The Future Internet World Order

Pay attention to the "swing states" that will determine the future of Internet governance, which depends on a reshuffling of the prevailing world order.

In the future, who – or what – will govern the Internet? The answer to that question could also shed light on one of the biggest foreign policy questions of the decade: As power is shifting among states and diffusing, what is the future of the world order?

That first question was in the spotlight in 2012, right around the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. It was the first time in nearly a decade that the topic of Internet governance attracted major international media attention. The conference provided a snapshot of the status quo: It ended in a diplomatic éclat with 89 states, including Russia and China, signing a new telecommunications treaty and 55 countries, including the United States, the vast majority of OECD members and several others such as Mongolia, India and Peru, publicly opposing it. The conference became the latest showdown of the ongoing struggle over the future of the Internet, with some countries led by Russia and China seeking greater governmental control and others supporting an Internet governance model driven by civil society, the private sector and governments.

Caught in the middle are the “swing states”– countries that have not decided which vision for the future of the Internet they will support. Yet, the outcome of this debate ultimately depends on these states – the ones that have not yet firmly staked out a position and who represent a significant share of the world’s population and economy.

The future of the world order, too, depends on a set of “swing states.” In 2011, G. John Ikenberry, an international relations theorist at Princeton, published his influential article “The Future of the Liberal World Order,” in Foreign Affairs arguing that though the composition of world power is changing, the liberal international order and its liberal and democratic norms are alive and well. The events in Ukraine reignited this debate, as some point to the ongoing conflict as an evidence of the demise of this same world order. They say that these norms are eroding and increasingly contested. So which is it? Again – the answer will come from the swing states. Writing in the Washington Quarterly in Winter 2013, Richard Fontaine and Daniel M. Kliman note that the direction these countries go “may, together, decisively influence the trajectory of the current international order.”

In a new study, we scrutinize the role of swing states in the wake of the discord at WCIT in 2012. Our report Tipping the Scale moves beyond previous analyses that have focused on predefined groups of countries such as the “IBSA,” “BRICS” or “MINTs” by applying a more systematic approach using the voting record at the WCIT as a baseline. We examined the 193 UN member states using a range of indicators to identify a core group of 30 swing states that we believe will be the global game-changers. Our findings will hopefully serve as a checklist to compare current efforts and to inform future strategic planning.

While it is not surprising to find India, Brazil and South Africa among the key 30 swing states, some of our findings raise interesting questions. For example, why did Belarus, “Europe’s last dictatorship,” as some have called it, vote against the Internet regulations from that Dubai conference while most of the other authoritarian regimes voted for them? Why did Brazil vote for them in spite of a vibrant civil society supporting multistakeholderism? And what about Turkey, Mexico and South Korea, the only OECD members voting for the regulations in spite of having endorsed the OECD’s Principles for Internet Policy-Making, which explicitly reference multistakeholder cooperation? And, critically, what do these voting records tell us about other political realities in each country?

Ultimately, this Internet governance debate is embedded in the larger systemic shift – the reshuffling of the world order. Take Brazil and India, two of the countries that have attracted greater attention during this debate, not only with regard to the future of the Internet but the future of the international order. Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, Ghana and Malaysia also are on our list and deserve more attention. Their behavior shapes what norms and institutions will govern our lives in the future, including finance, post-2015 development goals, international security – and the future of the Internet.

Tim Maurer is a research fellow at New America, the focuses on cyberspace and international affairs at New America. Robert Morgus is a research associate at the Open Technology Institute, where he provides research and writing support on cyber space and international affairs. This piece originally appeared at The Weekly Wonk.

TIME Internet Governance

The Internet Is About to Take Its Next Giant Evolutionary Leap

Internet LAN cables are pictured in this photo illustration taken in Sydney
Tim Wimborne / REUTERS

The U.S. has long planned to give up its unique role as steward of the Internet's domain name system, but it's unclear what kind of entity will replace it

The U.S. plan to relinquish stewardship of key technical functions that ensure the Internet runs properly drew praise and criticism over the weekend. If the process goes smoothly, it shouldn’t affect the day-to-day Internet experience for users, but the shift, which was announced Friday by U.S. officials, represents an important development in the evolution of the Internet.

Although the U.S. has long intended to give up its role overseeing the system of managing Internet domain names, the proposed transition has already attracted critics who fear that the Internet’s free and open nature could be jeopardized. At the same time, the plan has received positive feedback from several major technology companies, including Google, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.

