American government. Some countries also disagreed with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), a body within ICANN, having only an advisory role but no decision-making powers, and called for changes to be made.

However, since no agreement was reached within the existing decision-making bodies, it was decided to present the problem to political decision-makers from all countries of the world at a world summit of the United Nations on the subject of the information society .

Basic positions

USA position

In a speech to the Wireless Communications Association (WCA) on June 30, 2005, Michael Gallagher, Secretary of State at the US Department of Commerce, presented the following basic positions:

  • The US government wants to ensure the security and stability of the domain name and addressing system (DNS). Because the internet is important to the global economy, the US pledges not to take any action that would have an adverse effect on the internet. The US government therefore intends to maintain its historic role in approving changes to the Root Zone File.
  • The US recognizes the legitimate interests of other governments in the management of their country domain names (ccTLDs). Therefore, the US pledges to work with the international community to address these concerns, always bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure the security and stability of the DNS.
  • ICANN is the real technical manager of DNS on the Internet. The US continues to support the ongoing work of ICANN and acknowledges the progress that has already been made. The USA will continue to exercise its oversight role over ICANN so that ICANN can maintain its focus and carry out its core technical task.
  • The dialogue on internet governance should take place in several relevant forums. Due to the large number of topics that are part of Internet governance, there cannot be a single event that can adequately address the entire subject. While the US recognizes that the existing Internet system is working, an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders around the world is encouraged in the various forums. The US will support market-based approaches and private sector leadership in the development of the Internet in these forums.

Position of the European Union

These statements by the USA were difficult for the countries of the European Union, as well as for some developing and emerging countries, to understand, as this contradicted some agreements with ICANN. At the PrepCom III for the WSIS in Geneva at the end of September 2005, the European Union, under the leadership of the British Council Presidency, presented a discussion paper that seemed to provide for international supervision of essential Internet resources. While some of the developing countries initially felt that they could find their positions in the vague text, the US saw their position attacked by the proposal. At the end of the negotiations in PrepCom III, the negotiators had about 12 different proposals, and it was agreed that the negotiations should be held in the three days before the start of the WSIS in Tunis, from 13-15. November 2005 to continue.

Political development

World Summit in Geneva (2003)

At the first World Summit on the Information Society ( WSIS ) in Geneva in 2003, this problem was therefore discussed for the first time under the heading of "Internet Governance" within the framework of a world summit of the United Nations . However, at the time there was not even agreement as to which definition of "Internet governance" one wanted to work with in order to find an approach to solving the problem. In order to avoid a failure of the summit on this question, the participants agreed to transfer the topic to an expert group.

Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)

The then Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan , was asked to set up a working group on Internet Governance ( WGIG ) with the tasks of (1) developing a definition of the term, (2) clarifying the issues and (3) preparing a report , which makes recommendations for the political decision-makers of the second part of the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis 2005.

After the WGIG had prepared its report in June 2005 and made its recommendations, which also suggested various models that suggested international supervision of ICANN instead of the current American supervision, the US presented its position on Internet governance.

World Summit in Tunis (2005)

Even in the negotiations in the three days before the second part of the world summit, no real agreement could be found on the future structure of Internet governance. As before, there were the advocates of the status quo on the one hand and those countries which demanded more say and participation rights within the framework of a UN organization. As in Geneva, a failure of the summit was avoided by reaching a compromise at the last hour.

Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

In addition to the already existing institutions, regulations and mechanisms, there has recently been another body: a WSIS resolution created a so-called Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which was formally convened by the Secretary General of the United Nations in June 2006. In this forum - as part of a multi- stakeholder approach - representatives of the interests of states , international organizations , the private sector and civil society discuss a large number of problem areas of the Internet and its possible regulations. According to its mandate, the IGF only has the function of a forum and has no decision-making authority of its own.

The first consultations on the Internet Governance Forum took place from 16. – 17. February and from 15-19. May 2006 at the UN in Geneva under the leadership of Nitin Desai (Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General for Internet Governance) and the Swiss Markus Kummer.

After the first meeting in Athens from October 30th to November 2nd, 2006, the Brazilian government agreed to host the second IGF from November 12th to 15th in Rio de Janeiro . The other IGFs took place in India (2008), Egypt (2009), Lithuania (2010), Kenya (2011), Azerbaijan (2012), Indonesia (2013) and Turkey (2014).

The preparations for the forum are monitored by an international advisory group , consisting of representatives of the various interest groups; Nitin Desai and the Brazilian diplomat Hadil da Rocha Vianna are co-chair . The actual organization of the forums is done by a secretariat in Geneva under the direction of Markus Kummer.

Further discussion

During the presidency of Barack Obama there was an increasing discussion about the central position of ICANN within the Internet administration and about the question of whether the latter could be transferred to an international authority. In March 2014, the American government announced for the first time that, under certain conditions, control of the central root server of the Internet could be relinquished when the IANA contract expires in September 2016. At the same time, the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum, which had not been extended by the UN General Assembly, also ended. A transfer of ICANN's competencies to the International Telecommunication Union ( ITU), a United Nations agency, was discussed , but this is controversial in the American Senate. Finally, in March 2016, at the ICANN conference in Marrakech, it was agreed to transfer the supervision of ICANN's tasks from the NTIA to the self-governing bodies of ICANN itself and thus to privatize the central technical administration of the Internet.

literature

  • Joachim Betz, Hans-Dieter Kübler: Internet Governance. Who rules the internet like? , Springer 2013, ISBN 978-3-531-19241-3
  • Johanna Niesyto, Philipp Otto (Ed.): Who rules the Internet? Actors and fields of action , Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung / iRights.Lab 2016, ISBN 978-3-95861-572-4 . ( fes.de , PDF)
  • Isabelle Borucki, Wolf-Jürgen Schünemann (Ed.): Internet and State. Perspectives on a Complicated Relationship , Nomos Verlag 2019, ISBN 978-3-8487-4762-7

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy: Internet Governance. Retrieved October 23, 2019 .
  2. ↑ Monika Ermert: Zero Rating: Marketing Trick Against Net Neutrality or Internet for Developing Countries? In: Heise online. September 4, 2014. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
  3. ↑ Monika Ermert: USA want to give up control over internet administration . In: Heise online. March 15, 2014. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
  4. ↑ Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Will the US government hand over the supervision of the Internet root? In: Telepolis. January 20, 2015. Accessed March 19, 2015.
  5. ↑ Monika Ermert: Internet administration: exchange of blows in the US Senate on the IANA reform . In: Heise online. February 26, 2015. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
  6. ↑ Monika Ermert: Last Formal Tie To Historic US Internet Control Is Cut. In: Intellectual Property Watch. October 1, 2016, accessed October 3, 2016 .