Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Internet governance : the next steps
Date: 2009-06-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU programme, European cooperation, Internet, disclosure of information, information technology

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 18.6.2009 
COM(2009) 277 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Internet governance: the next steps 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Internet governance: the next steps 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Internet  governance  has  been  the  subject  of  international  discussions  since  the  mid-1990s, 
with  the  EU  being  an  ‘early  mover’  in  terms  of  identifying  key  public  policy  issues  to  be 
discussed between EU Member States and with international partner countries.  

Since then, governance of the Internet continues  to be  a crucial public policy priority  given 
the way in which the Internet has transformed the lives and working environments of millions 
of  European  citizens.  The  EU  has  for  example  just  over  7 %  of  the  world’s  population,  but 
nearly  19 %  of  the  world’s  Internet  users1.  The  Internet  has  become  a  ubiquitous  tool  for 
commerce,  education,  social  services  and  everyday  social  interaction.  Human-to-human 
interactions  are  now  increasingly  supplemented  by  machine-to-machine  interactions  —  the 
so-called  ‘Internet  of  things’  —  that  underpin  important  activities  even  when  we  may  be 
unaware that the Internet is involved. 

2. 

WHY IS INTERNET GOVERNANCE IMPORTANT?  

In the last twenty years, the Internet has had a tremendous impact on society. Already by the 
mid-1990s,  what  had  originally  been  a  small-scale  scientific  research  network  had  been 
transformed  into  a  truly  global  communications  platform.  Since  then,  governments  have 
increasingly found themselves challenged with a whole host of public policy issues, ranging 
from finding ways to ensure their own citizens can fully benefit from the Internet’s potential, 
to dealing with inappropriate or illegal content, the need for appropriate consumer protection 
measures and addressing problems of jurisdiction in an increasingly globalised on-line world. 

Importantly, Internet usage and penetration is now so high, especially in developed countries 
such as those of the EU, that it has become a critical resource, where any serious disruption 
in  service  can  have  potentially  catastrophic  effects  on  society  and  the  economy.  Whole 
business  models  are  now  built  on  the  assumption  of  near-continuous  availability  of  Internet 
connectivity.  Many  government  and  financial  services  have  also  already  migrated  so 
extensively  to  the  Internet  that  any  significant  service  disruption  could  seriously  inhibit  the 
access of citizens to key services.  

Most Internet users in the EU therefore have a legitimate expectation about the reliability of 
‘their Internet’. Users will also inevitably turn to their governments if there is any major 
national  disruption  to  their  Internet  service,  and  not  to  the  various  Internet  governance 
bodies responsible for coordinating resources.  

1 

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats9.htm. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

THE SUCCESS OF THE INTERNET 

3.1. 

An open and interoperable architecture 

The early history of the Internet reflects its origins in research and academia. Decisions about 
what  we  now  understand  as  ‘governance’  were  made  by  engineers  and  scientists.  To  the 
benefit  of  millions  of  subsequent  Internet  users,  this  resulted  in  an  open  and  interoperable 
architecture,  where  efficiencies  and  reliability  were  achieved  by  distributing  intelligence  to 
the edges of the network. As long as relatively simple protocols were respected, any network 
could connect with any other network.  

This  has  allowed  innovation  to  occur  from  anywhere,  including  from  individual  users  and 
completely  new  actors  uninhibited  by  significant  entry  barriers.  Moreover,  the  distributed 
nature of the global Internet is also a key security strength since any localised failure is less 
likely to interfere with traffic elsewhere.  

The  success  of  this  open  and  neutral  architecture  led  to  many  other  actors  exploiting  the 
inherent flexibility and efficiency of the Internet to deliver services and use it as a platform 
for their own innovations.  

3.2. 

