What is internet governance?
There’s a narrow definition and a broad definition.[1] The narrow definition solely sees the Internet as a technical thing that needs to be programmed and managed: who gets to set domain names, et cetera. The broader definition looks at all aspects of human life related to the Internet: privacy, security, cybercrime and changing interaction with technical systems enabled by the Internet. The following debate will focus on the broader definition.
How is the internet currently governed?
From the purely technical perspective, the internet is a decentralised network of networks. Some tasks however, need to be performed centrally, like the registration of ‘top level domain names’ such as ‘.org’ and ‘.com’. These tasks are performed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is a non-profit private body, residing under United States law.
On the socio-political side, there is no central authority over the internet. There are, however, a few international forums where socio-political stakeholders come together to discuss issues of internet governance. One such forum was the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a series of UN-sponsored conferences in 2003 (Geneva) and 2005 (Tunisia). One outcome of this was the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum in 2006, where stakeholders, both public and private, continue to discuss issues of internet governance.
Because there is no global governing authority over the internet, governments can decide on their own how they ‘regulate the internet’. Examples of these initiatives are:
the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), signed by, amongst others, the United States and the (Member States of) European Union[2]
the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, signed by many European countries and the United States.[3]
These are attempts to set up rules for internet governance internationally, via treaties. Domestically, governments attempt to ‘regulate the internet’, too, for example by:
Setting up laws and rules, for example by legislating whether an email constitutes legal agreement to a business transaction or applying the ‘secrecy of correspondence’-guarantee to email traffic.
Setting up monitoring and policing agencies, for example by setting up cybercrime-units in their police forces, by setting up government-backed ‘Computer Emergency Response Teams’ (CERTs) that aid important stakeholders like infrastructure- and utility companies in ensuring cyber security.
Many of these examples will be further discussed in the arguments.
[1] Kurbalija, An introduction to internet governance, 2010, p. 14
[2] Council of the European Union, ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’, 2011
[3] Council of Europe, ‘Convention on Cybercrime’, 2001
There’s a narrow definition and a broad definition.[1] The narrow definition solely sees the Internet as a technical thing that needs to be programmed and managed: who gets to set domain names, et cetera. The broader definition looks at all aspects of human life related to the Internet: privacy, security, cybercrime and changing interaction with technical systems enabled by the Internet. The following debate will focus on the broader definition.
How is the internet currently governed?
From the purely technical perspective, the internet is a decentralised network of networks. Some tasks however, need to be performed centrally, like the registration of ‘top level domain names’ such as ‘.org’ and ‘.com’. These tasks are performed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is a non-profit private body, residing under United States law.
On the socio-political side, there is no central authority over the internet. There are, however, a few international forums where socio-political stakeholders come together to discuss issues of internet governance. One such forum was the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a series of UN-sponsored conferences in 2003 (Geneva) and 2005 (Tunisia). One outcome of this was the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum in 2006, where stakeholders, both public and private, continue to discuss issues of internet governance.
Because there is no global governing authority over the internet, governments can decide on their own how they ‘regulate the internet’. Examples of these initiatives are:
the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), signed by, amongst others, the United States and the (Member States of) European Union[2]
the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, signed by many European countries and the United States.[3]
These are attempts to set up rules for internet governance internationally, via treaties. Domestically, governments attempt to ‘regulate the internet’, too, for example by:
Setting up laws and rules, for example by legislating whether an email constitutes legal agreement to a business transaction or applying the ‘secrecy of correspondence’-guarantee to email traffic.
Setting up monitoring and policing agencies, for example by setting up cybercrime-units in their police forces, by setting up government-backed ‘Computer Emergency Response Teams’ (CERTs) that aid important stakeholders like infrastructure- and utility companies in ensuring cyber security.
Many of these examples will be further discussed in the arguments.
[1] Kurbalija, An introduction to internet governance, 2010, p. 14
[2] Council of the European Union, ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’, 2011
[3] Council of Europe, ‘Convention on Cybercrime’, 2001
Show less
Posts
