05.41622-1-

Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance
Château de Bossey
June 2005

05.41622-2-

Contents
Page

I.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

II.

Working definition of Internet governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

III.

Identifying public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance and assessing theadequacy of existing governance arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5Developing a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of all
stakeholders from both developed and developing countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8“Proposals for action, as appropriate” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10A.

Recommendations related to Internet governance mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

1.

Forum function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

2.

Global public policy and oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

123.

Institutional coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

164.

Regional and national coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

Recommendations to address Internet-related issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

Membership and secretariat of the Working Group on Internet Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

IV.
V.

B.
Annex

05.41622-3-

I. Introduction
1.
This report has been produced by the Working Group on Internet Governance(WGIG), which was set up by the Secretary-General of the United Nations inaccordance with the mandate given to him during the first phase of the World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), held in Geneva, on 10-12 December
2003. The WGIG comprised 40 members from Governments, private sector andcivil society, who all participated on an equal footing and in their personal capacity.
It was chaired by Mr. Nitin Desai, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General for the
WSIS. The list of the members of the WGIG is attached as an annex to the report.
2.
A background report (hereafter referred to as “Background Report”) that
includes much of the work produced in the course of the WGIG process is madeavailable separately. It reflects the wide variety of opinions held within the groupand reflects many comments made by stakeholders. The Background Report makes
clear whether an argument or opinion is shared by the entire group or only by someof its members. It does not have the same status as the WGIG Report, but can beused as a reference.
3.
The WGIG held four meetings in Geneva: 23-25 November 2004;
14-18 February 2005; 18-20 April 2005; and 14-17 June 2005.
4.
The mandate of the WGIG stemmed from the Geneva phase of the WSIS,
during which Heads of State and Government recognized the importance of theInternet: they acknowledged 1 that the Internet is a central element of theinfrastructure of the emerging information society, while recognizing that there arediffering views on the suitability of current institutions and mechanisms for
managing processes and developing policies for the global Internet. For this reason,
they requested the Secretary-General to set up a Working Group on Internet
Governance, with a view to preparing the ground for negotiations at the second
phase of the WSIS, to be held in Tunis in November 2005.
5.
The WSIS Declaration of Principles and the WSIS Plan of Action 2 adopted in
Geneva set the parameters for the WGIG and contain its Terms of Reference andwork programme. The WGIG has been asked, inter alia, to “investigate and makeproposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of the Internet by 2005”, 3
dealing with the following issues: 4• Develop a working definition of Internet governance• Identify the public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance• Develop a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities
of Governments, existing international organizations and other forums, as wellas the private sector and civil society in both developing and developed
countries
6.
In carrying out its assignment, the WGIG was guided primarily by the key
WSIS principles. In particular, the WSIS principle relating to the stable and securefunctioning of the Internet was judged to be of paramount importance. Hence, at the__________________
1 WSIS Declaration of Principles, paras. 48-50 (WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/0004).
2 WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/0005.
3 WSIS Declaration of Principles, para. 50 (WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/0004).
4 WSIS Plan of Action, para. 13 (b) (WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/0005).

05.41622-4-

outset, the WGIG agreed that all recommendations aiming to improve current
governance arrangements should be fully assessed in terms of their capacity toaddress the WSIS principles.
7.
For developing an understanding of governance issues, the WGIG found it
useful to review the different phases of the Internet’s development, from a research
project in the 1960s to a widespread commercial infrastructure with close to 1
billion Internet users connected in 2004. This historical lens was useful to identify
guiding principles and factors that have enabled or contributed to the Internet’s
successful development, including the open and decentralized nature of its
architecture and the underlying technological development of its core standards, aswell as the management of names and numbers.

II. Working definition of Internet governance
8.
While there is a common understanding of the Internet, there is not yet ashared view of Internet governance, hence the mandate from the WSIS for the
WGIG to develop a working definition of Internet governance. During the 10 years
in which the Internet evolved from a research and academic facility into “a global
facility available to the public”, 5 very different points of view emerged about thescope and mechanisms of Internet governance.
9.
The WGIG first considered five criteria, namely that the working definition
should be adequate, generalizable, descriptive, concise and process-oriented.
Second, the WGIG analysed a wide range of public-sector, private-sector and multistakeholder governance mechanisms that currently exist with respect to different
Internet issues and functions. Finally, the WGIG assessed a number of alternative
definitions proposed by various parties in the course of the WSIS process andrelated international discussions.
10. Taking into account the criteria, analysis and proposals mentioned above, as
well as the larger debate among stakeholders involved in WSIS, WGIG and thebroader Internet community, the WGIG provides the following working definition:
Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, theprivate sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles,
norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape theevolution and use of the Internet.
11. This working definition reinforces the concept of inclusiveness ofGovernments, the private sector and civil society in the mechanisms of Internet
governance. This working definition also acknowledges that with respect to specificissues of Internet governance each group will have different interests, roles andparticipation, which in some cases will overlap.
12. It should be made clear, however, that Internet governance includes more thanInternet names and addresses, issues dealt with by the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN): it also includes other significant public
policy issues, such as critical Internet resources, the security and safety of theInternet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet.
__________________
5 WSIS Declaration of Principles, para. 48 (WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/0004).

