Home / Blogs

To our readers: Does your company offer DNS or DNS Security services? CircleID has an opening for an exclusive sponsor for our DNS topic. Gain unparalleled results with our deep market integration. Get in touch: [email protected]

Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms

The Internet is at a crossroads. And while high-profile events like the introduction of new gTLDs and revelations about governments and online surveillance may be a catalyst for recent Internet governance reform initiatives, their necessity isn’t exactly new. After all, the current structures and processes in place were set up a decade and a half ago, an eternity in Internet years.

A key step in reviewing and renewing these structures is the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, announced at the recent ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. Last week I was in London for the first meeting of this panel to chart a path forward for the ongoing successful development of the Internet.

While the current Internet governance institutions were in large part responsible for getting the first two+ billion—mostly citizens of the developed world—online, they’re likely not the right ones to get the next two billion—the citizens of the developing world—online. Those new users reside in parts of the world that have political structures that are based in philosophical underpinnings that differ greatly from ours in the west.

That’s why I think the diversity of the panel members is noteworthy—not only are many sectors and industries represented, but geographic regions as well—panelists are all corners of the earth (you can view the panel’s membership here. With that said, it must be made clear that this panel is not meant to be representative. Rather, we are group of knowledgeable individuals who are committed to the success of the Internet, and as such have come together to identify significant, potential solutions for administrating the Internet.

The variety of industries represented is also noteworthy. From current and former world leaders to senior bureaucrats, the tech community and the private sector, the diversity of voices at the table is striking. As an ‘on-the-ground’ operator present at the table, I believe that I bring a unique and important perspective. Given the diversity of viewpoints on the panel, I am confident our collective insights will ensure whatever recommendations we make as a panel will work in the real world.

The first meeting was spent identifying the desirable traits for the future administration of the Internet. Within the current governance mechanisms, what do we need to keep? What’s missing? We all agreed that some enhanced role for governments is important to ensure the future success of the Internet. How do we accomplish this? And, since we’ve moved from a place where the Internet governance discussions are ‘how it’s used’ instead of ‘how it works,’ how do we address the inherent jurisdictional issues?

When we do engage voices like governments in more discussions, a funny thing happens; you start to realize that some of the issues dividing you are sometimes just a question of semantics. As a panel, we had a discussion about the term ‘governance’ that was demonstrative of the different worlds we are trying to bridge. In the political world, the term ‘governance’ is loaded, and carries with it ideas of power and authority, certainly not the same meaning that we in the Internet world have given it. Are the terms coordination and administration more helpful moving forward?

The task is lofty—to come up with possible mechanisms and arrangements to ensure the Internet delivers on its promise of prosperity to the whole world, not just the developed one. And for someone with a business background, I’m used to having an end goal in mind, and working backwards from there. These discussions work in the opposite way—we know our starting place but we need to work our way to the end goal. I find this approach somewhat freeing—it is a much more open process—and I believe more likely to succeed without an end goal in mind.

We will meet as a panel three times—the recent December meeting, once in February and once in May. At the end of February 2014 we’ll be releasing a high level report, and our ideas will be posted for comment and input. The much anticipated Brazil Internet summit will take place after our high-level report is released but before our work as a panel wraps up, so I’m sure our recommendations will form at least a part of the discussions there.

We are at a critical point in the ongoing development of the Internet. I believe it’s healthy to review an entity’s governance processes from time to time, and most certainly when we’re at an inflection point of sorts, as we currently are.

Much in the same way the National Hockey League has had to adapt the rules of hockey to accommodate faster, stronger, more technical players, we will have to adapt the mechanisms of the Internet governance world in the face of upcoming new players—new gTLDs, the addition of two billion new users and the effect of the NSA revelations. However, there are certain characteristics that can never change—the game of hockey is still played with 12 players on the ice and three periods. Any and all changes have to be for the benefit of the game, or in this case, the good of the Internet.

By Byron Holland, President and CEO of CIRA

Filed Under

CircleID Newsletter The Weekly Wrap

More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet


IG and sports Sergio Alves Jr  –  Jan 2, 2014 10:05 PM

Dear Mr. Holland,

Thanks for sharing your views on the panel. We very much look forward to the outcomes of this process.

After reading your comments on government participation, semantics and ice hockey, I thought of playing the picky one here to endorse your concerns on how challenging these Babel negotiations can be.

Although I like your analogy with the evolution of ice hockey rules (I had no idea the game was played by 12 nor in 3 periods), I deeply hope that whatever results from the several 2014 IG processes highly differs from this game. :)

“Ice Hockey”, Wikipedia
- “162 of 177 medals at the IIHF World Championships have been taken by seven nations: Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden and the United States. Of the 66 medals awarded in men’s competition at the Olympics from 1920, only six medals did not go to one of those countries. All 12 Olympic and 36 IIHF World Women’s Championships medals have gone to one of these seven countries, and every gold medal in both competitions has been won by either Canada or the United States.”

Taking advantage of the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil, maybe IG could look more like “soccer”, but not like FIFA at all. :)

“Soccer”, Wikipedia
- ““Association football, commonly known as football or soccer, is a sport played between two teams of eleven players with a spherical ball. It is played by 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world’s most popular sport. The game is played on a rectangular field with a goal at each end. The object of the game is to score by using any part of the body besides the arms and hands to get the football into the opposing goal.”

Good luck with the panel.

Sérgio Alves Jr.

Comment Title:

  Notify me of follow-up comments

We encourage you to post comments and engage in discussions that advance this post through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can report it using the link at the end of each comment. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of CircleID. For more information on our comment policy, see Codes of Conduct.



Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API


Sponsored byVerisign

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign

IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPv4.Global

Brand Protection

Sponsored byCSC