This week reading explores issues and challenges concerning internet governance. Everywhere in the world today, governments, businesses and public are facing with issues such as cyber security, privacy, antitrust, surveillance, copyright, spam; among others. Governing the internet is a complicated issues and this challenges are mirrored the world that we live in today. While internet has been recognized as global resources and at some point, the internet has become the public good, issues related to internet governance has become largely a huge concerns around the globe.
In Cerf et al, emphasized that while the internet become more robust, concerns are raising especially among the governments (in advance and developing countries) to control information. Many stakeholders involved in internet governance are facing with a hard question: How to govern the internet that expand so fast which is borderless and effect socio, economy and political factors of a country? It is important to emphasize that internet is not a ‘sovereign entity’ and the internet is a ‘space’ that must be defined beyond geographic boarders. Before governing the internet, the stakeholder must realize that they are dealing with cross cutting and multidimensional issues and solutions and thus, pragmatism is necessary in finding the middle path (Internet Governance, 2005).
However, all reading this week consistently agreed that the best way to governing the robust internet is through multi-stakeholder ecosystem approach. This means that decision making processes pertaining internet governance is usually required inputs from multiple parties involved such as the governments (referring to international and national governments), private sector and businesses and civil society. Model of multi-stakeholder in dealing with internet governance issues remains the favorite as it believe to provide specific perspective concerning policies. By the meantime, all readings also never discard the tussle to manage multi-stakeholder expectations, as the platform for the discourse is getting bigger and reaching out more groups. Pragmatic governance policies is required, thus model of centralized international treaties on internet governance might create more problematic scenarios in the future.
Around the globe, technical issues concerning the internet is a long issue unresolved; how the internet traffic is rooted and this work entirely exclusively stay and remain with ICAAN, where this invited more tussle with governments around the globe. Locally, many in developing countries are still struggling with the state of social, economy and political nature, as well as societal values concerning internet and governing the internet. Among other high priorities for the emerging markets in keeping up with fast expansion of the internet and ICTs are concerning internet and broadband penetration. Thus, no doubt that stakeholder around the globe need to addressed the gaps between the regulations and infrastructure of ICTs.
In (Internet Governance, 2004) and Cerf et al also recognized platforms such as Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and others are remains relevant and impactful to act as ‘intellectual tech transfer’ and ‘policy tech transfer’. In recognizing internet governance, it needs institutional changes in defining and implementing public polices, thus decentralization brings greater collective action by the different sectors. Because of that (MacLean, 2004) argued that internet governance must be using treaty-based that legally binding and that can specifically be addressed at three different levels; institutional, policy and issues level.