From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Who really controls the Internet 3 Reasons why Internet Governance is an Issue 4 Root Cause 5 American view on this issue 6 World view on this Issue 7 Recent developments on this issue 8 Reference:

The controversy over who controls the Internet has simmered in insular technology-policy circles for years and more recently has crept into formal diplomatic talks. Many governments feel that, like the phone network, the Internet should be administered under a multilateral treaty. ICANN, in their view, is an instrument of American hegemony over cyberspace: its private sector approach favours the United States, Washington retains oversight authority, and its Government Advisory Committee, composed of delegates from other nations, has no real powers. This discontent finally boiled over at the UN’s World Summit on the Information society (Cukier 2005), the first phase of which was held in Geneva 2003. The working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) was set up after delegates to the UN’s World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) failed to agree on how the set should be run. In June 2005 WGIG has issued its report about Internet governance and has tabled four possible futures for what should be done about policy issues (BBC News, 2005), such as spam and hi-tech crime that fall outside ICANN’s narrow remit. 1. Option One – create a UN body known as the Global Internet Council that draws its members from governments and “other stakeholders” and takes over the US oversight role of ICANN. 2. Option Two – No changes apart from strengthening ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee to become a forum for official debate on Internet issues. 3. Option Three – relegate ICANN to a narrow technical role and set up an International Internet Council that sits outside the UN. US lose oversight of ICANN. 4. Option Four – create three new bodies. One to take over ICANN and look after the Internet’s addressing system. One to be a debating chamber for governments, business and the public; and one to co – ordinate work on “Internet – related public policy issues”. The four proposals send forward to the second World Summit on the Information Society which took place in Tunisia in November 2005. Tunis convention did not find the solution to the problem they stated “We reaffirm the commitments made in Geneva and build on them in Tunis by focusing on financial mechanisms for bridging the digital divide, on Internet governance and related issues, as well as on follow-up and implementation of the Geneva and Tunis decisions, as referenced in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society” (WSIS, 2005) only on this issue. Under an agreement struck at the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society held in Tunis in November 2005, the United States will retain control of the domain- name system controlling the internet for next five years (Haskins 2005). All participants agreed on a compromise to allow for wider international debate on policy principles. They agreed to establish an Internet Governance Forum (IGF), to be convened by United Nations Secretary General before the end of the second quarter of the year 2006. The Greek government volunteered to host the first meeting of the IGF. Its main purpose is to discuss a wide range of issues related to Internet Governance, and, where appropriate, to make recommendations to the International community. The working and function of the Forum will be multilateral, multi- stakeholder democratic and transparent.

Cukier (2005) says that one of the most cherished myths of cyberspace is that the Internet is totally decentralized and inherently uncontrollable. Like all myths, this one is based on a bit of truth and a heavy dose of wishful thinking. It is true that compared with the century – old telephone system, the Internet is a paragon of deregulation and decentralization. In four critical areas, however, it requires oversight and coordination in order to operate smoothly. Together, these areas constitute the “Domain System” of addresses, with which users navigate the Internet and send e- mail. These four areas are: 1. Domain names, such as www.unisa.edu.au . Somebody must decide who will operate the database of generic names ending with suffixes such as “.com”,”.net” and others. Also, someone must appoint the operators of two letter country- code suffixes. Such as “.cn” for china. 2. Internet Protocols numbers, the up to 12 digit codes, invisible to users, which every machine on the network needs to have in order to be recognized by other machines. 3. Third are root servers. When users visit websites or send e-mail, big computers known as root servers match the domain names their corresponding Internet Protocols Numbers. Due to technical hiccup there can be only 13 root servers, some of sites around the world. Ten root servers operate from United State and one each from Amsterdam, Stockholm and Tokyo. As a result, somebody must decide who will operate the root servers and where those operators will be based. 4. The technical standards that must be formally established and coordinated to ensure the Internet interoperability.