05.41622-5-

III. Identifying public policy issues that are relevant to Internet
governance and assessing the adequacy of existing
governance arrangements
13. The WGIG devoted much of its attention to the identification of public policy
issues that are potentially relevant to Internet governance, as called for in paragraph
13 (b) of the Plan of Action. It agreed to take a broad approach and not exclude any
potentially relevant issue. Based on this fact-finding work, the WGIG establishedfour key public policy areas:(a) Issues relating to infrastructure and the management of critical Internet
resources, including administration of the domain name system and Internet
protocol addresses (IP addresses), administration of the root server system, technicalstandards, peering and interconnection, telecommunications infrastructure,including innovative and convergent technologies, as well as multilingualization.
These issues are matters of direct relevance to Internet governance and fall within
the ambit of existing organizations with responsibility for these matters;(b) Issues relating to the use of the Internet, including spam, network
security and cybercrime. While these issues are directly related to Internet
governance, the nature of global cooperation required is not well defined;(c) Issues that are relevant to the Internet but have an impact much wider
than the Internet and for which existing organizations are responsible, such as
intellectual property rights (IPRs) or international trade. The WGIG started
examining the extent to which these matters are being handled consistent with the
Declaration of Principles;(d) Issues relating to the developmental aspects of Internet governance, inparticular capacity-building in developing countries.
14. After examining in depth the issues pertaining to these four clusters, the
WGIG identified and included in the Background Report the public policy issues
that are relevant to Internet governance. The issues of highest priority, including
related issues and problems, are set out below for the attention of the WSIS.
15.

Administration of the root zone files and system
Unilateral control by the United States Government.
• For historical reasons, the existing system involves only one Government in
the authorization of changes to the root zone file.
Lack of formal relationship with root server operators.
• The root zone operators perform their functions today without a formal
relationship with any authority.

16.

Interconnection costs
Uneven distribution of cost.
• Internet service providers (ISPs) based in countries remote from Internet
backbones, particularly in the developing countries, must pay the full cost of
the international circuits.

05.41622-6-• Absence of an appropriate and effective global Internet governance mechanism
to resolve the issue.
17.

Internet stability, security and cybercrime• Lack of multilateral mechanisms to ensure the network stability and security ofInternet infrastructure services and applications.
• Lack of efficient tools and mechanisms to be used by countries to prevent andprosecute crimes committed in other jurisdictions, using technological meansthat might be located within or outside the territory where the crime had anegative effect.

18.

Spam
No unified, coordinated approach.
• There is no global consensus on a definition of spam and no global
arrangement to address this matter or enable national anti-spam laws to beeffective. However, there is an increasing number of bilateral and plurilateralagreements between countries to enforce national anti-spam laws, share bestpractices and cooperate on solutions.

19.

Meaningful participation in global policy development
There are significant barriers to multi-stakeholder participation in governancemechanisms.
• There is often a lack of transparency, openness and participatory processes.
• Participation in some intergovernmental organizations and other internationalorganizations is often limited and expensive, especially for developing
countries, indigenous peoples, civil society organizations, and small andmedium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
• The content produced by some intergovernmental organizations and otherinternational organizations is often restricted to members only or is available
at a prohibitive cost.
• Frequency and location of venues for global policy meetings causes somestakeholders from more remote areas to limit their participation.
• There is a lack of a global mechanism for participation by Governments,
especially from developing countries, in addressing multisectoral issues
related to global Internet policy development.

20.

Capacity-building
Adequate resources have not been available to build capacity in a range ofareas relevant to Internet management at the national level and to ensure
effective participation in global Internet governance, particularly fordeveloping countries.

05.41622

-7-

21.

Allocation of domain names
Need for further development of policies and procedures for generic top-leveldomain names (gTLDs). 6• The need for further development of policies for the management and further
development of the domain name space, though also due to the inherent
complexity of the matter, has a significant impact on key issues, such as theequitable distribution of resources, access for all and multilingualism.

22.

IP addressing
Concerns over allocation policies for IP addresses.
• For historical reasons, there is an imbalance in the distribution of IPv4
addresses. 7 This issue has already been addressed by the regional Internet
registries (RIRs). In the light of the transition to IPv6, 8 some countries feelthat allocation policies for IP addresses should ensure balanced access toresources on a geographical basis.

23.

Intellectual property rights (IPR)
Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
• While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders
and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of thebalance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether thecurrent IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace.
On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about thehigh number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies
developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements;on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, theimpediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced
nature of current IPR rules.

