论文部分内容阅读
The U.S. Commerce Department an- nounced its plan to shift responsibility for overseeing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers （ICANN） to “the global multistakeholder community”in March. As one of the major Internet governance organizations， the ICANN is in charge of the management and allocation of global core Internet resources. However， due to its contractual relationship with the U.S. Commerce Department， its legitimacy has long been questioned. Thus， this “power ceding” by the United States has aroused attention from the international community.
When the ICANN was established in 1998， it was agreed that when the time is ripe， the U.S. Government would shift ICANN management to a private sector agency. The Commerce Department declared that now is the time to start the transition process as the ICANN has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability， transparency and technical competence.
The department said another reason for the transition is that international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance， as evidenced by the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum and the resilient stewardship of the various Internet institutions. In addition， it raised four principles for the ICANN transition： supporting and enhancing the multistakeholder model； maintaining the security， stability and resiliency of the Internet’s domain name system； meeting the needs and expectation of global customers； and maintaining the openness of the Internet.
Forced action
The U.S. Commerce Department announced the ICANN transition plan at this time as its contract with the ICANN expires soon； but on the deeper level， the “power ceding” action was somewhat forced.
In recent years， the struggle over the right to Internet governance among members of the international community has become increasingly heard. Relying on its first mover advantage on Internet technology and dominant position in terms of Internet governance mechanisms， the United States has long controlled the management and allocation of global Internet resources. With world members attaching greater attention to their Internet development strategies， developing countries called for putting world Internet governance under the framework of intergovernmental organizations such as the UN and the International Telecommunications Union （ITU）. However， developed countries led by the United States strongly opposed the new proposal in the name of maintaining the stable development of the Internet. The two groups have staged fierce competition over the issue. During the Dubai ITU conference in 2012， the United States refused to sign the new International Telecommunication Regulations as it claimed other countries were using the ITU to intervene in Internet issues and hurt the free development of the Internet. Although the Dubai conference failed to become an intergovernmental “cyber space constitutional convention，” it illustrated that most countries wish to change the status quo of the current Internet governance as 89 of the 144 ITU members signed the new regulations.
Since the outburst of the Edward Snowden revelations of widespread U.S. surveillance， Washington has faced increased pressure， even from its allies. Responding to U.S. monitoring， the EU has proposed the European Network and the Brazil-Europe submarine optical cable. The European Commission even made a statement in February that the next two years will be a key period for redesigning the Internet governing landscape and proposed seven reform suggestions including setting a clear timetable for the transition to the ICANN.
In addition， major Internet governance bodies including the ICANN and the Internet Engineering Task Force made the Montevideo Statement in October 2013， condemning U.S. monitoring and appealing for deep international cooperation on Internet governance as well as the globalization of the ICANN. Analysts said that the U.S. surveillance scandal undermined trust and cooperation in cyber space and shook the foundation of Internet governance. Under such circumstances， the “power ceding” action of the United States is undoubtedly aimed at relieving pressure. Questions remain whether Washington is truly willing to give up control of the ICANN and if Internet governance can achieve real justice.
Consensus building
Based on the preconditions and requirements of the U.S. Commerce Department， it would be difficult to achieve the ICANN transition by September 2015 when the contract between the two expires. Though the ICANN declared it has started seeking advice widely and discussed the transition plan during its 49th special meeting in Singapore in late March， it is challenging to work out a solution with international support within one and a half years.
Also， the concept of the global multistakeholder community is vague. Should an existing institution be chosen and reformed to accommodate the ICANN or should a new institution be created？ Constructing an efficient mechanism has always been the biggest challenge for Internet governance. Given the current white-hot international posturing in regard to the Internet， it is even more difficult to reach consensus. In reality， the basic standpoint of the U.S.-led Internet governance process has never been changed. A research report of the U.S. Congress in April 2013 stated clearly that the task of the U.S. Congress and Government is to continue maximizing U.S. influence over the ICANN’s multistakeholder Internet governance process， while effectively resisting proposals for an increased role by intergovernmental institutions such as the UN. The report shows that the United States would not accept any governments or intergovernmental organizations to gain control over the ICANN.
In addition， the U.S. plan ruled out the transition of management over important top-level domain systems such as those of the U.S. Government and military. Root server administrative authority， which is of the highest concern to the international community， is also excluded. As a result， U.S. control over the core resources of the Internet is unlikely to be fundamentally changed even if an ICANN management transition does occur.
The real-world effect of an ICANN management transition still needs more analysis. But what should be mentioned is that the joint efforts of the international community are the most effective strength to promote the reform process of the current global Internet governance system. In recent years， the active moves of Internet powers and the establishment of a variety of multilateral channels have played a positive role in building consensus and promoting cooperation.
For instance， China and Russia have proposed an International Code of Conduct for Information Security under the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. China and the United States have carried out dialogue on cyber security and set up an intergovernmental working panel on the issue. Britain has advocated a London Agenda， holding an Internet security forum annually to promote Internet capacity building. These efforts have laid a solid foundation for further international cooperation in promoting global Internet governance.
In addition， international organizations such as the UN and the ITU are stepping up research on global Internet governance. The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development is examining how to further explore the governance function of the Internet Governance Forum， and a study report will be finished in 2015. The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance， jointly sponsored by Brazil and the ICANN， will be staged late this April focusing on two specific topics： Internet governance principles and the roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. In October， the ITU will also hold talks on Internet governance reform. It is foreseeable that with the joint efforts of all parties， the global Internet governance reform process will enter a crucial period in the next few years.