Private-sector leadership 

As  the  Internet  migrated  from  academia  to  society  at  large,  the  private  sector  in  particular 
assumed  an  important  leadership  role  in  providing  the  necessary  investment,  expertise  and 
entrepreneurial  initiative  to  drive  forward  the  rate  of  innovation  and  scope  of  Internet 
deployment  that  we  see  today.  It  is  the  private  sector  that  owns  and  operates  most  of  the 
international  backbone  infrastructure,  the  national  cable  networks,  and  provides  the  various 
services  that  facilitate  and  manage  traffic.  Many  of  the  technical  rules  that  underlie  the 
functioning of the Internet are drawn up by the Internet Engineering Task Force, IETF, again 
not a governmental body. The allocation of IP addresses at regional level is carried out also by 
private entities such as RIPE NCC2, which covers the European region3. This private-sector 
leadership  continues  to  deliver  important  public  policy  objectives  and  needs  to  be 
maintained and supported. 

3.3. 

The multi-stakeholder model 

Another aspect of Internet governance that has contributed to its success to date has been the 
use of multi-stakeholder processes to initiate and develop consensus on Internet governance 
policies.  The  Internet  Governance  Forum  is  a  good  example  of  such  a  multi-stakeholder 
forum. 

4. 

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

The  Internet’s  growing  importance  for  society  as  a  whole,  however,  increasingly  requires 
governments  to  be  more  actively  involved  in  the  key  decision  making  that  underlies  the 
Internet’s development.  

2 
3 

Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre 
And indeed further afield, covering Europe as a whole, central Asia and the Middle East. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
It  is  also  important  to  recognise  that  public  attitudes  have  changed  towards  the  concept  of 
self-regulation  in  the  wake  of  the  financial  crisis.  When  critical  resources  are  concerned, 
whether  they  are  banking  systems  or  Internet  infrastructure  and  services,  there  is  now  a 
higher  and  understandable  expectation  that  governments  will  be  more  proactive  than 
they may have been in the past in defending the public interest.  

Continuing to pursue an exclusively ‘back-seat’ approach to the development of international 
Internet governance practices is therefore not an option. However, this does not mean that 
governments need to have any stronger role in managing or controlling the day-to-day 
operation of the Internet.  

Private-sector leadership in the construction and day-to-day management of the Internet that 
we  know  today  has  worked  well.  As  noted  before,  this  private-sector  initiative  must  be 
maintained.  But  non-governmental  stakeholders  must  recognise  that  Internet  users  world-
wide  —  most  of  whom  do  not  participate  and  are  not  otherwise  represented  in  Internet 
governance fora — have a legitimate expectation that their governments will guarantee that 
any current or future governance arrangements will reflect the public interest of society as a 
whole and will not be subject to capture by narrow commercial or regional interests. Private-
sector  leadership  and  effective  public  policies  are  not  mutually  exclusive.  A  strong  and 
clear  public  policy  framework  can  also  help  create  a  predictable  environment  conducive  to 
investment by identifying public policy targets that will be supported and ‘red lines’ that must 
not  be  crossed.  This  includes  the  need  for  governments  to  be  able  to  verify  whether  those 
principles are followed and thus entails a requirement for accountability of the private entities 
dealing with everyday Internet operations. 

5. 

WHAT IS THE ROLE FOR THE EU?  

As  mentioned  above,  the  EU  has  been  in  the  forefront  of  international  discussions  on  the 
management  of  the  Internet  since  such  discussions  first  began.  The  earliest  communication 
from the Commission on this subject came in 19984 and the European Union was a leading 
actor  in  the  discussions  on  Internet  governance  in  the  context  of  the  World  Summit  on  the 
Information Society (WSIS) between 2003 and 2005. In addition, the EU was an active and 
influential  actor  in  the  international  discussions  surrounding  the  setting-up  of  the  Internet 
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)5 in the late 1990s and the shaping of 
the  objectives  for  the  organisation.  The  Commission  Communication  in  April  2000  on  the 
organisation and management of the Internet6 and the Council Resolution of 3 October 20007 
noted, however, that the objectives which the European Union had set itself on domain name 
management were not seen as fully achieved, inter alia in relation to the following issues: 