24.

Freedom of expression
Restrictions on freedom of expression.
• Measures taken in relation to the Internet on grounds of security or to fightcrime can lead to violations of the provisions for freedom of expression as
contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the WSIS
Declaration of Principles.

25.

Data protection and privacy rights
Lack of existence or inconsistent application of privacy and data-protection
rights.
• There is a lack of national legislation and enforceable global standards forprivacy and data-protection rights over the Internet; as a result, users have few
if any means to enforce their privacy and personal data-protection rights, even__________________
6 See glossary.
7 Version four of the Internet Protocol.
8 Version six of the Internet Protocol.

05.41622-8-

when recognized by legislation. An example of this is the apparent lack ofpersonal data protection in some of the WHOIS 9 databases.
26.

Consumer rights• There is a lack of global standards for consumer rights over the Internet, forexample in the international purchase of goods through e-commerce; as such,users have few if any means to enforce their rights, even when these rights arerecognized by legislation. In the case of digital goods and online services,
there are problems for the practical and full application of traditional consumer
rights.

27.

Multilingualism• Insufficient progress has been made towards multilingualization. Unresolved
issues include standards for multilingual TLDs, e-mail addresses and keyword
lookup, as well as insufficient multilingual local content. There is a lack ofinternational coordination.

28. The WGIG identified a number of other important issues, such as convergenceand “next generation networks” (NGNs), as well as trade and e-commerce, without
however focusing on them in any detail.

IV. Developing a common understanding of the respective roles
and responsibilities of all stakeholders from both developed
and developing countries
29. Recognizing the essential role of all stakeholders in Internet governance, thissection expands on the roles and responsibilities of the principal stakeholders, i.e.,
Governments, the private sector and civil society, as well as intergovernmental andinternational organizations, as outlined in the WSIS Declaration of Principles. 10 The
academic and technical communities also play an important role.
30.

Governments. The roles and responsibilities of Governments include:• Public policymaking and coordination and implementation, as appropriate, atthe national level, and policy development and coordination at the regional andinternational levels.
• Creating an enabling environment for information and communication
technology (ICT) development.
• Oversight functions.
• Development and adoption of laws, regulations and standards.
• Treaty-making.
• Development of best practices.
• Fostering capacity-building in and through ICTs.
• Promoting research and development of technologies and standards.

__________________
9 A database that is widely used to provide information services to Internet users (see glossary).
10 WSIS Declaration of Principles, para. 49 (WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/0004).

05.41622-9-• Promoting access to ICT services.
• Combating cybercrime.
• Fostering international and regional cooperation.
• Promoting the development of infrastructure and ICT applications.
• Addressing general developmental issues.
• Promoting multilingualism and cultural diversity.
• Dispute resolution and arbitration.
31.

The private sector. The roles and responsibilities of the private sector include:• Industry self-regulation.
• Development of best practices.
• Development of policy proposals, guidelines and tools for policymakers andother stakeholders.
• Research and development of technologies, standards and processes.
• Contribution to the drafting of national law and participation in national andinternational policy development.
• Fostering innovation.
• Arbitration and dispute resolution.
• Promoting capacity-building.

32.

Civil society. The roles and responsibilities of civil society include:• Awareness-raising and capacity-building (knowledge, training, skills sharing).
• Promoting various public interest objectives.
• Facilitating network-building.
• Mobilizing citizens in democratic processes.
• Bringing perspectives of marginalized groups, including, for example,
excluded communities and grass-roots activists.
• Engaging in policy processes.
• Contributing expertise, skills, experience and knowledge in a range of ICT
policy areas.
• Contributing to policy processes and policies that are more bottom-up, peoplecentred and inclusive.
• Research and development of technologies and standards.
• Development and dissemination of best practices.
• Helping to ensure that political and market forces are accountable to the needsof all members of society.
• Encouraging social responsibility and good governance practice.

05.41622-10-• Advocating for the development of social projects and activities that are
critical but may not be “fashionable” or profitable.
• Contributing to shaping visions of human-centred information societies basedon human rights, sustainable development, social justice and empowerment.
33. Furthermore, the WGIG recognized that the contribution to the Internet of theacademic community is very valuable and constitutes one of its main sources ofinspiration, innovation and creativity. Similarly, the technical community and its
organizations are deeply involved in Internet operation, Internet standard-setting andInternet services development. Both of these groups make a permanent and valuable
contribution to the stability, security, functioning and evolution of the Internet. Theyinteract extensively with and within all stakeholder groups.
34. The WGIG also reviewed the respective roles and responsibilities of existing
intergovernmental and international organizations and other forums and the various
mechanisms for both formal and informal consultations among these institutions. It
noted that there is scope to improve coordination to some extent.

