US WIN? SCHOLARS SEE LONG TERM CHANGES IN STORE FOR ICANN, INTERNET GOVERNANCE 18 November, 2005. Statement by the Internet Governance Project Academic experts attending the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) challenged the US government's claim that WSIS ratified the status quo in Internet governance. Speaking in Tunis at the conclusion of the Summit, they acknowledged the Summit's inability to make immediate changes in ICANN's political oversight and constitution. But this occurred simply because no changes in political oversight could be made without the US government's agreement, and the US had indicated that it would not support any such changes. Nevertheless, the Tunis Summit has set in motion long-term processes that could increase the role of national governments in Internet policy broadly, and ICANN specifically, they claimed. "The real result of WSIS is that the debate over ICANN and Internet governance will be prolonged for another 5 years," said Milton Mueller of Syracuse University. "The US can claim a short-term victory but faces a long-term war of attrition that will gradually erode its position," he predicted. Georgia Institute of Technology professor Hans Klein said. "Before WSIS ICANN was a sort of Frankenstein organization created in the basement of the US Department of Commerce. Now ICANN has been given a qualified delegation of public authority, but the details of how other governments relate to it must still be worked out." The WSIS statement, a product of intense negotiations over wording, had four main results: 1) It praised the "the existing arrangements for Internet governance" "Existing arrangements" were described as "the private sector taking the lead in day to day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges." (para. 61) The document, however, did not endorse ICANN specifically, and in fact never mentions it by name - a reflection of its continuing lack of acceptance by many governments. For the time being, ICANN continues to operate under the formal authority of a single government, the US. 2) It paved the way for long-term changes in ICANN The official WSIS statement challenged specific aspects of the current ICANN regime and set the stage for long-term change. Paragraph 63 rejects the need for other countries to manage their ccTLD via the U.S.-dominated ICANN regime. Paragraph 68 says that all governments, not just the US, should have "an equal role and responsibility" for the DNS root and for Internet public policy oversight. Paragraphs 69 and 70 calls for the development of "globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical internet resources." Paragraphs 71 and 72 propose mechanisms for developing these principles.These aspects of the WSIS results have been underappreciated, the IGP said. They are likely to result in greater power being given to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). 3) It insisted on the authority of governments to define "public policy" for the Internet. The WSIS document formalizes the division of Internet governance into two parts: the domain of "technical management" or "day to day operation," which should be left to the private sector and civil society, and the domain of "public policy-making," which is supposed to be ruled by governments. The IGP scholars, however, noted that this distinction is not clear and is difficult to apply. The document does not clarify how this distinction is to be drawn, thus reinforcing further the likelihood that negotiations and discussions around it will continue for some time. 4) It authorized the creation of an Internet Governance Forum. In a victory for public interest advocates who participated in WSIS as "civil society," the world leaders at WSIS have launched the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This is a multi-stakeholder forum for advising on Internet governance. The value of the IGF remains to be seen. Since ICANN's GAC and ALAC already allow governments and civil society to advise on Internet governance, the new IGF's mandate does not seem especially novel: it also allows governments and civil society (and the private sector) to advise on Internet governance. The difference is their scope: ALAC/GAC advise on technical coordination in ICANN, and IGF advises on public policy for the Internet. The IGP scholars expressed the hope that the new Forum can be used to develop the public policy principles needed to guide global Internet governance in the future. Noting their prior calls for a framework convention on Internet governance, and related calls for an "Internet bill of rights" or "first amendment" for the Internet, they expressed the hope that these discussions will not be confined to governments. They also reiterated their call for more reliance on online methods of deliberation and participation, to broaden inclusion. "We must start using the Internet to improve governance of the Internet," said Syracuse University's Derrick Cogburn. The Internet Governance Project is a consortium of scholars focused on internet policy. See http://www.internetgovernance.org