Since more than two decades „Internet Governance“ is a controversial issue on the global political agenda. During the first phase of the UN World Summit on the Information Society (2002 – 2003) the controversy circled around the question, whether the Internet should be managed by governments (China) or by the private sector (USA). The UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was established by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2004 with the mandate, to bridge this conflict, rejected the concept of „single stakeholder leadership“. It concluded that the Internet is too big to be managed by one stakeholder-group or one organisation alone and proposed a „multistakeholder approach“.

The WGIG-Definition

The working definition, which was adopted by the Heads of States in the WSIS Tunis Agenda in November 2005, states that „Internet Governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.“^[1]

This WGIG-definition was a „broad definition“ which included both the management of the so-called critical (technical) Internet resources as well as the management of the Internet related public policy issues.

The WGIG-definition was reaffirmed ten years later by the High Level Meeting of the 70th UN General Assembly on the overall review of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes which also stated in UN-Resolution 70/125 (2015): “We reaffirm, moreover, the value and principles of multi-stakeholder cooperation and engagement that have characterized the World Summit on the Information Society process since its inception, recognizing that effective participation, partnership and cooperation of Governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, the technical and academic communities and all other relevant stakeholders, within their respective roles and responsibilities, especially with balanced representation from developing countries, has been and continues to be vital in developing the information society.“^[2]

At the time of the WSIS in 2005, Internet Governance was seen primarily as a technical issue with political implications. 15 years later the Internet has penetrated all spheres of policy, economy and society. Today Internet Governance is a political issue with a technical component.

Some people have compared the Internet Governance Ecosystem with a "virtual rainforest," where an endless and growing diversity of networks, services, applications, regimes and other properties co-exist in a mutual interdependent mechanism of communication, coordination, and collaboration. Many players with very different legal status operate on many different layers — on local, national, regional and international levels — driven by technical innovation, user needs, market opportunities and political interests. This has led to a broad variety of different regulatory, co-regulatory or self-regulatory regimes which co-exist, complement or conflict each other. The system as a whole is decentralized, diversified and has no central authority. However, within the various subsystems there is an incredible broad variety of different sub-mechanisms which range from hierarchical structures under single or inter-governmental control to non-hierarchical networks based on self-regulatory mechanisms by non-governmental groups with a wide range of co-regulatory arrangements in between where affected and concerned stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and technical community are working hand in hand.

There is no "one size fits all"

There is no "one size fits all" solution. The specific form of each sub-system has to be designed according to the very specific needs and nature of the individual issue. In such a mechanism, traditional national legislation and intergovernmental agreements continue to play a role but have to be embedded into the broader multistakeholder environment while new emerging mechanisms have to take note and recognize existing frameworks and regulations on various levels. The "do-not-harm" principle becomes more important than ever. It means that whatever a governmental or non-governmental player will do on the Internet has to take into consideration its direct or indirect consequences for not involved third parties as well as the unintended side-effects for the system as a whole.

Such a competitive coexistence of rather different regimes and mechanisms creates opportunities but has also risks. There are incredible opportunities for new mechanisms, platforms, and services to bring more dynamic into political strategies, social actions and market developments. This competitive coexistence can stimulate innovation, promote job creation, enlarge all kinds of cultural activities and broaden the use of individual freedoms by the public at large both in developed and developing nations. But there is also a risk that differences between regimes and systems create controversies and produce heavy conflicts which include the threat to turn down innovation, hamper sustainable development, militarize cyberspace, reduce individual freedoms and pollute the Internet Governance Eco-System in a way that parts of it will be damaged or destroyed.

However, for many years the global Internet discussions were overshadowed by the question whether Internet related issues could be better solved by multilateral treaties or by multistakeholder arrangements. „Multistakeholderism“ is not yet defined. There is no single „multistakeholder model“. The reference in the WGIG-definition to the „respective roles“ of stakeholders give policy makers a certain flexibility in finding individual solutions for concrete issues. Nevertheless, the multistakholder approach got step by step universal acceptance on the highest political level .

G7, G20 & BRICS

Already in 2011 the G8 summit meeting In Deauville (which included the Russian president Dimitrij Medwedew) made a clear statement in support of the multistakeholder approach. The „G8 Declaration: Renewed Commitment for Freedom and Democracy“ stated in Chapter II.17ff. „As we support the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora dealing with the governance of the Internet…. The security of networks and services on the Internet is a multi-stakeholder issue. It requires coordination between governments, regional and international organizations, the private sector, civil society und the technical community.“ The G8 recognized also the role of governments „informed by a full range of stakeholders, in helping to develop norms of behaviour and common approaches in the use of cyberspace.“^[3]

Five years later, in 2016, the G20 summit meeting in the Chinese city of Hangzhou reiterated the commitment to the multistakeholder approach. The „G20 Digital Economy Development and Cooperation Initiative“ stated in Chapter II, 5b: „Internet governance should continue to follow the provisions set forth in outcomes of World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). In particular, we affirm our commitment to a multistakeholder approach to Internet governance, which includes full and active participation by governments, private sector, civil society, the technical community, and international organizations, in their respective roles and responsibilities. We support multistakeholder processes and initiatives which are inclusive, transparent and accountable to all stakeholders in achieving the digitally connected world.”^[4]

Also the five leaders of the BRICS countries committed themselves to the multistakeholder approach. The „BRICS Leaders Xiamen Declaration“ (2017) stated in paragraph 57: „We believe that all states should participate on an equal footing in the evolution and functioning of the Internet and its governance, bearing in mind the need to involve relevant stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities.“^[5]

As said above, there is no single multistakehoder model. This flexible language of the WGIG-definition has helped to develop a broad variety of different „multistakeholder practices“ in dealing with Internet related technical and public policy issues.