The original ARPANET, one of the components which eventually evolved into the internet, connected four Universities and was built in 1969 by Bolt, Beranek and Newman under a proposal by the US Department of Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency. ARPANET continued to grow in size, becoming more a utility than a research project. For this reason in 1975 it was transferred to the US Defence Communications Agency. In 1979 the Internet Configuration Control Board was founded by DARPA to oversee the network’s development. In 1984 it was renamed the Internet Advisory Board (IAB) and in 1986 it become the Internet Activities board. The Internet Engineering Task Force was formed in 1986 by the US Government to develop and promote Internet standards. By the end of 1989 most of the countries joined the Internet (Wikipedia 2007).

   From the early days of the network, until his death in 1998, Jon Postal oversaw address allocation and other Internet protocol numbering and assignments, under the contract from the DoD. This role eventually become known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and as it expanded to include management of the global Domain Name System root servers, a small organization grew. After the death of the Jon Postel in 1998, the IANA function was taken over by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a newly created Californian Non – Profit Corporation, set up in September 1998 by the US Government, and awarded a contract by the US Department of Commerce. 

According to its ICANN (2004) website ‘The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. These services were originally performed under U.S. Government contract by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and other entities. ICANN now performs the IANA function’. It claims to be ‘dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes’. However King (2004) argues that criticism has been levelled against ICANN ever since its creation. It has been alleged that it is undemocratic, unrepresentative and lacks legitimacy, its relationships with the United Stated government is too close and it is anti- competitive. Responding to this criticism, ICANN undertook a major internal review during 2002. The essential elements of new system are as follow: 1. A board of Directors has sole legal responsibility for ICANN policy and decisions. Directors are appointed by a Nominating Committee and by three Supporting Organizations for three years. 2. Three Supporting Organizations represent those concerned with implementing the technical aspects of ICANN’s policies. These are Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GSO), the country Names Supporting Organisation (CNSO) and the Address Supporting Organisation (ASO). 3. There are five advisory committees: the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), the Root Server Advisory Committee and Technical Liaison Group.

According to the Working Group on Internet (2005) Reports, following are some reasons or concerns expressed by governments, organisations and other institutes or persons due to which Internet governance is issue.

3.1 Administration of the root zone files and system According to the background report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), the operators of root servers restrict themselves to operational matters and are not involved in policy making and data modifications. Some governments have expressed concerns about the current situation and consider that the following issues should be addressed: 1. Current Managers of root server’s i.e. ICANN, IANA, US Department of Commerce, VeriSign Inc. and root server operators have no clearly defined responsibilities and accountability, especially in relation to the stability and secure functions of the internet. 2. The existing System is mainly based on trust, not on a treaty. The system reduces the governmental participation in the authorization of modifications, additions or deletions to one single government, which has no contractual relationship with other governments with regard to the execution of this function. 3. The decision making procedure for the authorization of the publication of modifications, additions or deletions to the root zone file or associated information that constitute delegation or redelegation of top level domains is neither multilateral nor democratic and does not involve other government, private sector, civil society or international organizations.

3.2 Allocation of Domain names According to WGIG’s background report there are many concerns over Top Level Domain (TLD) policy management, some of these are: 1. The zones files of the three generic Top Level Domains (.gov, .mil and .edu), used predominantly by US institutions, are linked to the authoritative root and part of the root zone but operate outside the ICANN system and do not currently have any contractual relationship with ICANN. 2. Formal arrangements provided in existing ICANN documentation between ICANN/IANA and country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) registrars are inadequate. 3. The application of national sovereignty decisions to ccTLD management is evolving and is considered by some to be problematic. GAC principles say that “ssTLDs (be) administrated in the public interest, within the framework of national public policy and relevant laws and regulations”. GAC principles further specify that the ccTLD manager “has a duty to serve the local Internet community as well as the global Internet community”. Some governments considered this to be unclear and inadequate. However, the GAC has no decision making powers and cannot determine policies.

3.3 Interconnection cost There is uneven distribution of cost to the internet connection. Internet Service providers (ISP’s) based in countries remote from Internet backbones, particularly in the developing countries, are paying the full cost of the international circuits. Also there is absence of an appropriate and effective global Internet governance mechanism to resolve of the issue.

