insight 

I’m always cynical when a management blog is silent on the current challenges facing a company, particularly when they are covered in the media.

We’ve had snow storms this week in the UK, so there is much talk about storms. It strikes me that some might view the current issues at Nominet as a storm in a teacup – a small event that has been exaggerated out of all proportion. Not unsurprisingly, I don’t agree. I think that the storm has already had a significant effect on Nominet and it could well have far reaching implications for both Nominet and our Registrars. I do hope (but I’m not sure) that all involved would agree that our current governance model and all that it entails needs to change in some way in order to reflect the role that we have and the environment that we operate in. The independent governance review is due soon, so we’re waiting to see how much change is recommended.

However, I believe that this is just a part of the bigger picture of the national and international Internet Governance debate, which is set to come to a head this year. If anything, Nominet represents one minor development in this area, which, I believe, is heading towards a perfect storm – a (far from perfect) combination of events, which will ultimately change the Internet landscape.

Let me attempt to explain…..as briefly as I can:

Firstly, I see the need for change being signalled in the regulatory climate in the UK. It is well known that the UK Government has been very supportive of self-regulation in our industry. However, I do hear statements about the representation of end-user interests and the protection of end-users much more frequently than ever before. As an industry, we often respond to these statements by saying “better user education and information is the answer”. Whilst that may well help, we are going to have to accept this may not be the only answer, or one that will fully deliver. So, its currently up to the UK internet industry to figure-out how we are going to ensure that end-users are at the heart of our self-regulatory regime, otherwise regulation or legislation is inevitable. For example, the recent Digital Britain report signals possible legislation compelling ISPs to notify infringers of third party rights, and keep anonymised data, which seems to indicate a view that self-regulation has failed on this point. If self-regulation is perceived to falter in the UK, which has championed an industry lead, we can expect that more interventionist governments (both within and outside the European Union) will capitalise on this, and may use it as an excuse for heavy regulation.

Secondly, I see change being signalled at the European level, with the EU review of the regulatory framework potentially giving member states the power to regulate the Internet, particularly around quality of service to end-users.

Thirdly, I see change being signalled by the US Government in its approach to Internet governance, particularly with the recent change in administration. There is also an end-user needs theme here and in the context of the new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD)  process, the US Department of Commerce recommends that ICANN should give greater consideration to consumer interests before creating new gTLDs and renewing registry agreements. I do have a lot of empathy with ICANN - like in Nominet, it must feel as though you just can’t please anyone at times. But with so many concerns being raised about the new gTLD process, I’d be surprised if the US is able to agree to the transition of ICANN to the private sector when the Joint Project Agreement expires later this year. Although there remains much support for removing the ‘oversight’ of ICANN from one single government, there is little consensus on what oversight should replace that of the US. I predict that some governments will therefore push even more strongly for inter-governmental oversight of ICANN.

Finally, we are coming to a crucial stage in the life of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The review of the forum has already begun and is due to report in early 2010. We view this five-year experiment in global multi-stakeholder dialogue as being very successful. The UK IGF and the Nominet Best Practice challenge have helped to ensure that the UK has great involvement in the IGF and that there are real life contributions to inform the policy debate. Whilst some would have liked the IGF to be a negotiating and decision making process, it has worked well as a space for the development of policy dialogue and the sharing of best practices. What seems to have escaped many is that this form of engagement is an innovative experiment for the UN, in that it seeks to engage all regions and all participants in policy dialogue. If that experiment is not seen to be working, there will be suggestions for alternative replacements.

I do think that there is an urgent need for greater awareness of the international issues facing the industry if we’re to avoid the storms, together with a more widespread commitment to developing both understanding and innovative solutions.

Where can we start? Well, we will all need to accept greater responsibility for finding solutions going forwards. This will require much better participation and engagement from all involved. There also remains a huge need for better dialogue, better participation, better understanding and better solutions in the interests of end-users. All too often I hear people talking to each other, but not actually listening. I also see vested interest battle-lines being drawn, without the acknowledgement that real progress will need real compromise and new ways of moving forward. This would be a good basis on which to start preventing new storms, whether they are small or large, from developing.

Tomorrow brings the start of the third meeting of the United Nations’ Internet Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder forum that debates a range of issues relating to Internet governance and works with all stakeholders to create a safe, fair and inclusive Internet experience.  This year’s event in early December will be held in Hyderabad, India.

Here at Nominet, we are saddened by the tragic events in Mumbai over the past week and offer our sympathies to the families of the victims and the wounded.

The IGF meeting is going ahead as scheduled and we wish all those taking part well.

Engaging UK stakeholders

Nominet, working with other partners, has been at the heart of preparing the UK for the Internet Governance Forum.  We see it as crucial to engage constructively with the IGF process, both in contributing to the discussions with ideas and in identifying examples of how to get the best out of the Internet.  With other UK stakeholders we are identifying “messages from the UK” and best practice case studies, using a partnership approach to making the Internet a better place, and keeping UK stakeholders engaged in the IGF process.

This approach has developed over the life of the IGF, and led us to launch the UK IGF in March this year.  This is an open partnership that provides a light and flexible framework for British stakeholders to work together to make the IGF a success.

We have recently launched a UK IGF web site and blog, which we hope will encourage the sharing of views and opinions of all stakeholders on the work of the UK IGF and emerging Internet Governance issues. It is also intended to be a mechanism to report updates from the UK IGF partners.