•  the  nature  of,  and  arrangements  for,  balanced  and  equal  oversight  of  some  of  ICANN’s 

activities by public authorities, 

4 

5 
6 
7 

COM(98)  111,  20.2.1998  ‘International  policy  issues  related  to  Internet  governance’  (followed  by 
subsequent  communications  on  the  same  subject  later  in  the  same  year:  COM(1998)  476,  29.7.1998, 
and then again in 2000: COM(2000) 202, 11.4.2000). 
See 8.2. 
COM(2000) 202. 
OJ C 293, 14.10.2000, p. 3. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  the  rules  to  govern  generic  domains,  notably  database  ownership  and  separation  of 

registries’ and registrars’ activities, 

•  the  transfer  of  the  management  of  the  root  server  system  from  the  US  Department  of 
Commerce to ICANN, under appropriate international supervision by public authorities.  

Not all aspects of those issues can be considered as having been addressed in a satisfactory 
way to date.  

In  the  interim,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  EU  initiative  to  set  up  its  own  Top  Level 
Domain  ‘.eu’  has  been  a  major  success,  with  more  than  3  million  EU  domain  names 
registered to date.  

6. 

THE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE 

The  EU  has  also  always  given  political  priority  to  the  developmental  aspects  of  Internet 
governance, and the importance of bridging the ‘digital divide’. The first billion Internet users 
have  been  largely  from  the  developed  world,  and  the  initial  governance  decisions  and 
structures were, not surprisingly, mostly made by participants from developed countries. The 
next billion users will mostly come from the developing world, however, and their interests 
must be taken into account in any governance arrangements made for the future. 

7. 

INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES 

The  experience  of  the  last  10  years  demonstrates  the  viability  of  the  policy  approach 
advocated by the EU for Internet governance so far. The Commission believes in maintaining 
the EU’s strong emphasis on the need for security and stability of the global Internet, the 
respect  for  human  rights,  freedom  of  expression,  privacy,  protection  of  personal  data 
and the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity.  

In  addition,  the  key  principles  enabling  the  success  of  the  Internet  promoted  by  the  EU 
remain: 

•  The open, interoperable and ‘end-to-end’ nature of the Internet’s core architecture must be 

respected. This was stressed by the Council in 20058 and reiterated in 20089. 

•  Private-sector  leadership  of  day-to-day  Internet  management  needs  to  be  maintained  but 
private  bodies  responsible  for  the  coordination  of  global  Internet  resources  need  to  be 
accountable  to  the  international  community  for  their  actions.  The  role  of  governments 
should be mainly focused on principle issues of public policy, excluding any involvement 
in the day-to-day operations. 

•  The  multi-stakeholder  process  on  Internet  governance  continues  to  provide  an  inclusive 
and  effective  mechanism  for  promoting  global  cooperation  and  needs  to  be  further 
encouraged. 

8 
9 

Cf. document 10285/05 (Presse 156). 
Conclusions  of  the  telecommunications  Council  of  26-27  June  2005  regarding  the  WSIS,  and  of  28 
November 2008 regarding ‘Future networks and the Internet’ (COM(2008) 594). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Governments  need  to  fully  interact  with  such  multi-stakeholder  processes,  with 
stakeholders accepting that it is governments alone who are ultimately responsible for the 
definition and implementation of public policies. 

•  Internet governance arrangements need to be fully inclusive, addressing the urgent need to 
improve the participation of developing countries in the key governance decision-making 
fora.  

8. 

INTERNET NAMING AND ADDRESSING 

8.1. 

How naming and addressing works 

A central management function necessary to ensure that the global Internet functions properly 
is  the  coordination  of  its  ‘naming  and  addressing’  resources.  With  so  much  traffic  passing 
through  the  global  Internet  each  day,  it  is  very  important  that  individuals’  devices  can  be 
reliably identified so that Internet packets go to the right place.  

The  process  of  communication  is  further  facilitated  by  the  association  of  many  of  the 
numerical addresses used for this purpose with unique Internet ‘domain names’. Such domain 
names have become increasingly popular in recent years, and there are now over 170 million 
domain names registered10 world-wide under about 270 ‘Top Level Domains’.  

8.2. 