3.4 Multilingualism ICANN has not done efficient work towards mulilingualization. English rules the Domain Name System and other languages are forced to give way. In a news of BBC (Reid 2006) Ram Mohan of domain name registry service Afilias says that ‘because the internet is primarily English it imposes a second burden, you not only have to be English literate to access content in your own language. That’s ludicrous’.

According to report of Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG 2005) unresolved issues include stable versions and variants of ‘.’, agreements on the use of alphabets and scripts that are shared by many countries, languages and cultures, security matters such as homographic attacks, e- mail addressed and keyword lookup. No clear attribution has been made in regards to the definition of variant tables and equivalences, no procedure has been considered to protect existing ‘romanized’ registrations. 

3.5 IP Addressing For historical reasons, there is an imbalance in the distribution of IPv4 addresses. This issue has already been addressed by the regional Internet registries (RIRs). In the light of the transition to IPv6, some countries feel that allocation policies for IP addresses should ensure balanced access to resources on a geographical basis.

3.6 Internet stability, security and cybercrime There is lack of multilateral mechanisms to ensure the network stability and security of Internet infrastructure services and applications. Also there is a lack of efficient tools and mechanisms to be used by countries to prevent and prosecute crimes committed in other jurisdictions, so using technological means that might be located within or outside the territory where the crime had a negative effect.

3.7 Intellectual property rights (IPR) While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced nature of current IPR rules.

3.8 Freedom of Expression What measures could be taken in relation to the internet in grounds of security or to fight crime can lead to violations of the provisions for freedom of expression as contained in the Universal Declarations of Human Rights. Measures like the Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Convention can help digital detectives hunt down online baddies, but can also impact our rights. The Council is also pushing for the Convention of Human rights to have the same strength in the virtual as it does in the real world. According to Rikke Frank Jorgenson (Reid 2006) of the Danish Institute for Human Rights “Technology also provides us with means of surveillance because we leave footsteps every time we visit or we move around on the net, to an extent that we don’t do in the physical space. There are means of retaining data about us and monitoring us. It is very easy to track data online”.

3.9 Data protection and privacy rights There is a lack of national legislation and enforceable global standards for privacy and data protection rights over the internet; users have few if any means to enforce their privacy and personal data protection right, even when recognized by legislation. An example of this is the apparent lack of personal data protection in some of the WHOIS database.

3.10 Consumer rights There is a lack of global standards for consumer rights over the Internet, for example in the international purchase of goods through e-commerce; as such, users have few if any means to enforce their rights, even when these rights are recognized by legislation. In the case of digital goods and online services, there are problems for the practical and full application of traditional consumer rights.

3.11 Spam There is no global consensus on a definition of spam and no global arrangement to address this matter or enable national anti-spam laws to be effective. However, there is an increasing number of bilateral and plurilateral agreements between countries to enforce national anti-spam laws, share best practices and cooperate on solutions.

3.12 Meaningful participation in global policy development There is lack of a global mechanism for participation by governments, especially from developing countries, in addressing multisectoral issues related to global internet policy development. Also participation in some intergovernmental organizations and other international organizations is often limited and expansive, especially for developing countries, indigenous peoples, civil society organizations, and small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs).

3.13 Capacity building Adequate resources have not been available to build capacity in a range of areas relevant to Internet management at the national level and to ensure effective participation in global Internet governance, particularly for developing countries.

All the issues written above matter but the main issue is the administration of root zone file and systems. Kumar and Mowshowitz (2006) says that As ICANN controls a critical level of power- the master root file- that can be used as an instrument of punishment to disrupt the operations of at least the ccTLDs. For example, the ccTLD for Iraq was inoperable, stuck in a bureaucratic limbo at ICAAN from 2002 to 2005, and the ccTLD for Libya (.ly) was inoperable for five days in 2004 due to redesign dispute. This power makes for an uneasy relationship among ICANN, national governments, and the administrators of ccTLD. While the administrators depend on the master root file controlled by ICANN to provide Internet presence, most countries have balked at signing contracts that would give ICANN policy authority over them, arguing that ICANN makes decisions that should be made by sovereign nation states. Under the current arrangement, the U.S. has the power to disrupt the Internet infrastructure selectively. For example, ICANN recently delayed adoption of a new .xxx TLD for adult content due to pressure from U.S. government agencies. Many governments are bothered that such a vital resource exists outside their control and, even worse that it is under the thumb of an already dominant United States. "If the US government decided tomorrow it did not want .UK in the root we could eliminate it from the root zone file," said Milton Mueller of Syracuse University School of Information Studies. "The fact of the matter is that there is no legislation or internationally agreed rule or binding force that prevents them from doing that (Reid 2006). I agree they are not going to do that in any circumstances to the UK. It is not so clear whether they wouldn't do it to Iran or any other country that they consider being an enemy. Let's put it this way: if China held that power would we still be comfortable knowing that the Chinese government could decide to remove the US from the root or mess things up in some way?"