The origins of the Internet date back to the early 1960s, when the U.S. government funded research that led to the development of “ARPANET,” which was established by the Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). ARPANET was eventually connected to other government, academic and research networks, forming a “network of networks” that would ultimately become known as the Internet.

Since then, the U.S. government has played a key oversight role in the distribution of numbers that make up Internet addresses, as well as the Domain Name System (DNS) that translates those numerical addresses into recognizable Internet names like time.com. For more than a decade, the non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has performed those functions under a contract from the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

“The DNS is similar to a phone book, where if you know someone’s name, you can find their number and place a call,” says Laura DeNardis, a professor at American University and the author of The Global War for Internet Governance. “Most people take this for granted because they’re not aware of the technical architecture behind the curtain that’s needed to keep the Internet going.”

It remains unclear what kind of entity will assume stewardship of the Internet DNS, but the U.S. has made clear that it will “not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.” That’s because the U.S. does not want any single government or coalition of governments, like that represented by the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union (ITU), to exert undue influence over Internet governance.

“We need to have some kind of centralized coordination of names and numbers, because each name and number has to be globally unique,” DeNardis tells TIME. “Someone has to keep track to make sure there’s not duplication of addresses. The best case scenario is a balance of power in which multiple stakeholders play a role.”

The U.S. has been under increasing pressure from other countries to relinquish its stewardship of the Internet’s technical functions in the wake of revelations about U.S. Internet surveillance supplied by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. “The Snowden disclosures served as a lightning rod to focus attention on this issue,” says DeNardis, although she was quick to point out that the U.S. role in the Internet DNS is separate from NSA surveillance activities.

On a conference call Friday, ICANN Chief Executive Fadi Chehade downplayed Snowden’s role, according to Bloomberg. In truth, the U.S. never intended for its Internet stewardship to go on indefinitely. As far back as 1997, the U.S. made clear that its ultimate goal was to privatize the Internet’s technical functions to support a “multistakeholder” model of governance. The current U.S. contract expires on September 30, 2015, so the NTIA is asking ICANN to bring together stakeholders from around the world to craft a proposal for the next stage of Internet governance.

“The timing is right to start the transition process,” said Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling. In a statement, NTIA said that it has “communicated” to ICANN that the proposal must have “broad community support” and ensure the “security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS” and maintain the openness of the Internet as a global platform. Importantly, the U.S. will retain responsibility for the .mil, .gov, and .edu top-level domains.

Predictably, the proposed transition has already begun to be politicized. Following the announcement, Newt Gingrich, the Republican former House Speaker, tweeted: “Every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the Internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous.” He added: “What is the global internet community that Obama wants to turn the internet over to? This risks foreign dictatorships defining the internet.”

The proposed transition is also likely to be politicized at an international level, says Lauren Weinstein, a veteran Internet policy expert. “Most of the issues involved in this area are primarily technical in nature,” says Weinstein. “Unfortunately, in today’s international environment, there is a real risk of this matter turning into a toxic global political football, which would obviously not be the best situation for making rational decisions about such complex matters.”

For now, the response from the U.S. private sector has been positive, and several major technology companies praised the U.S. announcement. “The internet was built to be borderless and this move toward a more multistakeholder model of governance creates an opportunity to preserve its security, stability and openness,” Vint Cerf, Google’s chief Internet evangelist, said in a statement emailed to TIME.

Len Cali, AT&T’s senior vice president for global public policy, called the transition “an important step in the ongoing evolution of the global Internet.” Verizon was similarly upbeat. “We applaud NTIA for recognizing the global relevance of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions and the current maturity of multi-stakeholder frameworks,” Craig Silliman, Verizon’s senior vice president for public policy, said in a statement.

Rebecca Arbogast, Comcast’s senior vice president for global public policy, said her company is also supportive: “Comcast NBCUniversal supports the private sector led, multistakeholder approach to Internet governance, and commends NTIA’s longstanding commitment to advancing that model and its stewardship of this key functionality.”

DeNardis is optimistic that the transition will go smoothly, but points out that there isn’t even a proposal on the table to replace the U.S. as steward of the DNS. “I expect that everything will go well, but the Devil will be in the details,” she says. “If everything goes smoothly, everyone should still be able to watch Orange is the New Black on Netflix.”

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com