V. “Proposals for action, as appropriate” 11
A.

Recommendations related to Internet governance mechanisms
35. The WGIG addressed the adequacy of current Internet governancearrangements in relation to the principles outlined in the final WSIS documents andcame to the conclusion that some adjustments needed to be made to bring thesearrangements more in line with the WSIS criteria of transparency, accountability,
multilateralism and the need to address all public policy issues related to Internet
governance in a coordinated manner. It grouped these issues in four clusters: aforum, global public policy and oversight, institutional coordination, and regional,
subregional and national coordination.
36. The WGIG recommends the creation of a new space for dialogue for all
stakeholders on an equal footing on all Internet governance-related issues.
37. With regard to the roles and responsibilities of Governments, the WGIG
decided to put forward different options for the deliberations within the WSIS
context. The four different proposals all complement the forum described in section
V.A.1 below.
38. The WGIG also concluded that there would be merit in improving institutional
coordination, as well as coordination among all stakeholders at the regional,
subregional and national levels.
39.

1.

The four proposals are set out below.

Forum function
40. The WGIG identified a vacuum within the context of existing structures, since
there is no global multi-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy
issues. It came to the conclusion that there would be merit in creating such a spacefor dialogue among all stakeholders. This space could address these issues, as well__________________
11 WSIS Declaration of Principles, para. 50 (WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/0004).

05.41622-11-

as emerging issues, that are cross-cutting and multidimensional and that either affectmore than one institution, are not dealt with by any institution or are not addressedin a coordinated manner.
41. The WGIG also noted that one of its overarching priorities was to contribute toensuring the effective and meaningful participation of all stakeholders fromdeveloping countries in Internet governance arrangements. Existing institutions that
address some of these Internet-related public policy issues, such as the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), are not generally global intheir membership and therefore developing countries lack a forum for discussing
Internet-related public policy issues. Other global institutions are narrower in focus
or do not allow for multi-stakeholder participation. It noted that the existingmechanisms do not sufficiently take into account geographic balance and linguistic
diversity. Their fragmented nature and structure also make it difficult for developing
countries to have their voices heard.
42. One of the main aims of the WGIG is to foster full participation in Internet
governance arrangements by developing countries. The WGIG placed this aim in thecontext of one of the priorities it had identified in the course of its work, namely,
capacity-building in developing countries.
43. Such a space or forum for dialogue (hereafter referred to as “the forum”)
should allow for the participation of all stakeholders from developing and developed
countries on an equal footing. Gender balance should be considered a fundamental
principle with the aim of achieving an equal representation of women and men at alllevels. Special care should be taken to ensure diversity of participation as regards,
inter alia, language, culture, professional background, involvement of indigenous
peoples, people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups.
44. The forum should preferably be linked to the United Nations, in a form to be
defined. It would be better placed than existing Internet institutions to engage
developing countries in a policy dialogue. This would be an important factor in
itself, as the future growth of the Internet is expected to be mainly in developing
countries.
45. The forum should be open to all stakeholders from all countries; any
stakeholder could bring up any Internet governance issue. The forum would be
reinforced by regional, subregional and national initiatives and supplemented byopen online mechanisms for participation. It should support the information andcommunication technologies for development (ICT4D) agenda emerging from the
WSIS and Millennium Development Goals (MDG) processes. It could assume, interalia, the following functions:• Interface with intergovernmental bodies and other institutions on matters under
their purview which are relevant to Internet governance, such as IPR, ecommerce, trade in services and Internet/telecommunications convergence.
• Identify emerging issues and bring them to the attention of the appropriate
bodies and make recommendations.
• Address issues that are not being dealt with elsewhere and make proposals foraction, as appropriate.
• Connect different bodies involved in Internet management where necessary.

05.41622-12-• Contribute to capacity-building for Internet governance for developing
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
• Promote and assess on an ongoing basis the embodiment of WSIS principles inInternet governance processes.
46. There was a clear understanding that such a forum should not be seen as acontinuation of the WGIG. Rather, it should be modelled on the WGIG open
consultations, supported by a very lightweight structure and guided by a multistakeholder coordinating process, to be defined. Overlap or duplication with existing
institutions should be avoided and the best possible use should be made of research
and work carried out by others.
47. The forum should develop partnerships with academic and research
institutions to access knowledge resources and expertise on a regular basis. These
partnerships should seek to reflect geographic balance and cultural diversity andpromote cooperation among all regions.
2.

Global public policy and oversight
48. The WGIG recognized that any organizational form for the governancefunction/oversight function should adhere to the following principles:• No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation tointernational Internet governance.
• The organizational form for the governance function will be multilateral,transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of Governments, theprivate sector, civil society and international organizations. 12• The organizational form for the governance function will involve all
stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations
within their respective roles. 13
49. The WGIG agreed that the continued internationalization of the Internet andthe principle of universality reinforces the need for a review of existing governancemechanisms, hence the WGIG undertook such a review and the results are presented
here.
50. There is a wide range of governance functions that could include audit,
arbitration, coordination, policy-setting and regulation, among others, but notincluding involvement in day-to-day operational management of the Internet that
does not impact on public policy issues.
51. The review considered different organizational models for this purpose and thefour models are set out below for consideration.