Both the US Departments of Commerce and State have reiterated that the US will maintain what they call “stewardship” of the internet. They contend that the US, working with ICANN, is best place to ensure an open, secure and stable online environment. On June 30, 2005, the United States Department of Commerce national Telecommunication and Information administration (NTIA) released the “US Statement of Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System” (NTIA 2005). This states that: 1. The United States Government intends to preserve the security and stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS). 2. Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD). 3. ICANN is the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS. 4. Dialogue related to Internet governance should continue in relevant multiple fora.

And in a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, Republican Senator Norm Coleman wrote: “There is no rational justification for politicizing internet governance with in a United Nations framework.” This view has plenty of support outside the US. “We don’t see any advantage in moving toward UN control,” says Bill Graham (Boyd 2005), who works on internet governance issues for the Canadian government. “In fact, we’re on record as opposing that. We just feel it would be bureaucratically heavy and frankly, unnecessary.” Leading members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have sent letter to U.S. Ambassador Davis A. Gross (Freepress 2005), the state Department’s representative to the WSIS, and Michael Gallagher at Commerce Department, stating that the united States should maintain its historic role” and the Department of Commerce should retain oversight of the internet. A group of lawmakers, including Republican Fred Upton, R-Mich., sent a letter to the Commerce and State departments, urging continued U.S. oversight of the Internet. Upton is the chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. "Given the Internet's importance to the world's economy, it is essential that the underlying domain name system of the Internet remains stable and secure," the letter states. "As such, the United States should take no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the domain name system. Therefore, the United States should maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file." Further according to FoxNews story (Porteus 2005) Congressional Internet Caucus co-chairmen Rick Boucher, D-Va., and Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., as well as Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., introduced a resolution that says the current Internet governance system is working well and that control of the root server responsible for overseeing global Internet addresses should remain in the United States, with the Commerce Department loosely overseeing ICANN. "It is incumbent upon the United States and other responsible governments to send clear signals to the marketplace that the current structure of oversight and management of the Internet's domain name and addressing service works, and will continue to deliver tangible benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future," states the measure, H. Con. Res. 268. "Whereas in allowing people all around the world freely to exchange information, communicate with one another, and facilitate economic growth and democracy, the Internet has enormous potential to enrich and transform human society," the resolution states. Senater Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who is in charge of the Senate's investigation into the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, said the Internet governance plan to give the U.N. more control smacks of anti-Americanism. "You may be angry with us about the war in Iraq, but we are not going to let you take over the Internet. You can't do that," Coleman said. "We can't allow concern that folks may have about other things that the U.S. does and doesn't do to really have the great potential for strangling this expansive vehicle for new growth and new opportunities"(Porteus 2005).

