The basic problem posed by WSIS was the role of national governments and national sovereignty in global Internet governance. That conflict remains completely unresolved by the WSIS document. The document’s thinking is still based on the fiction that there is a clear divide between “public policy” and the “day to day operation” of the Internet, and assumes that governments should be fully in control of the policy-setting function. Moreover, new organizational arrangements are being put into place which will carry on that debate for another 5 years, at least. The new Internet Governance Forum is a real victory for the civil society actors, but also fails to resolve the basic issue regarding the role of governments and sovereignty. Although called for and virtually created by civil society actors, the language authorizing its creation asks to involve all stakeholders “in their respective roles.” In other words, we still don’t know whether this Forum will be based on true peer-peer based interactions among governments, business and civil society, or whether it will reserve special policy making functions to governments.

ICANN did not walk away from this unscathed. ICANN will be strongly affected by the deliberations of the Forum and by the continuing debate over the role of governments. The document in para 70 calls for “the development of globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical internet resources.” This is clearly the concept advanced by the European Union. The document goes on to “call upon the organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet”—read, ICANN—to contribute to creating an environment the facilitates the development of public policy principles.”

I interpret that as meaning that GAC will be strengthened, especially when read in conjunction with the recent letter from Vint Cerf to the head of GAC inviting him to discuss the role of governments in ICANN. So after all the ballyhoo coming from the US about the horrors of China or Syria or Saudi Arabia “controlling the Internet” through the UN, ICANN’s GAC will continue to evolve into a microcosm of the UN within ICANN’s structure, one that will presumably include China and Syrai and Saudi Arabia, etc. The new Internet Governance Forum is also in a position to facilitate the development of these principles. That would be a positive development, because it is more open, more legitimate, and has less power than ICANN, which has monopoly, state-like control over Internet resources. The Forum recommendations will only have the force of persuasion.

The story is being misinterpreted by the US media. Yahoo reports that “US to retain control of domain names” But this is badly framed. As some of us have been saying all along, there was never a credible threat that ICANN would be dismantled or replaced. The idea of a “UN takeover” was a bogeyman advanced by a few partisan interests to divert attention away from the real issues. The real issues with ICANN were always two things: 1) the US unilateral oversight role, and 2) the role of governments, as opposed to a multi-stakeholder process, in setting the public policies that would guide ICANN’s decisions. Regarding the US unilateral control, although WSIS itself was unable to do anything about US unilateral control, no one involved really thought that it would. Para 68 however recognizes that “all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet” - a direct slap at the US position. The real changes will come after WSIS. Regarding the role of governments in setting public policy, the WSIS document strengthens those who want governments to play a larger role in ICANN’s decisions.

On the whole, then the UN showed that it was unable to break out of the ongoing debate over Internet governance. The compromise reached was a simple matter of finding acceptable wording, even if it was self-contradictory or meaningless, and did not resolve the real political impasse.