__________________
12 WSIS Declaration of Principles, para. 48 (WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/0004).
13 WSIS Declaration of Principles, para. 49 (WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/0004).

05.41622-13-

Model 1
52. This model envisages a Global Internet Council (GIC), consistingof members from Governments with appropriate representation fromeach region and with involvement of other stakeholders. This council
would take over the functions relating to international Internet
governance currently performed by the Department of Commerce of theUnited States Government. It would also replace the ICANN
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
53.

The functions of the GIC should include:•

Setting of international Internet public policy and providing thenecessary oversight relating to Internet resource management, suchas additions or deletions to the root zone file, management of IP
addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and redelegation of
ccTLDs.

•Setting of international public policy and coordination for other
Internet-related key issues, such as spam, privacy, cybersecurity
and cybercrime, which are not being fully addressed by otherexisting intergovernmental organizations.

•

Facilitating negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on
Internet-related public policies.

•

Fostering and providing guidance on certain developmental issues
in the broader Internet agenda, including but not limited tocapacity-building, multilingualism, equitable and cost-based
international interconnection costs, and equitable access for all.

•Approving rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms
and conduct arbitration, as required.

54. The relationship between the GIC and technical and operational
Internet institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN,
should be formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC.
55.

The GIC should be anchored in the United Nations.

56. For the issues dealt with in this body, the governmental component
will take a leading role. The private sector and civil society will
participate in an advisory capacity.

05.41622-14-

Model 2
57.

There is no need for a specific oversight organization.

58. It may be necessary to enhance the role of ICANN’s Governmental
Advisory Committee (GAC) in order to meet the concerns of someGovernments on specific issues.
59. The forum, as proposed in section V.A.1 above, with full and equal
participation of all stakeholders, could, in addition to the various
functions set out therein, provide coordination functions for participating
stakeholders and produce analysis and recommendations on some issues.
60. This forum would provide a coordination function for participating
stakeholders by creating a space in which all issues involving theexisting Internet governance organizations could be openly discussed.
These discussions will be enabled by the transparency of theparticipating organizations and participation should include acommitment to transparency.
61. The forum would also interact with or create specific issue
initiatives to produce analyses or recommendations on different Internetrelated issues. The initiatives should include all the stakeholders
involved in the issue and would make recommendations to the forum andto the stakeholders.

Model 3
62. For policy issues involving national interests, given that no single
Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
Internet governance, an International Internet Council (IIC) could fulfil
the corresponding functions, especially in relation to ICANN/IANA
competencies.
63. In addition, its functions might include international public policy
issues relating to Internet resource management and international public
policy issues that do not fall within the scope of other existing
intergovernmental organizations.
64. For those issues, the governmental component of the IIC will take aleading role, with the private sector and civil society providing advice.
65. Equally, the IIC could perform a fostering role for certain
developmental issues on the broader Internet agenda.
66. The new body could make the Governmental Advisory Committee(GAC) redundant.
67. This internationalization should be accompanied by an adequate
host-country agreement for ICANN.

05.41622-15-

Model 4
68. This model brings together and addresses three interrelated areas ofInternet policy governance, oversight and global coordination, andproposes structures to address the following challenges:•

Public policy development and decision-making on international
Internet-related public policy issues led by Governments.

•

Oversight over the body responsible at the global level for thetechnical and operational functioning of the Internet led by theprivate sector.

•

Global coordination of the development of the Internet throughdialogue between Governments, the private sector and civil society
on an equal footing.

69.

The Global Internet Policy Council (GIPC)•“Responsible for international Internet-related public policy
issues”, and contribute public policy perspectives to Internetrelated technical standard-setting.

•Government-led mechanism that encompasses issues addressed byexisting intergovernmental organizations and other public policy
issues that currently do not have a natural home or cut acrossseveral international or intergovernmental bodies.

•

Participation by the private sector and civil society, both in an
observer capacity.

70.

World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers(WICANN)•

Responsible for the “development of the Internet in both technicaland economic fields” (a role similar to that performed by ICANN).
Private-sector-led body made up of a reformed internationalized
ICANN linked to the United Nations.

•

In this body, Governments will have two distinct and separate
functions.

•

The oversight function over the body responsible, at the global
level, for the technical and operational functioning of Internet(ICANN). This is the role currently performed by the Departmentof Commerce of the United States Government. This role would beplayed by an Oversight Committee appointed by and reporting to
the intergovernmental body (the Global Internet Policy Council).
The oversight function would not be of an operational ormanagement nature.

