European Commission Policy Statement Envisions Less U.S. Influence in Internet Governance

The EC statement, which will be discussed with the European Parliament and Council, aims to ensure that Europe speaks with one voice at upcoming Internet governance forums such as in Sao Paolo, Brazil, in April, the EU official said at the briefing. Europe expects to play a “strong, independent role” at those meetings, he said.

The statement: (1) Supports setting a coherent set of global Internet governance principles, consistent with fundamental rights and democratic values, with all stakeholders. (2) Promises to engage with stakeholders to beef up the World Summit on the Information Society’s Internet Governance Forum. (3) Commits the EC to help identify how to globalize the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions while protecting domain name system stability and security, and to establish a time-line for ICANN globalization. (4) Proposes to develop a global Internet policy observatory this year for monitoring Internet policymaking, regulations and technology to help identify links between different forums and discussions. (5) Agrees to launch an in-depth review of the risks at the international level of conflicts of laws and jurisdiction that arise on the Internet and assess what’s available to resolve them.

Asked why the EC is pressing for ICANN and IANA to be globalized, the EU official said it’s understandable that ICANN was launched as a U.S.-centric model, but that approach no longer corresponds to what the Internet has become. Considering how unrepresentative Internet management is and the revelations about mass U.S. surveillance, one could view the Internet as being under one country or set of countries and lose confidence in it, the official said. The EC doesn’t want the U.S. to have the only say in changes to the domain name system (DNS) root zone, a second EU official said at the briefing. The policy proposal, however, doesn’t “call for any new international legal instrument to address the issues of Internet governance,” the document said.

What makes the EC think the current situation will change? The commission has been working with its partners, including the U.S., and there appears to be more recognition now of the problems that could arise if Internet governance doesn’t become more transparent, the first EU official said. ICANN is considering the issue and there are signs that the U.S. government is, too, he said. That’s driven by fears that if the multistakeholder model isn’t strengthened, other organizations will step in, he said. The EC wants a clear timetable for a solution, he said.

ICANN doesn’t feel threatened by talk of globalization, Hickson said in an interview. The EC has set out “a challenging agenda” and ICANN is happy that it has endorsed the multistakeholder approach, he said. ICANN has been becoming more global for 18 months but the EC obviously wants it to go faster, something ICANN will think about, he said.

Globalization means more than setting up offices in different places, Hickson said. In “EC-speak” it means an evolving of ICANN’s relationship with the U.S., including an affirmation of commitments that involve more than just the U.S. government. That could mean agreements with other governments and/or stakeholders, he said. Asked if it’s practical for ICANN and the IANA functions to disentangle themselves from the U.S., Hickson said the U.S. Congress could probably pass legislation to change the relationship, but it would have to be done in a way that satisfies both political parties.

The EC feels the need to more clearly define the role of public authorities in Internet governance, the first EU official said. They can and do play a positive role in democratic societies by safeguarding rights, cultural interests and so on, he said. That role is rooted in the multistakeholder model, he said.

The U.S. was nervous about the content of the policy statement but should feel reassured that although the EC is taking an independent position, it wants to preserve the multistakeholder model, the first EU official said. The EC will seek U.S. input on the communication, he said.

The U.S. “welcomes the strong and continued commitment of the European Commission to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance,” NTIA Administrator Lawrence Strickling said in a statement. NTIA will work with the EC and other stakeholders to make multistakeholder governance more inclusive, especially to support the engagement of developing countries, he said. Moreover, NTIA “has long encouraged further globalization of ICANN” as shown by its work over the past five years to make the Internet body more accountable and transparent, he said.

Asked if the EC expects any push-back from EU lawmakers or governments, the first EU official said no. There were tensions during the development of the policy because some countries feared it might cut across other policy areas, while others worried it might play into the hands of repressive nations, but the EC is confident it has gotten the statement right, the official said. “There is no coordinated Council view on this communication,” a council press officer told us. It hasn’t been discussed and isn’t on the agenda, so it’s up to individual governments to express their views if they desire, she said.

The communication is positive because it shows the EC believes in the same principles as the Internet Society (ISOC) does -- inclusion, transparency and the multistakeholder process, said ISOC European Regional Bureau Director Frédéric Donck in an interview. The EC wants ICANN to be more independent of the U.S. government and its statement seeks to influence the upcoming decision on whether to renew the IANA contract, he said. A “good surprise” was that the EC didn’t call for any other body to take over Internet governance, he said.

"We need more Europe in Internet governance, or we won’t be able to make an impact at global level,” said European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association Chairman Luigi Gambardella. ETNO supports the multistakeholder model but thinks some changes are needed, such as a better definition of the roles of public authorities and stakeholders, it said.

Internet governance may be perceived as U.S.-centric, but it’s hard to see how the U.S. role in the IANA function has been negative, said Mitchell Silberberg partner Steven Metalitz, vice president of ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency. Having a single DNS root means someone has to make and execute decisions about what goes into it, he said. Under the current system, the U.S. government decides and VeriSign executes. The emphasis on the importance of a single root zone means the buck has to stop somewhere, he said. Turning over the decision to a group of governments and/or stakeholders may not be better than what we have now, he said. If the system changes, “let’s make sure we don’t make it worse.” Metalitz also said linking Edward Snowden’s revelations about mass spying to the U.S. role in Internet governance is a “red herring.”