IANA 

For historical reasons, the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) functions relating to 
the  main  global  naming  and  addressing  resources  are  carried  out  in  the  United  States  of 
America. As the Internet became more expansive and central to economic and social activity, 
the  United  States  government  decided  in  the  late  1990s  to  contract11  related  services  from 
ICANN, a private-sector non-profit organisation.  

The  current  situation  regarding  these  functions  was  recently  reviewed  by  the  international 
community  within  the  context  of  the  WSIS,  where  it  was  agreed  that  "Policy  authority  for 
Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States". It was also agreed that 
""Countries  should  not  be  involved  in  decisions  regarding  another  country’s  country-code 
Top-Level Domain (ccTLD)" 12. 

8.3. 

ICANN 

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, was set up in 1998 and 
was  created  as  a  unique  experiment  in  self-governance  with  an  ambitious  agenda  to  bring 
together all the relevant stakeholders to cooperate on the coordination of these resources. 

The  EU  was  an  active  partner  in  this  process,  expressing  conditional  support  for  the  US 
government initiative on the basis that the coordination of such key resources would primarily 
rest with the private sector that operates the resources on a day-to-day basis, but ultimately be 

10 
11 
12 

Source: Verisign ‘Domain Name Industry Brief’, February 2009. 
See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana/ianacontract_081406.pdf. 
Paragraphs 35 and 63 of the Tunis Agenda. See: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
properly accountable to the international community as a whole and managed in the broader 
public interest for the benefit of Internet users world-wide. 

ICANN  has  now  completed  its  first  ten  years.  In  September  2009  the  latest  in  a  series  of 
agreements between ICANN and the US government regarding its objectives will come to an 
end. It is an appropriate time therefore for the EU to review the progress of ICANN to 
date, and to identify what changes if any may be desirable. 

8.4. 

The Joint Project Agreement (JPA) 

The  indication  by  the  US  government  in  2006  that  the  current  agreement  should be the last 
such  agreement  with  ICANN  was  largely  welcomed  by  the  international  community 
(including  the  EU).  At  the  same  time,  the  US  government  has  consistently  indicated  that  it 
will  maintain  effective  control  of  the  coordination  of  key  global  naming  and  addressing 
functions  and  this  is  likely  to  mean  that  the  problem  regarding  the  ‘unilateral  oversight’  of 
such resources will remain unresolved.  

8.5. 

How has ICANN performed in its first ten years? 

Undoubtedly, the experience of ICANN to date in its first 10 years has provided a rich range 
of  issues  for  analysis.  It  is  important  to  note  at  the  outset  that  the  stability  of  the  Domain 
Name System has been maintained during this period and this is a key objective that ICANN 
and the US government can confidently claim to have fulfilled. The creation of a broad multi-
stakeholder forum for inclusive policy making is also a feature of ICANN’s activities that has 
been valuable. 

At the same time, while ICANN has been successful in demonstrating what is possible with 
such a model, it has also been useful in delineating the limitations of such a model.  

One example is that the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of ICANN does not yet 
comprise  the  full  community  of  states  and  is  thus  exposed  to  criticism  regarding  its 
representativeness.  It  has,  however,  issued  a  number  of  substantive  principles  on  important 
public  policy  questions,  e.g.  on  country  code  Top  Level  Domains,  new  generic  Top  Level 
Domains and Whois principles. At the same time concern has been expressed about the due 
consideration  given  by  the  ICANN  Board  to  GAC  advice.  A  further  example  relates  to 
possible competition concerns which may arise from the position of ICANN, a private sector 
body, as a monopoly supplier of certain services. 

8.6.  What is meant by ‘accountability’ in the ICANN context? 

Accountability  means  an  organisation  such  as  ICANN  being  answerable  for  its  decisions. 
ICANN  has  recently  devoted  significant  efforts  to  reviewing  arrangements  for  its  internal 
accountability  —  i.e.  the  accountability  to  those  who  actively  participate  in  each  of  the 
various ICANN constituencies. The problem is that the vast majority of Internet users do not 
participate  in  ICANN  activities.  There  is  therefore  a  need  to  ensure  that  ICANN  is 
accountable externally to the global Internet community, which in the first instance (partly by 
virtue of the absence of alternatives in many countries) means being accountable externally to 
the governments of the various countries of the world. 