In response to US Commerce Department’s “Statements of Principles” on 28 July 2005, Internet Governance Project issued seven points criticizing the US “Statements of Principles” and U.S. role in Internet Governance (Internetgovernance.org 2005). Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan insists (Porteus 2005) the United Nations does not want to run the Internet and cited a growing amount of "misinformation" about the issue. "One mistaken notion is that the United Nations wants to 'take over,' police or otherwise control the Internet," Annan wrote in an editorial in The Washington Post this week. "Nothing could be farther from the truth. The United Nations wants only to ensure the Internet's global reach, and that effort is at the heart of this summit." Annan noted, however, that while spam and cybercrime are being dealt with "in a dispersed and fragmented manner," the Internet's infrastructure is being managed in an "informal but effective collaboration" among private businesses, academic groups and others. "But developing countries find it difficult to follow all these processes and feel left out of Internet governance structures," Annan said, adding that "many" say authority over the Internet should be shared with the international community. "The United States, which has exercised its oversight responsibilities fairly and honorably, recognizes that other governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns, and that efforts to make the governance arrangements more international should continue," he continued. Yoshito Utsumi, Secretary General of the Geneva based International Communications Union (ICU) says that one of the goals of the World Summit on the information Society is to improve Internet Governance by “giving a voice to people who been isolated, or have been invisible and silent, allowing them to speak out regardless of their economic status, their gender, or where they live” ( Long, 2005) . The Internet can only continue to drive democracy and economic development if freedom of expression and the freedom to receive and access information are guaranteed,” said EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media Viviane Reding, who opened the first meeting of the United Nation’s Internet governance Forum (IGF) the events with a keynote speech. “This is why the EC calls on governments and industry around the world not to tolerate public restrictions on Internet access or cyber – repression” (TelecomWeb news Digest 2006). Following are the statements of the given by the world leaders in the second World Summit on the Information Society held in Tunis:

“The U.S. and other Western nations insist on being world policeman on the management of the internet. Those who have supported nihilistic and disorderly freedom of expression are beginning to see the fruits of their efforts” Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe said, adding that Zimbabwe will be “challenging the bully – boy mentality that has driven the unipolar world” (Cullagh, 2005). “Fidel Castro, the unflinching promoter of the use of new technologies, believes it is necessary to create a multinational democratic which administers this network of networks,” said the WSIS delegate from Cuba. Too often, the internet is used for the “propagation of falsehoods,” said Mohammed Soleymani, Iran’s minister of communication an information technology. Soleymani called for the elimination of the California- based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) which approves new top – level domain names in favor of United Nations control. “Changing the Internet governance to a participatory, legitimate and accountable system under an international authority is imperative,” he said (Cullagh, 2005). Mozambique Prime Minister Lusia Diogo predicted the struggles to replace ICANN were not over, saying that “it is a matter of justice and legitimacy that all people must have a say in the way the Internet is governed.” ICANN does have an international board of directors, including members from Senegal, Morocco and Nairobi, but critics say that’s not enough. “The proceeds have not been equally shared by developing and developed countries,” Sudan President Omar Ahmad al Bashir. “The digital divide is growing between the rich and the poor countries” (Cullagh, 2005).

Inaugural meeting of the IGF took place in Athens, Greece from 30 October – 2 November. According to Sunday Morning Herald news (2006) the first U.N.-hosted summit on the Internet ended with promise of breakthrough technologies to accelerate online access in developing countries and concerns of growing government interference globally. Key participants said Thursday that the four-day meeting had at least helped clarify differences between governments, industry and online groups ahead of the next Internet Governance Forum next year in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Government of Brazil will host the 2007 IGF meeting (IGF 2007). It will take place in Rio de Janeiro on 12- 15 November 2007. The Governments of India and Egypt offered to host the 2008 and 2009 IGF meetings respectively, while the Governments of Lithuania and Azerbaijan made a bid for the 2010 meetings.

BBC News, 2005, UN at odds over Internet’s future, viewed on 19 January 2006, < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4692743.stm >.

Boyd, C 2005, US heads for internet showdown, BBC News, viewed 27 January 2007, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4436428.stm>.

Brophy, E 2002,The Outlaw 'Net': Opposition to ICANN's New Internet Order, ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, vol. 32 , no. 4 , viewed on 29 January 2007, <http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/650000/644636/1.htm?key1=644636&key2=3061070711&coll=&dl=ACM&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618>.

Carney, B 2005, Breaking up is hard to do: Should the U.S. or the U.N. control the Internet? Here's a third way, Wall Street Journal, viewed on 19 January 2007, .

Cukier, K 2005, Who will controls the internet?, Foreign Affairs, viewed 3 January 2007, < http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84602/kenneth-neil-cukier/who-will-control-the-internet.html>.

