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