EU commissioner speaks out on Internet Governance

This is the text of what she said:

---

"Recent years have witnessed important developments: decreases in prices, the expansion of the Internet, and the spread of broadband – there are now almost 50 million broadband subscribers in the EU. This is a critical mass. It sets the scene for new ways of delivering content. A new landscape is emerging based on fixed and mobile broadband communications, the digitisation of content, the addition of new functionalities to devices, increased storage capacity.

This convergence of voice, data and images is the new commercial reality. Telecom operators are broadcasting TV and broadcasters provide Internet services and telephony. Triple-play offers are becoming increasingly widespread. Voice over IP is ascendance. Television and radio programmes, movies, games, music and books are already available on both fixed and mobile platforms.

Convergence is one of the drivers of the next phase of the Information Society. It is transforming European information, communication and media industries. It brings in new players and modifies the traditional value chains. And it is therefore at the heart of the policies of the European Commissioner for Information Society and Media.

I2010

The new i2010 policy framework, which the Commission launched in June, takes full account of the reality of convergence as a technological challenge, a regulatory test and source of growth.

Our first set of priorities for the coming years will be to adapt European rules to convergence in order to create a 'single European information space'. In particular, the Commissioner aims to modernise the rules on European audiovisual content and to give it legal certainty by putting it into a single market framework. We will also be reviewing the regulatory framework for electronic communications to see how well our current rules are performing and whether they will equip us adequately for the next generation of high bandwidth services. We will also work on interoperability and security, because as these services become multiplatform and ever more widely used a safe, secure and seamless web will be become a priority.

Our second set of priorities concern enhancing the role of ICT as a motor of growth in Europe. In Europe, ICTs explain 25% of economic growth and 40% of productivity increases. In other countries their impact is even more significant, in the United States for example. Our second aim therefore is to stimulate investment ICT research and innovation as the seedbed of Europe's future economic success. The third set of priorities emphasise the role of ICT in delivering benefits to the citizen. A more inclusive European Information Society will also be a more efficient and productive one. ICT is crucial to improving health care, learning, government services, and environmental quality.

Internet governance

The i2020 is a strategy framework for Europe, but the Commission is aware of the need to achieve our objectives in co-operation with the rest of the world. For this reason, I will give most of my attention today to the topical issue of internet governance. In recent days there have been numerous press reports about the apparent EU attempt to 'wrest' control of the Internet from the US government. While making good headlines perhaps, this depiction of the EU position is a very misleading simplification that misses the key issues at stake in this important area.

First the World Summit on the Information Society process is not an EU-US bilateral. It is a World Summit - more than 100 countries from around the world are involved - not just their governments but all stakeholders private sector and civil society are working together to build consensus in the run-up to the summit that will take place in Tunis in November.

Second, on Internet governance there is already an impressive degree of consensus on most issues.

The difference of opinion that is grabbing the headlines is between the US and most of the rest of the world the small but important question of who and how names and addresses are allocated on the web.

For historic reasons, the US government has traditionally exercised a unilateral role in overseeing these key functions. At the beginning of the Internet, this was not particularly important - most users were academics and researchers. But the success of the world-wide web, which I'm proud to say was a European invention, has made the internet a central and strategically important part of each countries communications infrastructure, directly impacting economic growth and social development.

The Domain Name System – which is at dispute – has become an integral part of the Internet's core architecture.

What has changed?

No one is denying that the US government has done an excellent job in ensuring that the administration of this system has been fair and efficient. But, many countries are questioning if it is appropriate for one government alone to supervise such an important part of the infrastructure.

The problem is that the US government effectively has the right to decide who can run each country's Top Level Domain such as dot.jp, dot.kr or dot.cn, while the governments of the countries concerned are only indirectly involved through an advisory committee to ICANN. It is the US government as well that has the sole right to decide when a new Top Level Domain can be introduced into cyberspace, whether it be a new country-code or a new so-called 'generic' Top Level Domain such as .com or .net.

The recent controversy around a possible new .xxx Top Level Domain for adult content highlighted this bizarre situation. Several public administrations have expressed concern over this initiative, including the European Commission, but it will be the sole right of the US government to decide whether this Top Level Domain enters cyberspace or not, even though it will be visible on the screens of net users in countries all around the world.

These concerns are not new. The EU was expressing them as far back as the mid 1990's. In 1998 the Clinton administration conceded the legitimacy of foreign government's concerns in their White Paper on the Domain Name System. Indeed, the setting up of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) in 1998 was in part to enable supervision to be 'internationalised'. The EU has always participated fully in the ICANN process.

But the US government has never transferred this unilateral power. And several countries are concerned that in the US has now gone back on this intention. In particular, in June the US Government announced without warning that it had decided to 'maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.'

This is very disappointing to Europe and others who have worked towards a cooperative global approach since 1998. The US statement is a recipe for stalemate in the Geneva discussions on this point.

The European position

Europe, far from being in an extreme position, is in the middle between US unilateralism and much stronger demands from other countries for multilateralism. But our position of deal broker cannot work unless the US recommits to its historic compromise to internationalise the Internet governance regime I would re-emphasise that the EU approach to the Internet is pro-industry and pro freedom of expression. It is mostly similar and often identical to that of the US. We fully appreciate the primary role of the private sector in developing and deploying the Internet technologies and services. We understand that governments must not interfere in the day-to-day operations that underpin the management of the Internet. We fully support ICANN.

The EU position is therefore not an attempt by governments to take control of the Internet, as has unfortunately been suggested in some quarters of the press.

The EU proposal

The EU position is rather a recognition of the obligation of governments to help the Internet deliver on its potential. The Internet is not an unregulated space - anything that is illegal in the off-line world is illegal on-line. Citizens expect governments to take measures to deal with fraud, spam, hacking, violations of data protection and all forms of cyber-crime. Governments also need to do what they can to ensure the stability and security of their national communications networks such as the Internet.

Governments need to be able to cooperate with each other at the global level to fulfil these responsibilities. But there is no natural home where issues requiring such cooperation, between governments and stakeholders can be addressed, where problems can be identified and the necessary corrective or preventative action can be engaged.

The EU is proposing a new model for international cooperation and a forum based on a set of fundamental principles. This forum would not replace existing mechanisms or institutions, but complement them and adhering to the key principles of the Internet – interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle. A predictable and well co-ordinated public policy environment is an advantage for business. The same is true for the governance of the Internet.

That's why the forthcoming summit in Tunis provides us all with an important opportunity to take the first steps in building a truly global consensus on how to achieve this aim for the benefit of all the world's businesses, citizens and users. Good governance and government are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Internet was, and is still being built and developed in a spirit of partnership, consensus and openness. The EU is only arguing that governments need to adopt the same cooperative model if they are to ensure their role is a positive one in the continuing story of this amazing technology.

Related links to this article:
European Commission

---

e-Government National Awards 2005: Judging is now underway
Nominations have now closed in 11 categories in the e-Government National Awards 2005, and entry is free. The Awards recognise and praise the best strategies, achievements, teams and individuals in UK e-Government. The Awards will be presented at a prestigious dinner at the Savoy in London.

The Awards are supported by the Cabinet Office e-Government Unit, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Society of Information Technology Management (Socitm), and SOLACE (Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers). Platinum sponsor is KPMG, and also sponsoring are Jobsgopublic, Entrust, futurate, Guardian Recruitment Solutions, and TES Jobs.