It was the „Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance“, also known as NETmundial, in Sao Paulo, April 2016 which defined a number of characteristics for a multistakeholder process. The Sao Paulo Statement said „that Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.“ And it referred to characteristics as openness, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, equitability, decentralization, collaboration, meaningful participation, agility, access and low entry barriers.^[6]

Multilateralism & Multistakeholderism

Based on those characteristics, we have now a broad variety of different approaches which reach form sharing policy development and decision making on equal footing among all stakeholders until a more differentiated system of open consultations between state and non-state actors.

In Internet related technical issues - as the development of Internet protocols, the management of the domain name system and IP addresses as well as the operation of the root server system - it is mainly the technical community and the private sector, which take the lead in policy development and decision making. However, governments are involved, as in ICANN via the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).

In Internet related public policy issues - as cybersecurity, digital trade or human rights - it is mainly the governments which negotiate treaties. But intergovernmental organisations of the UN system have broaden their consultations with non-state actors from the private sector, civil society and the technical community. One recent example is UN resolution 73/27 (2018), which established an Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) on cybersecurity under the 1st Committee of the UNGA. The resolution included a paragraph which provides the possibility of holding intersessional consultative meetings with industry, non-governmental organizations and academia. Also the UN Human Rights Council has regular consultations with non-state actors. Another example are the two UNCSTD Working Groups on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC/2013 – 2018) where state and non-state actors participated on equal footing.^[7] The UNCSTD is the intergovernmental UN body which oversees the implementation of the WSIS decisions.

A number of other intergovernmental organisations - as the OECD – have in recent years introduced subsidiary bodies where representatives from business, civil society and the technical community have an opportunity to contribute to Internet related policy development.

Various expert groups , as the Global Commission on Internet Governance (2015 – 2016) and the Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace (2017b – 2019) have further elaborated the concept of a multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance.

Furthermore, a number of private sector companies – as Microsoft and Siemens – have started their own political initiatives and have produced documents like the „Tech Accord“ (April 2018) and the Charter of Trust (February 2018). The Paris Peace Forum, which remembered the 100th anniversary of the end of World War One in November 2018, produced with the „Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace“ a new type of document which includes commitments both for state and non-state actors. The Paris Call, which was signed by nearly more than 50 governments and hundreds of non-state actors, including big Internet corporations, defined nine norms fort the good behaviour of state and non.-state actors in cyberspace, including the norm to protect „the general availability or integrity of the public core of the Internet.“^[8]

The UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation discussed at length the relationship between „Multilateralism“ and „Multistakeholderism“ and concluded in its final report in June 2019 that „reinvigorating multilateralism alone will not be sufficient. Effective digital cooperation requires that multilateralism be complemented by multistakeholderism – cooperation that involves governments and a diverse spectrum of other stakeholders such as civil society, technologists, academics, and the private sector (ranging from small enterprises to large technology companies).“ And it continued: „While only governments can make laws, all these stakeholders are needed to contribute to effective governance by cooperating to assess the complex and dynamic impacts of digital technologies and developing shared norms, standards and practices. We need to bring far more diverse voices to the table, particularly from developing countries and traditionally marginalised populations. Important digital issues have often been decided behind closed doors, without the involvement of those who are most affected by the decisions.“^[9]

^[1] Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, November 18, 2005, see: https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html

^[2] UN Resolution 70/125, December 15, 2015, Outcome document of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, see: https://publicadministration.un.org/wsis10/

^[3] G8 Declaration: Renewed Commitment for Freedom and Democracy“, Deauville, May 27, 2011, see: http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/summit/2011deauville/2011-declaration-en.html

^[4] G20 Digital Economy Development and Cooperation Initiative, Hangzhou, September 5, 2016, see: http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/g20/2016/160905-digital.html

^[5] BRICS Leaders Xiamen Declaration, September 4, 2017, see: http://www.brics.utoronto.ca/docs/170904-xiamen.html

^[6] NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement, Sao Paulo, April 23, 2014, see: http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/

^[7] UNCSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), see: https://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-2016-to-2018.aspx

^[8] See Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, Paris, November 11, 2018: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/table-paris-call-trust-and-security-cyberspace

^[9] The Age of Digital Interdependence, Final Report oft he UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation, New York, June, 10, 2019, see: https://digitalcooperation.org/