•

The second function is advisory, as currently played by the ICANN
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).

•

Participation of Governments
observer/advisory capacity.

and

civil

societyinan05.41622

-16-

3.

•

WICANN would have a host-country agreement.

71.

The Global Internet Governance Forum (GIGF)•

Responsible for “facilitating coordination (and discussion) ofInternet-related public policy issues”.

•

Participation on equal footing by Governments, the private sector
and civil society.

Institutional coordination
72. Pursuant to paragraph 50 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles, the WGIG
recommends that the secretariats of intergovernmental organizations and otherinstitutions dealing with Internet governance issues continue to improve thecoordination of their activities and exchange information on a regular basis, both
among themselves and with the forum.

4.

Regional and national coordination
73. The WGIG noted that international coordination needs to build on policy
coordination at the national level. Global Internet governance can only be effective
if there is coherence with regional, subregional and national-level policies. The
WGIG therefore recommends:(a) That the multi-stakeholder approach be implemented as far as possible inall regions in order for the work on Internet governance to be fully supported at theregional and subregional levels;(b) That coordination be established among all stakeholders at the national
level and a multi-stakeholder national Internet governance steering committee orsimilar body be set up.

B.

Recommendations to address Internet-related issues
74. The WGIG agreed that there are two overarching prerequisites to enhance thelegitimacy of Internet governance processes:• The effective and meaningful participation of all stakeholders, especially fromdeveloping countries.
• The building of sufficient capacity in developing countries, in terms ofknowledge and of human, financial and technical resources.
75. The WGIG identified a number of recommendations emanating from thepriority issues outlined in section III above. Some of these are addressed to thevarious Internet governance mechanisms proposed in section V.A above, whileothers are not attributed to any specific institutions.

05.41622-17-

76. Administration of the root zone files and root server system of the domainname system (DNS)• Define the institutional arrangements and the responsibilities and relationships
between the institutions that are required to guarantee continuity of a stable
and secure functioning of the root server system of the DNS.
• Noting that the number of root servers cannot be increased to more than 13
due to protocol limitations, carry out a requirements analysis to determine theappropriate evolution, including possible restructuring, of the architecture tomeet end-user requirements.
• Clarify the institutional arrangements needed to guarantee continuity of astable and secure functioning of the root system during and after a possible
period of governance reform.
77.

IP addressing• Transition to IPv6 should ensure that allocation policies for IP addresses
provide equitable access to resources.

78.

Interconnection costs• Invite international agencies and the donor community to intensify theirstudies in this area, in particular to examine alternative solutions, such as thedevelopment of regional IP backbones and the establishment of local andregional access points.
• Call on the groups studying Internet governance issues to take note of the
WSIS Declaration of Principles, i.e., to be multilateral, transparent anddemocratic and to have the capacity to address Internet governance in acoordinated manner, based on a multi-stakeholder approach.
• Invite relevant international organizations to report on these matters towhatever forum, body or mechanism(s) that the WSIS will create for issues
related to Internet governance and global coordination.
• Encourage donor programmes and other developmental financing mechanisms
to take note of the need to provide funding for initiatives that advanceconnectivity, Internet exchange points (IXPs) and local content for developing
countries.
• Building on current international agreements, encourage interested parties tocontinue and intensify work in relevant international organizations on
international Internet connectivity issues. 14

79.

Internet stability, security and cybercrime• Efforts should be made, in conjunction with all stakeholders, to create
arrangements and procedures between national law enforcement agencies
consistent with the appropriate protection of privacy, personal data and otherhuman rights.

__________________
14 This issue has received sustained attention in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and has been raised in the World Trade
Organization (WTO) as well.

05.41622-18-• Governments, in cooperation with all stakeholders, should explore and develop
tools and mechanisms, including treaties and cooperation, to allow for
effective criminal investigation and prosecution of crimes committed incyberspace and against networks and technological resources, addressing the
problem of cross-border jurisdiction, regardless of the territory from which thecrime was committed and/or the location of the technological means used,while respecting sovereignty.
80.

Spam
• There is a need for global coordination among all stakeholders to develop
policies and technical instruments to combat spam.
• WSIS should recognize the need to act against spam and include common
principles of action concerning cooperation in this field. It should recognize
the need to produce anti-spam efforts, not only for legislation and cross-borderenforcement but also in terms of industry self-regulation, technical solutions,partnerships between Governments and the Internet community, awarenessraising and user education. Special attention should be given to theconnectivity and bandwidth limitations of developing countries. A jointstatement could be agreed on the occasion of the WSIS and annexed to thefinal document(s) of the Summit.

81.

Freedom of expression• Ensure that all measures taken in relation to the Internet, in particular those on
grounds of security or to fight crime, do not lead to violations of human rights
principles.

82.

