Internet Governance Structures

The rapid development of the internet has prompted a debate about how to shape internet governance, a project that is still very much in its infancy. It can be assumed that whoever controls the basic structure of the internet (what are known as “critical internet resources”) also has the power to exercise control over content. Hence the conceptualization of a suitable governance institution is of crucial importance for the future of the internet as a free means of communication. Whether this institution is linked to a specific state, a supranational organization, an international non-governmental organization or some kind of user- or supplier-determined group will be paramount for the guarantee of wise content regulation.

An internet governance body should be guided by principles that are acceptable for stakeholders from government, business and civil society.

These principles have to be accepted by the whole internet community. They could be derived from basic human rights, state security considerations, privacy and copyright rules and/or the desire to exploit the economic potential of the internet.

But the motives of different stakeholders often contradict each other. The most problematic case is when national security, political, ethical, commercial and religious reasons are brought forward to limit the diffusion of information and access to knowledge sources. Internet governance is supposed to reconcile these concerns with the free flow of information.

One of the pre-eminent features of the internet is its high potential for product, service and process innovation that can contribute substantially to economic growth. This potential can only be developed if commercial interests can be pursued through the networks. Hence, internet governance is not only a political concern but also an essentially economic concern.

What are the key values that should underpin internet governance? What would be adequate organizational arrangements to implement the guiding values at an international level? In what way are various technical stages of development and regulatory systems appropriate for creating solutions?

Is self-regulation of the internet (with private sector leadership) superior to government managed systems? What are the conditions for self-regulation to work? Would a supranational internet governance body with decision-making authority be an effective instrument for promoting management of the network that is both efficient and politically, socially and culturally balanced?