Cullagh, M, 2005, Cuba, Iran lash out at Internet freedom, CNET News.com, viewed on 19 January 2007, <http://news.com.com/Cuba,+Iran+lash+out+at+Internet+freedom/2100-1028_3-5960298.html>.

Freepress, 2005, US Congress enters Internet governance debate, viewed on 19 January 2007,

< http://www.freepress.net/congress/update.php?id=101 >.

Haskins, W 2005, Internet Summit Ends with Delegates Looking to future, NewsFactor.Com, viewed 27 January 2007, <http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=39635>.

ICANN 2004, ICANN, viewed on 3 January 2007, < http://www.icann.org/tr/english.html>.

Internetgovernance.org 2005, The future US Role in Internet Governance: 7 points in Response to the U.S. Commerce Dept.’s “Statement of Principles”, viewed on 23 January 2007, .

King, I 2004 ‘Internationalising Internet Governance: Does ICANN have a role to Play?’, Information and Communications Technology Law. Vol. 13, No. 3, viewed on 30 January 2007, <http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(bfua5z55u0tsab55w5fsa1iv)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,4;journal,7,20;linkingpublicationresults,1:104535,1>.

Klein, H 2002, ‘ICANN and Internet governance: Leveraging technical coordination to realize global public policy’, Information Society, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 193–207, viewed on 19 January 2007, < www.indiana.edu/~tisj/readers/full-text/18-3%20Klein.pdf >.

Kumar, N , Mowshowitz, A, February 2006 ‘Who should govern the internet?’, Communications of the ACM, vol. 49, no.2, pp. 35-37, viewed 10 January 2007, <http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1113061&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=10689430&CFTOKEN=97705409 >.

Long, M, 2005, The stage is set: Who will control the Internet?, Top Tech News, viewed 19 January 2007, <http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=38790>.

Porteus, L, 2005, Who Should Control the Intenet?, FoxNews, viewed 19 January 2007, <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175096,00.html>.

National Telecommunication and Information Administration 2005, Domain Names: U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C., viewed on 21 January 2007, <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm>.

New, W 2006, New Internet Governance proposal would trim Us role, Boost Private Sector, Intellectual Property Watch, viewed on 27 January 2007, < http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=439&res=1024&print=0 >.

Reid, D 2006, Who really controls the interent?, BBC News, Viewed on 25 January 2007, 

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/6135342.stm>.

TelecomWeb news Digest 2006, Thomson Gale U.N debate over Internet Governance viewed on 10 January 2007, <http://find.galegroup.com/ips/retrieve.do?subjectParam=Locale%2528en%252C%252C%2529%253AFQE%253D%2528su%252CNone%252C32%2529U.N.%2BDebates%2BInternet%2BGovernance%2524&contentSet=IAC-Documents&sort=DateDescend&tabID=T003&sgCurrentPosition=0&subjectAction=DISPLAY_SUBJECTS&prodId=IPS&searchId=R2¤tPosition=1&userGroupName=unisa&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&sgHitCountType=None&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C32%29U.N.+Debates+Internet+Governance%24&inPS=true&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&displaySubject=&docId=A153533605&docType=IAC&contentSet=IAC-Documents>.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2007, The Internet Governance Forum, viewed on 29 January 2007, < http://www.intgovforum.org/index.htm >.

The New York Times, 2005, Worldwide but homegrown, New York, viewed on 18 January 2007, <http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20910F7355B0C738FDDA90994DD404482 >.

The Working Group on Internet Governance, 2005, Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance, The Working group on Internet Governance, viewed on 5 January 2007, .

The Working Group on Internet Governance, 2005, Background Report, The Working group on Internet Governance, viewed on 5 January 2007, <http://www.wgig.org/docs/BackgroundReport.pdf>.

World Summit on Information Society, 2005 , Tunis Commitment, World Summit on Information Society, Tunis viewed on 2 February 2007, < http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/7.pdf>

World Internet summit ends with promise and concern for future 2006, The Sunday Morning Herald viewed on 5 February 2007, <http://www.smh.com.au/news/Technology/World-Internet-summit-ends-with-promise-and-concern-for-future/2006/11/03/1162340014002.html>.