Home / Blogs

A Month in Africa Charts the Promise and Perils of Internet Governance

There may be no better illustration of how far we’ve come in Internet governance, than this: twice in the past 30 days, the global Internet community has gathered in sub-Saharan Africa to plot a path to bring the Internet to its next billion users. Just weeks after wrapping up the sixth annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Kenya, Internet stakeholders from around the world traveled back to Africa for ICANN’s 42nd meeting in Dakar, Senegal.

Fifteen years ago, nearly every important decision about the Internet was made in the United States. But in less than thirty days, the African continent will have hosted two of the most important global Internet policy events of the year.

In less than a decade, we have witnessed the emergence of something truly unprecedented. The model represented by ICANN and the IGF is the first to put the management of a critical global resource in the hands of the very people who use it.

The multi-stakeholder experiment begun in the late 1990s has scored enough successes to become a blueprint for other global initiatives. Successes like ICANN’s scheduled expansion of top-level domains, growing crowds at each IGF global meeting, and the spontaneous appearance of regional and national IGFs.

As with any progressive change, this revolutionary governance model is not without its critics. Some of us naively hoped that as the multi-stakeholder model racked up successes and built its track record for ensuring the stability and functionality of the Internet, it might rise above reproach.

But as I say, that was a naive hope. Attacks on the multi-stakeholder model are coming fast and from multiple quarters.

Traditional power brokers in some governments seek to squelch an emerging model that asks them to participate as equals rather than rulers. Two proposals surfaced over those eventful past 30 days: one from Russia, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan; and another by India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA). These proposals would consolidate power for global Internet oversight in the hands of state actors, and by extension reduce the role of nongovernmental stakeholders in industry and civil society.

The IBSA proposal is particularly insidious. Without mentioning ICANN or the IGF directly, it calls for creating a new body within the United Nations to oversee Internet policy. What the proposal does not say, but what is clearly inferred, is that existing, multi-stakeholder bodies like the IGF and ICANN would either be marginalized and/or subjugated by this new UN entity.

If I can offer one observation to my fellow travelers in the multi-stakeholder community, it is this: we’ve become dangerously complacent about the inevitability of an Internet management model where we have a significant say about policies. In reality, our individual efforts and earnestness are not enough to defend us from those who would replace our model with the top-down tradition favored by governments. If we cannot deliver enforceable policies to maintain security and integrity of the Internet, we will be replaced.

At the IGF In Nairobi, I cited the multi-species cooperation at a watering hole on the African savannah as a lesson for our own multi-stakeholder community to follow. If there’s one thing you notice about the apparent calm at the watering hole, it’s how the animals are persistently watchful for external threats. Animals that fail to cooperate in collective vigilance and defense endanger themselves and at most a few other unlucky victims in the herd.

But when it comes to defending the multi-stakeholder model, a lack of attention and cooperation puts the whole species at permanent risk of extinction.

By Steve DelBianco, Executive Director at NetChoice

Filed Under


So now what? Lesley Cowley  –  Oct 24, 2011 6:43 AM

I blogged recently about the debate on ‘areas for improvement’ for ICANN and the IGF playing into the hands of those who would prefer a more authoritarian model here.

So, I do not think we’re all complacent, but it does seems to me that we currently lack a strategy and a plan for the way forward. There is a time-limited opportunity for supportive governments, ICANN and members of the ICANN community to work together on this challenge perhaps?

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.

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




Sponsored byVerisign

IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPv4.Global


Sponsored byDNIB.com

Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign

New TLDs

Sponsored byRadix

Brand Protection

Sponsored byCSC