When the ICANN was established in 1998， it was agreed that when the time is ripe， the U.S. Government would shift ICANN management to a private sector agency. The Commerce Department declared that now is the time to start the transition process as the ICANN has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability， transparency and technical competence.
The department said another reason for the transition is that international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance， as evidenced by the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum and the resilient stewardship of the various Internet institutions. In addition， it raised four principles for the ICANN transition： supporting and enhancing the multistakeholder model； maintaining the security， stability and resiliency of the Internet’s domain name system； meeting the needs and expectation of global customers； and maintaining the openness of the Internet.
Forced action
The U.S. Commerce Department announced the ICANN transition plan at this time as its contract with the ICANN expires soon； but on the deeper level， the “power ceding” action was somewhat forced.
In recent years， the struggle over the right to Internet governance among members of the international community has become increasingly heard. Relying on its first mover advantage on Internet technology and dominant position in terms of Internet governance mechanisms， the United States has long controlled the management and allocation of global Internet resources. With world members attaching greater attention to their Internet development strategies， developing countries called for putting world Internet governance under the framework of intergovernmental organizations such as the UN and the International Telecommunications Union （ITU）. However， developed countries led by the United States strongly opposed the new proposal in the name of maintaining the stable development of the Internet. The two groups have staged fierce competition over the issue. During the Dubai ITU conference in 2012， the United States refused to sign the new International Telecommunication Regulations as it claimed other countries were using the ITU to intervene in Internet issues and hurt the free development of the Internet. Although the Dubai conference failed to become an intergovernmental “cyber space constitutional convention，” it illustrated that most countries wish to change the status quo of the current Internet governance as 89 of the 144 ITU members signed the new regulations.
Since the outburst of the Edward Snowden revelations of widespread U.S. surveillance， Washington has faced increased pressure， even from its allies. Responding to U.S. monitoring， the EU has proposed the European Network and the Brazil-Europe submarine optical cable. The European Commission even made a statement in February that the next two years will be a key period for redesigning the Internet governing landscape and proposed seven reform suggestions including setting a clear timetable for the transition to the ICANN.
In addition， major Internet governance bodies including the ICANN and the Internet Engineering Task Force made the Montevideo Statement in October 2013， condemning U.S. monitoring and appealing for deep international cooperation on Internet governance as well as the globalization of the ICANN. Analysts said that the U.S. surveillance scandal undermined trust and cooperation in cyber space and shook the foundation of Internet governance. Under such circumstances， the “power ceding” action of the United States is undoubtedly aimed at relieving pressure. Questions remain whether Washington is truly willing to give up control of the ICANN and if Internet governance can achieve real justice.
Consensus building
Based on the preconditions and requirements of the U.S. Commerce Department， it would be difficult to achieve the ICANN transition by September 2015 when the contract between the two expires. Though the ICANN declared it has started seeking advice widely and discussed the transition plan during its 49th special meeting in Singapore in late March， it is challenging to work out a solution with international support within one and a half years.
Also， the concept of the global multistakeholder community is vague. Should an existing institution be chosen and reformed to accommodate the ICANN or should a new institution be created？ Constructing an efficient mechanism has always been the biggest challenge for Internet governance. Given the current white-hot international posturing in regard to the Internet， it is even more difficult to reach consensus. In reality， the basic standpoint of the U.S.-led Internet governance process has never been changed. A research report of the U.S. Congress in April 2013 stated clearly that the task of the U.S. Congress and Government is to continue maximizing U.S. influence over the ICANN’s multistakeholder Internet governance process， while effectively resisting proposals for an increased role by intergovernmental institutions such as the UN. The report shows that the United States would not accept any governments or intergovernmental organizations to gain control over the ICANN.
In addition， the U.S. plan ruled out the transition of management over important top-level domain systems such as those of the U.S. Government and military. Root server administrative authority， which is of the highest concern to the international community， is also excluded. As a result， U.S. control over the core resources of the Internet is unlikely to be fundamentally changed even if an ICANN management transition does occur.
The real-world effect of an ICANN management transition still needs more analysis. But what should be mentioned is that the joint efforts of the international community are the most effective strength to promote the reform process of the current global Internet governance system. In recent years， the active moves of Internet powers and the establishment of a variety of multilateral channels have played a positive role in building consensus and promoting cooperation.
For instance， China and Russia have proposed an International Code of Conduct for Information Security under the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. China and the United States have carried out dialogue on cyber security and set up an intergovernmental working panel on the issue. Britain has advocated a London Agenda， holding an Internet security forum annually to promote Internet capacity building. These efforts have laid a solid foundation for further international cooperation in promoting global Internet governance.
In addition， international organizations such as the UN and the ITU are stepping up research on global Internet governance. The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development is examining how to further explore the governance function of the Internet Governance Forum， and a study report will be finished in 2015. The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance， jointly sponsored by Brazil and the ICANN， will be staged late this April focusing on two specific topics： Internet governance principles and the roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. In October， the ITU will also hold talks on Internet governance reform. It is foreseeable that with the joint efforts of all parties， the global Internet governance reform process will enter a crucial period in the next few years.