The only external accountability that ICANN currently has is to the US government under the 
JPA  and  the  IANA  contract,  but  this  provides  only  for  unilateral  accountability  to  a  single 
government.  The  stability  and  management  of  the  root  zone  file  is,  however,  a  matter  of 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
crucial importance not just to the US government but to all countries of the world. However, 
there is no international consensus on the creation of a new intergovernmental organisation to 
exercise  such  oversight  or  on  the  delegation  of  such  responsibilities  to  any  existing 
organisation.  An  alternative  would  be  to  make  ICANN  externally  accountable  so  that  each 
government can exercise in their own interest those responsibilities which should properly sit 
at their level.  

8.7. 

Are there other issues that need to be addressed? 

The  legal  structure  and  incorporation  of  ICANN  under  Californian  law  poses  problems, 
including  conflicts  of  applicable  law  and  jurisdictions.  In  addition,  legitimate  concerns 
remain13  as  to  whether  a  governmental  committee  advising  a  private  corporation  is  an 
appropriate  and  effective  mechanism  to  enable  governments  to  exercise  their  public  policy 
responsibilities.  Moreover,  the  self-regulatory  approach  as  practised  by  ICANN  means  that 
incumbent  operators  play  a  potentially  inappropriate  role  (e.g.  from  the  standpoint  of 
competition policy) in setting entry conditions for new competitors.  

9. 

MOVING THE AGENDA FORWARD 

Translating  public  policy  principles  into  action  will  require  concerted  efforts  to  create  an 
inclusive  dialogue  to  develop  effective  accountability  mechanisms  which  ensure  that 
principles are duly implemented. The deliberations and reflections on governance should also 
be  designed  to  be  ‘future  proof’.  In  particular,  the  results  of  such  reflections  should  be 
adaptable  to  prospective  future  developments  of  the  Internet,  including  the  ‘Internet  of 
things’. 

To  this  end,  the  Commission  proposes  that  the  EU  should  actively  engage  its  international 
partners  in  discussions  on  how  to  stimulate  and  support  intergovernmental  dialogue  and 
cooperation  to  implement  the  public  policy  principles  agreed  for  Internet  governance  in  the 
WSIS beyond the existing work carried out through action lines. 

The  starting  point  for  such  discussions  should  be  the  need  to  maintain  private-sector 
leadership in all matters of the day-to-day management of the Internet. The multi-stakeholder 
process must also be encouraged wherever possible.  

At  the  same  time,  public  policies  for  key  global  Internet  resources  (especially  those  that 
require global coordination) need to be based on multilateral intergovernmental cooperation.  

One element of an evolution of the current governance system could be the completion of an 
internal ICANN reform leading to full accountability and transparency. 

As regards external accountability, the current arrangements for unilateral oversight in regard 
to  ICANN  and  IANA  need  to  be  replaced  with  an  alternative  mechanism  to  ensure  that 
ICANN has multilateral accountability.  

This should be part of an evolutionary approach to allow governments to duly exercise their 
responsibilities. In this context, the question will need to be addressed of how to ensure that 

13 

As illustrated by the continued absence of several major countries from the GAC and the fundamental 
criticisms that continue to be made by several countries that actively participate. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the legal character of ICANN’s incorporation in California does not prevent  proper account 
being taken of governmental input. 

In  addition,  the  EU  should  take  a  leadership  role  in  working  towards  the  goal  of  increased 
security and stability of the Internet by initiating dialogue with international partners.  

Finally, the Commission also proposes that the EU should seek to initiate discussions with the 
US  government  on  how  a  more  equitable  arrangement  might  be  found  for  oversight  of  the 
management of IANA which respects the national priorities of the US while at the same time 
reflecting the legitimate expectations and interests of the international community.  

EN 

9 

   EN