The first issue aims at developing global financing strategies for information and communication technologies (ICTs) devoted to the promotion of digital inclusion in the least developed countries. The second issue is related to the Internet governance system, that is to say, to the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society of shared principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. The definition and distribution of Internet domain names and numbers, inter-country data bandwidth cost settlements, rights of access to infrastructure (universal access) and information, freedom of expression, cultural and linguistic diversity, privacy, cyber security and use of free and open source software represent only a few in a long list of issues that should be dealt with in terms of Internet governance.
Within this framework, the UN - mandated by the WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action - established in 2004 a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The group was made up of 40 members from different countries and sectors (governments, private sector, academics and organized civil society) with the main purpose of investigating and making proposals for specific actions regarding Internet governance. Among the central tasks of this working group were: to build a "working definition" of Internet governance, identify public policy issues relevant to the topic and develop a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of governments, intergovernmental and international organizations, as well as the private sector and civil society, from both developing and developed countries.
The debate on Internet governance, updated through the creation of the above-mentioned working group, oscillates between two polar views. On the one hand, there are those who insist that modifications to be made should be launched within the current governance structure, characterized by being private-sector based and ruled by ICANN (a non-profit US-based corporation, which manages domain names and IP addresses), thus avoiding substantial changes within the system. On the other extreme, there are those who suggest that functions currently falling under ICANN's sphere, should be gradually transferred to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a position that is reinforced by the active participation of the ITU in the creation and coordination of the WGIG.
The issue of jurisdiction frameworks for Internet governance is of utmost importance since to a large extent determines the relative degrees of autonomy of the different countries and the capacity for participation of the different sectors in such respect. In this sense, the current managing configuration is far from being global or participative: ICANN is an organization that is subject to US laws and its Internet governance powers are mainly based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) involving the US government, ICANN and the main operator of the global domain name system, a private company called Verisign. Although the position to be adopted by the US government upon the expiration of the MoU in September 2006 is still uncertain, the clear fact is that within the current system it has full powers to direct Internet governance at its own convenience, given the lack of global and intergovernmental regulations in such respect. In fact, one of the main arguments calling for an urgent global debate on Internet governance is the need to establish true global forms of organization that should be autonomous from any particular government; a structural principle pointed out by the WGIG and shared by the United Nations.
Following months of intense work, the WGIG issued its final report on July 15 2005, expecting it to be used as reference to conduct debates in the preparatory process of the second phase of the WSIS. The report includes a consensual definition with regards to the concept of "Internet governance" but since it was not possible to achieve consensus in terms of a unique governance model, four alternative models were proposed and can be found within the report.
One of the main critiques made of the models proposed is that these are excessively focused on the current governance forms and, therefore, on the ICANN system and the coordination of names and numbers, leaving aside crucial aspects such as inter-country data bandwidth cost settlements, the access to information, the freedom of expression, privacy and cyber security. Likewise, it is worth pointing out that all models relegate civil society organizations, the private sector and the academic community to an observer or advisory passive role, in spite of the fact that the WGIG acknowledges the adoption of multilateral, transparent and democratic coordination mechanisms as one of the basic principles that should be guiding Internet governance. In this sense, the WGIG has expressed the idea that a new type of organization - such as a multistakeholder global forum - is essential to deal with all those issues related to Internet governance in a more transparent and democratic way. Civil society organizations have been constantly monitoring debates carried out within the WSIS and the WGIG and have admitted the importance of the report as input for the ensuing debates, while at the same time they have considered the wide working definition of Internet governance established by the Group as a positive fact. The importance of the WGIG has also been highlighted as an example of multistakeholder participation mechanism, which thus turns it into a significant antecedent and possible model to be followed in other UN processes.