Meaningful participation in global policy development• International organizations, including intergovernmental organizations where
relevant, should ensure that all stakeholders, particularly from developing
countries, have the opportunity to participate in the determination of policy
decisions that affect them, and promote and support such participation.
• Specific efforts should be made to address the lack of funds of the different
stakeholders of developing countries, which impedes them from actively andconsistently participating in international Internet governance processes.

83.

Data protection and privacy rights• Encourage countries that lack privacy and/or personal data-protection
legislation to develop clear rules and legal frameworks, with the participationof all stakeholders, to protect citizens against the misuse of personal data,
particularly countries with no legal tradition in these fields.
• The broad set of privacy-related issues described in the Background Report
should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder setting so as to define practices toaddress them.
• The policies governing the WHOIS databases should be revised to take into
account the existence of applicable privacy legislation in the countries of theregistrar and of the registrant.
• Policy and privacy requirements for global electronic authentication systems
should be defined in a multi-stakeholder setting; efforts should then be made

05.41622-19-

to develop open technical proposals for electronic authentication that meetsuch requirements.
84.

Consumer rights• Efforts should be made to render consumer protection laws and enforcement
mechanisms fully and practically applicable and to protect consumers during
the online purchase of physical and digital goods and online services,
especially in cross-border transactions.
• Efforts should be made to define global consumer rights industry standards,
applicable in the use and/or purchase of online services and digital goods.
These efforts should be agreed by all stakeholders and should take into
consideration applicable local laws and regulations on consumer protection,
IPR and other relevant matters.
• An ongoing multi-stakeholder assessment process for newly developed
technologies that may affect consumer rights should be created.

85.

Multilingualism(a)

Domain names:• Ensuring bottom-up and inclusive development of a transparent policy forthe introduction of multilingual domain names.
• Strengthening the participation and coordination of all Governments and all
stakeholders in the governance process. This is required to push forward thedevelopment and implementation of multilingual domain name solutions,
including multilingual e-mail addresses and key word lookup.
• Strengthening cooperation between IETF and IDN registries, 15 thus creatinga sound international environment for the further development of technicalstandards and action plan for global deployment.
(b)Content:• More effort should be put into developing content development tools tofacilitate the creation of multilingual content.
• Governments, the private sector and civil society are encouraged to promoteand create more content in local languages to be posted on the Internet.

__________________
15 See glossary.

05.41622

-20-

Annex
Membership and secretariat of the Working Group on
Internet Governance
Chairman
Nitin Desai
Special Adviser to the Secretary-General for the World Summit on the Information
Society (Delhi/Mumbai)
Members
Abdullah Al-Darrab
Deputy Governor of Technical Affairs, Communications and Information Technology
Commission of Saudi Arabia (Riyadh)
Carlos A. Afonso
Director of Planning, Information Network for the Third Sector;
Member, Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee; Member, Non-Commercial Users
Constituency (Rio de Janeiro)Peng Hwa Ang
Dean, School of Communication and Information,
Nanyang Technological University (Singapore)
Karen Banks
Networking and Advocacy Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications;
Director, GreenNet (London)
Faryel Beji
President and CEO, Tunisian Internet Agency (Tunis)
Vittorio Bertola
Chairman, ICANN At Large Advisory Committee; President and CTO, Dynamic Fun(Turin)José Alexandre Bicalho
Member, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee; Adviser to the Board of Directors of
the National Telecommunications Agency (Brasilia)
Kangsik Cheon
Chief Operating Officer, International Business Development, Netpia (Seoul)
Trevor Clarke
Permanent Representative of Barbados to the United Nations Office at Geneva (Geneva)
Avri Doria
Research Consultant (Providence, Rhode Island)
William Drake
President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility;
Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (Geneva)
Raúl Echeberría
Executive Director/CEO, Latin American and Caribbean Internet
Addresses Registry (Montevideo)

05.41622-21-

Dev Erriah
Chairman, ICT Authority of Mauritius (Port Louis)
Baher Esmat
Telecom Planning Manager, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
of Egypt (Cairo)
Juan Fernandez
Coordinator of the Commission of Electronic Commerce of Cuba (Havana)Ayesha Hassan
Senior Policy Manager for Electronic Business, IT and Telecommunications,International Chamber of Commerce (Paris)
David Hendon
Director of Business Relations, United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry(London)
Qiheng Hu
Adviser to the Science and Technology Commission of the Ministry of Information
Industry of China; Former Vice-President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Beijing)
Willy Jensen
Director General, Norwegian Post and Telecom Authority (Oslo)
Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Professor, International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus(Aarhus)Jovan Kurbalija
Director, DiploFoundation, Geneva/La Valletta (Geneva)
Iosif Charles LegrandSenior Scientist, California Institute of Technology (Pasadena, California)
Donald MacLean
Director, MacLean Consulting (Ottawa)
Allen Miller
Executive Director, World Information Technology and Services Alliance(Arlington, Virginia)
Jacqueline A. Morris
Consultant (Port of Spain)
Olivier Nana Nzépa
Coordinator, Africa Civil Society (Yaoundé)
Alejandro Pisanty
Director of Computing Academic Services, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico;
Vice-Chairman of the Board of ICANN (Mexico City)
Khalilullah Qazi
Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations Office at Geneva(Geneva)
Rajashekar Ramaraj
Managing Director, Sify Limited (Chennai (formerly Madras))