The challenge for the UK IGF is to create intelligent, collaborative solutions to problems of Internet governance and the outcomes of Nominet’s Best Practice Challenge clearly demonstrate to our international colleagues that we are making great strides in this area.

International participation

Other countries are seeing what we are doing and beginning to start running their own processes at the national level.  Each national process will of course be different, reflecting local priorities and concerns. We will be running a workshop in Hyderabad in collaboration with colleagues from Brazil, Finland and France to explore different national IGF approaches.

One key aspect of the UK’s engagement in the IGF is to work with parliamentarians.  This has been crucial in helping us develop our messages – in particular in helping understand the concerns and interests of the citizens.  Working with parliamentarians has helped us to focus our work on these key issues – like child Internet safety or fighting crime – and to engage with top decision makers from industry and civil society.  One British MP has been leading a multi-stakeholder dialogue using the IGF model to improve e-crime reduction in the UK.

The UK is proving that the Internet Governance Forum works, as a collaborative partnership between Government, business, civil society and academia, because it is not subject to Government legislation and is free from bureaucracy.

Last week we were pleased to note that our Director of Legal and Policy, Emily Taylor had her membership of the Internet Governance Forum’s Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group renewed.The United Nations IGF is a multi-stakeholder forum that debates a range of issues relating to Internet Governance. The IGF works with all stakeholders to create a safe, fair and inclusive Internet experience.  The role of the Advisory Group is to advise the UN Secretary General on the agenda and it’s made up from people from government, industry, civil society from all around the world.

As part of a regular review, about a third of the group’s membership has been rotated and Emily is pleased to be amongst those who have been retained.

The main task of the group is to provide advice on the preparations for the next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, which is being held in Hyderabad, India from 3 to 6 December.

Each member of the group serves in a personal capacity, but they are expected to have extensive interaction with our respective stakeholder groups. Emily has played an integral role in the creation of a UK IGF, and she believes that national IGFs are vital to the future development and success of the IGF as a whole, helping to turn the IGF from a ‘talking shop’ into a ‘thinktank’.

The success of this work in the UK has led to other opportunities and Nominet is collaborating with others, including the French and Brazilian governments, to present workshops showcasing the UK IGF experience, and the Best Practice Challenge in Hyderabad.

We look forward to supporting these efforts, with initiatives such as the Nominet Best Practice Challenge, which showcases examples of best practice in Internet Governance by organisations and individuals in the UK.

We were involved in the recent launch of the UK Internet Governance Forum at an event in Parliament attended by over 100 people from industry, government, parliament, academia and civil society. The launch event featured a report from the Internet Governance Forum in Rio last November; a plan of action up until the next IGF meeting in India and beyond; the launch of Nominet’s Best Practice Challenge 2008 and a debate on the future of the Internet.

The UK Internet Governance Forum is a collaborative partnership between Nominet, the UK Department for Business and key parliamentarians. Its aim is to provide a local forum in the UK to engage industry, government, parliament, academia and civil society in debate on Internet Governance issues, stimulating partnerships and coalitions to deliver solutions and demonstrating best practice for others to learn from.

Other influential stakeholder groups that are taking part include the London Internet Exchange, the Coalition on Internet Safety and Amnesty International.

One of the key messages to emerge from the first UK IGF meeting is that the UK is taking a leading role in Internet governance, and that other countries are seeing what we are doing and beginning to start running their own processes at the national level. Brazil, France and Finland are among the first countries to follow the UK’s ‘best practice’ model. The UK is proving to the rest of the world that the Internet Governance Forum works, as a collaborative partnership between Government, business, civil society and academia, because it is not subject to Government legislation and is free from bureaucracy.

The UK IGF will concentrate on developing examples of UK best practice and serve as a potential prototype model for other national IGFs. Rt Hon Alun Michael MP commented that Tanya Byron’s recent review of the online child protection sphere has highlighted successful partnership initiatives in that area, particularly between the Internet Watch Foundation and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Unit. They have successfully combined resources and expertise from law enforcement, Industry and the third sector, while working closely with the Home Office’s Online Child Protection Task Force.

This kind of precedent paves the way for a cooperative template to be applied in the field of Internet governance. The key projects for the UK IGF going forwards will be to explore UK concerns around the IGF themes of security, diversity, access and openness at a seminar in May, and then to identify the UK’s best practice agenda for the IGF in Hydrabad at the awards ceremony for Nominet’s Best Practice Challenge in July.

We would encourage UK companies and organisations to send us their entries – the closing date is 25 April 2008. Winning entries will be announced at an awards ceremony in July 2008 and invited to a leading role in the UK preparatory meeting for the Internet Governance Forum meeting in India.

The much anticipated panel session on the subject of critical internet resources took place yesterday at the Internet Governance Forum in Rio. It’s a shame that this issue seems to overshadow debates about how we can improve internet security and global access, which were the strongest concerns voiced by UK users at our pre-IGF discussions the other month. Read more

On Thursday we held an interactive workshop about the key issues on Internet governance from a UK perspective. It was a surprisingly well-attended and really productive session. Several key messages emerged from the discussions which we will now be sharing alongside several examples of best practice in Internet governance from the UK at the next IGF in Rio in November. Read more

I see that the $100 laptop scheme has been given a boost with the upcoming introduction of a get one give one scheme (G1G1) in the US and Canada.

Hopefully this will help get the programme properly off the ground and help bring production levels to a cost that will ensure that the $100 target price becomes a reality sooner. Read more