Milton’s reference to governments using regulatory processes to repress
criticism by civil society will likely play out here in several areas. One
is how domain name registration processes are structured to expose, or
protect, civil society from arbitrary government action. The other is how
domain name system issues link to handle human rights within the Internet
ecosystem. The issues: How domain name registration processes expose or
protect civil society groups; and; How Human Rights are woven into the
fabric of the Internet ecosystem, are still underdeveloped in terms of
positions and strategies.

Both issues are most acute at the national level, and linked to wider
Internet policy issues. In Canada NGO’s registered with the tax
authorities as a not-for-profit cannot engage in any advocacy work around
Canadian government policy.  If Canadian NGO’s take a position on net
neutrality based on human rights or innovation policy grounds, when the
government turns to net neutrality policy, this can put status at risk. 

The issues are even greater in developing countries. Several of the larger
global players in Internet governance are using phrases like “legitimate
stakeholders”, with reference to multistakeholder participation, and
especially with reference to civil society voices from within their own
countries. Civil society will be seriously handicapped if stakeholder
participation, and voice, are set by government. 

Expect this area to be contentious in the design of the multistakeholder
governance component in an acceptable IANA transition proposal. That
governance component is likely to be seen as a prototype for wider
initiatives around multistakeholder governance, initiatives where other
stakeholders have vested interests.

Sam L