05.41622-22-

Masaaki Sakamaki
Director, Computer Communications Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications (Tokyo)
Joseph Sarr
President, NTIC Commission, Dakar Regional Council (Dakar)
Peiman SeadatCounsellor, Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations
Office at Geneva (Geneva)
Charles Sha’ban
Executive Director, Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property (Amman)
Lyndall Shope-Mafole
Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society andDevelopment of South Africa (Pretoria)
Waudo Siganga
Chairman, Computer Society of Kenya (Nairobi)
Juan Carlos Solines Moreno
Executive Director, Gobierno Digital (Quito)
Mikhail Yakushev
Director of legal support department, Ministry of Information Technology andCommunications of the Russian Federation (Moscow)Peter Zangl
Deputy Director-General, Directorate General Information Society and Media, European
Commission (Brussels)
Jean-Paul Zens
First Counsellor, Director of the Media and Telecom Department, Ministry of State of
Luxembourg (Luxembourg City)
Secretariat
Markus Kummer, Executive CoordinatorFrank March, Senior Programme Adviser
Tarek Cheniti, Consultant
Hind Eltayeb, Administrative AssistantRobert Shaw, part-time, seconded by ITU
Howard Williams, part-time, seconded by the University of StrathclydeDavid Satola, World Bank (part-time in his personal capacity)
Chengetai Masango, Intern (April-July 2005)
Chango Mawaki, Fellow, in association with DiploFoundation (June 2005)
Seiiti Arata, Fellow, in association with DiploFoundation (June 2005)
Dhrupad Mathur, Fellow, in association with DiploFoundation (June 2005)

05.41622-23-

Glossary
APEC

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

ASCII

American Standard Code for Information Interchange;
seven-bit encoding of the Roman alphabet

ccTLD

Country code top-level domain, such as .uk (United
Kingdom), .de (Germany) or .jp (Japan)

DNS

Domain name system: translates domain names into IP
addresses

GAC

Governmental Advisory Committee (to ICANN)

gTLD

Generic top-level domain, such as .com, .int, .net, .org,
.info

IANA

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

ICANN

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

ICT

Information and communication technology

ICT4D

Information and communication technology fordevelopment

IDN

Internationalized domain names: web addresses using a
non-ASCII character set

IETF

Internet Engineering Task Force

IGOs

Intergovernmental organizations

IP

Internet Protocol

IP Address

Internet Protocol address: a unique identifiercorresponding to each computer or device on an IP
network. Currently there are two types of IP addresses in
active use. IP version 4 (IPv4) and IP version 6 (IPv6).
IPv4 (which uses 32 bit numbers) has been used since
1983 and is still the most commonly used version.
Deployment of the IPv6 protocol began in 1999. IPv6
addresses are 128-bit numbers.

IPRs

Intellectual property rights

IPv4

Version 4 of the Internet Protocol

IPv6

Version 6 of the Internet Protocol

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

IXPs

Internet exchange points

MDGs

Millennium Development Goals

05.41622

-24-

NAPs

network access points

NGN

Next generation network

OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment

Registrar

A body approved ("accredited") by a registry tosell/register domain names on its behalf.

Registry

A registry is a company or organization that maintains acentralized registry database for the TLDs or for IP
address blocks (e.g. the RIRs — see below). Someregistries operate without registrars at all and some
operate with registrars but also allow direct registrations
via the registry.

RIRs

Regional Internet registries. These not-for-profit
organizations are responsible for distributing IP
addresses on a regional level to Internet service
providers and local registries.

Root servers

Servers that contain pointers to the authoritative nameservers for all TLDs. In addition to the “original” 13 root
servers carrying the IANA managed root zone file, there
are now large number of Anycast servers that provide
identical information and which have been deployedworldwide by some of the original 12 operators.

Root zone file

Master file containing pointers to name servers for all
TLDs

SMEs

Small and medium-sized enterprises

TLD

Top-level domain (see also ccTLD and gTLD)WGIGWorking Group on Internet Governance

WHOIS

WHOIS is a transaction oriented query/response protocolthat is widely used to provide information services toInternet users. While originally used by most (but not all)TLD Registry operators to provide “white pages”
services and information about registered domain names,
current deployments cover a much broader range of
information services, including RIR WHOIS look-ups for
IP address allocation information.

WSISWorld Summit on Information Society

WTO

World Trade Organization