Cyber-security for people? Or nations?

The Internet is organized around “autonomous systems” — independently managed networks most of which are privately owned or, if public, managed at the agency or department level. The current institutional structure for public governance, on the other hand, is organized around nation-states.

That disjunction encourages some actors to construct Internet security as a national security issue. Political claims that invoke “national security” can inflate budgets and provide for more effective political mobilization within bureaucracies and the political class. A recent report from a “Commission on Cyberspace Security for the 44th Presidency” assembled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington DC-based think tank with longstanding roots in Cold War dialogue, exemplifies this problem. Written late in 2008, it urged the incoming President to proclaim that “cyberspace is a vital asset for the nation and…the United States will protect it using all instruments of national power.” This is a fundamentally misguided approach; this post explains why.

Revenge of the .xxx domain?

In what may prove to be the biggest sleeper Internet governance issue of the year, ICM Registry has publicly posted its filings for the Independent Review Panel that will decide whether ICANN acted improperly in rejecting its application for a .xxx domain. ICM Registry participated in ICANN's 2004 round of “sponsored” top level domain additions. Its application to run a top level domain reserved for adult content provoked a global controversy when the Bush Administration, responding to a mass mobilization from its base of religious conservative groups, pressured ICANN to reverse its June 1, 2005 vote that the .xxx domain met its eligibility criteria. ICANN's Board eventually killed the application in March of 2007.

This is the first usage of ICANN's Independent Review Process. The ruling in this case will have major implications for ICANN's accountability and the continuing controversy over the role of the U.S. government in ICANN's affairs.

SOTN: Private sector borrows IGP's ideas; govts apparently balk at splitting ICANN

With civil society unfortunately not invited to participate in Wednesday's State of the Net panel on the “Future of ICANN and Internet Governance,” it was heartening to see that IGP's work infiltrated the discussion anyway.

The Washington-insider panel centered on what should be done when the USG-ICANN Joint Project Agreement (JPA) expires in September 2009. Unfortunately, no audio or transcript of the event was made available. Based on other accounts the usual positions were laid out for the audience. NetChoice's industry advocate Steve DelBianco pleaded for trademark interests and religiously played the “takeover by other governments” fear card, Brazilian government official Everton Lucero expressed the mantra of other powerful governments that the U.S. has “inappropriate control of ICANN and the DNS,” and ICANN's Paul Levins maintained that ICANN was already an “independent organization” and sought to dispel fears of ICANN gone wild in a post-JPA world.

Only when DelBianco suggested that ICANN's responsibilities could be split in two – with ICANN continuing to regulate gTLDs and some other organization overseeing ccTLDs – did things become revealing.

Top Internet Governance Issues to Watch in 2009

Here it is: IGP's contribution to the beginning of the year forecasting. Note well: these are not predictions of outcomes but designations of critical areas of change and decision in Internet governance, where the outcome is still unknown. We are sure we've overlooked some critical arenas — use our comments to tell us what they are!

1. ICANN and its relationship to the USG
A shift from Republican Party conservative nationalism to Democratic Party liberal internationalism, along with the expiration of the Joint Project Agreement between ICANN and the U.S. Commerce Department on September 30, makes 2009 a watershed year for ICANN’s tether to the U.S. government. Moves toward internationalization by the Obama administration could break policy logjams that date back to 2003 (if not earlier); on the other hand, reassertion of the status quo would put an end to the original Clinton Administration plans for a “transition” once and for all.