The recent second Preparatory meeting (PrepCom), which took place, some two weeks ago in Geneva, Switzerland came hot in the heels of the African Preparatory Conference for WSIS that was held in Accra, Ghana, slightly over a month ago.

As was expected the Geneva Prepcom 2 just like the first phase of WSIS failed to agree on the contentious issue of who governs the internet. The internet which is reputably the freest medium of communication accommodating a vast array of opinion shades has been a source of great concern to governments and commercial interests who are keen to control content finding its way in it. On the other hand some civil society groups have since the WSIS Geneva Summit in 2003, voiced their concerns against commercial concerns whom they feel as wielding great influence over the medium. On another plank fears have also been raised by human rights watchdogs who believe that calls to reform Internet governance are an actual red herring by supposedly repressive regimes and monopolistic concerns seeking to control the internet and thus obliterate the tenets of freedom of expression espoused in the medium.

In 1998 the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a major player in the present internet governance system, came into being in the United States of America. ICANN came about as a result of the amalgamation of two US companies, namely, Network Solutions, and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Network Solutions had been a US government authorised monopoly domain name company which had registered the much popular web domains .com; .org and .net. IANA on the other hand came about in 1989. It was established by a contract between the United States Department of Commerce and the Department of Post and Telecommunications Information Science Institute (ISI). In 1998 the functions of both IANA and Network Solutions were brought under one roof, that of ICANN. ICANN watches over the Domain Name System (DNS), Internet Protocol addresses (IP) and the Root Server Systems (RSS). It also controls, governs and settles disputes related to DNS. However ICANN’s work comes alive due to its responsibilities as the supervisor of the Internet address system. The .org, .net,. co.ke is the section of a web address, which is referred to as country code Top Level Domain (ccTLDs). Every country has its own two-letter ccTLDs. And it is here that ICANN’s work is much noticed.

ICANN is a contractual agreement body between the US government and several private commercial interests. However the business interests within ICANN appear to have more leverage. It is this existing scenario that has been a bone of contention whenever the term ‘internet governance’ is mentioned. Of particular importance to many are recommendations on the future role of ICANN. Right after the 2003 WSIS summit, two key issues emerged as focal disagreement points. These were ‘the scope of the definition of internet governance’ and ‘who should be responsible for internet governance?’

As usual, the developing countries adopted a discordant version from the developed ones. The two sides of the divide agreed on only one thing; that Internet governance was important. In response to this polarity of views, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan set up the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to look into three broad areas. These are; to develop a working definition of Internet governance; identify the public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance and develop a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of governments, existing international organizations, civil society and private sector from both the developing countries and the developed ones. The WGIG is scheduled to make its report in PrepCom 3 in Geneva, come September this year. Just a month away from the Tunis phase of WSIS.

During the Accra Preparatory Summit, Africa took a unified position as far as Internet governance is concerned. The position statement, which was presented by Ghana at the Geneva PrepCom, a fortnight ago reads in part: “We representatives of governments, the private sector and civil societies of the African states… call on all governments, the civil society as ell as the technical community to pay attention to the internet as a tool for development and to take part in all the forums relating to Internet governance so that the concerns of the continent are taken into account of this sector which is rapidly evolving. In this regard special attention should be given to the composition and the role of the present Internet Governing bodies with a view to ensuring their legitimacy as fully representative authorities for the entire community worldwide. We assert that Africa should participate actively in international organizations dealing with Internet Governance. In this regard special attention should be given by international bodies dealing with the Internet to the needs and interests of the developing and least developed countries. Inorder to achieve an inclusive and participatory approach, policy makers should bring on board the remaining 90% of the population unaware of the stakes and challenges of the Information Society especially those handicapped due to language barriers. In this regard, there is need to support initiatives to develop local content in local languages and their access on the Internet. We call for the mainstreaming of various dimensions of Internet Governance into the development of national and regional e-strategic plans… Efforts should be made so that ccTLDs are managed by respective countries. In conclusion the Internet is a developmental tool and there is the need to consolidate the various entities taking care of this global facility to ensure that it becomes a development toll serving developmental purposes equitably.”

Internet Governance is indeed a tightrope. Simply because it is a global resource, with massive interests. Opinions still differ (and strongly) on the kind of governance system to be adopted in addressing such issues as pornography, cyber crime, hate content and other pertinent concerns.

At the core of Internet governance debate is the role that governments ought to play, whether they should have a bigger role or if an inter governmental body (similar to the UN system) should be adopted. Will WSIS 2 in Tunis this November come up with the answers? Only time will tell.
End.

Top