1. 2014 will see many important international meetings on internet governance that could significantly impact its future, as countries push for greater government control while technical groups support the traditional multistakeholder approach. 2. Disclosures about US electronic surveillance have energized some governments' calls for increased regulation of internet activities and oversight, though responses also risk negatively impacting internet freedom and business. 3. Key upcoming meetings include ITU and UN conferences and summits that will debate issues like internet governance processes, cybersecurity, data protection, and economic development, with some countries seeking expanded government roles and new intergovernmental bodies.

1. 1
2014 – A Turning Point for Governance of the Internet?
Ambassador David A. Gross
Carl R. Frank
Ethan Lucarelli
Long-simmering and highly controversial calls for international regulation of important aspects
of the Internet have increased dramatically in 2013, most notably because of disclosures about
United States electronic surveillance programs. Those governments seeking to establish or
expand international Internet regulation are expected to pursue actively those goals in 2014,
making next year a potentially historic year for international information and communications
technology (ICT) policy making. All businesses that touch the Internet will likely be affected
and should take action to be heard.
Both day-to-day management and long-term development of the Internet historically have been
conducted through “multistakeholder” processes, driven by technical and civil society groups,
with government participation as one of many equal stakeholders. Today, proponents of an
increased role for governments in Internet policy-making see an opportunity for significant
change. Internet governance, cybersecurity, and data protection will be debated alongside
questions of promoting broadband deployment and economic development online in policy
meetings, conventions, and treaty writing conferences around the globe throughout 2014. All
parties agree that there remains room for beneficial growth and reform in international
multistakeholder organisations. Still, some proposals ultimately could reduce the speed and
security of the network, raise the cost of doing business online, slow technological innovation,
and restrict freedoms.
Because of the wide-ranging effects and broad geographic and institutional scope of these events,
it is important that lawyers, consultants, and advisers working for telecoms, technology, and ICT
companies—both in-house and outside—carefully monitor and identify appropriate opportunities
for engagement to ensure that their clients have a voice in the outcomes.
Ongoing Internet Governance Debates at the ITU
As the United Nations specialised agency for communication technology, and as one of the
conveners of the UN’s World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003 and 2005, the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has long been a focal point for arguments in
favour of an expanded role for governments in the management of and activities conducted on
the Internet. The past year was no exception: Internet governance was a central focus at major
international conferences and smaller working group meetings alike.
WCIT-12. The current momentum regarding Internet governance can be traced to the 2012
World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12), held in Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, in December 2012, where ITU Member States gathered to renegotiate a 1988
telephone treaty called the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). The United
States and others tried to prevent WCIT-12 from expanding the scope of the treaty—and
accordingly the jurisdiction of the ITU—into Internet policy. Other countries, however,
proposed treaty modifications to address a variety of technical, economic, security, and content-

2. 2
related aspects of Internet policy. Although nearly 60 other countries did not sign the treaty, in
part due to content-related “spam” and cybersecurity provisions, and a non-binding resolution on
Internet policy issues, the final treaty did not include the most troubling proposals initially
debated at the conference. Nonetheless, WCIT-12 demonstrated the growing power, energy, and
organisation of countries seeking fundamental changes to international Internet policy-making
and it ensured these debates would continue at future meetings.
WTPF-13. Unlike WCIT-12, the 2013 World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-
13), held in May 2013 in Geneva, Switzerland, had Internet policy discussions as its core
mandate. WTPF-13 produced six non-binding “Opinions” addressing promotion of broadband
deployment, facilitation of a smooth IPv6 transition, and further development of representative
multistakeholder processes. A key topic of discussion at WPTF-13, however, was a seventh
Opinion – promoted by Brazil – on “operationalizing the role of governments in the
multistakeholder model for Internet Governance,” which took as its premise that the ITU should
provide a vehicle for increased government involvement in the daily operation and longer-term
policy-making of the Internet.
Although Brazil’s draft Opinion was not adopted at WTPF-13, its principles were supported by
many other countries, and Brazil was encouraged to carry the draft Opinion to other appropriate
venues, including the ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public
Policy Issues (CWG-Internet), which is specifically established to study Internet governance
issues. Late in 2013, Brazil submitted a related contribution (subsequently withdrawn) calling
for the establishment of a “multilateral decision-making instance of international Internet
governance . . . capable of producing legally binding commitments by Member States;”
essentially an intergovernmental organisation responsible for Internet governance, perhaps
facilitated by ITU.
The Globalisation of ICANN
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)—the non-profit, private
company with responsibilities for oversight of IP address allocation and the Domain Name
Service (DNS) system—took significant steps in 2013 to address calls for a more global
perspective to its operations, including a recent statement signed by ICANN’s CEO and the
heads of many other prominent Internet technical organisations calling for “accelerating the
globalization” of Internet technical issues, “towards an environment in which all stakeholders,
including all governments, participate on an equal footing.”
Notably, ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), a group of governments that
issues non-binding communiques to ICANN, has become more important, as illustrated by its
work regarding applications for new generic top level domains (gTLDs) (the part of an Internet
address after the “dot”, e.g., “.com” or “.net”). When the GAC took issue with some proposals
for new gTLDs, including those that invoked a geographic region (e.g., “.patagonia”) or with
religious connotation (e.g., “.halal”), ICANN slowed the gTLD issuance process, seeking
comment on the various objections. Although, at the time of this writing, ICANN has not made
a final decision on some of the GAC’s recommendations, the process has illustrated a heightened
role for the GAC in major ICANN decision-making.

3. 3
Simultaneously, ICANN has altered its organisational structure to reflect its global nature. A
U.S.-based corporation, ICANN has split its headquarters with three offices: in addition to its
traditional Los Angeles headquarters, ICANN added hubs in Istanbul, Turkey and Singapore.
Like the ongoing relationship-building with government and intergovernmental organisations,
the opening of the ICANN regional offices is an effort to better serve the global constituency it
represents.
Electronic Surveillance Disclosures
More than any other development in 2013, the disclosures regarding international electronic
surveillance conducted by the U.S. and others have served to energise international governments
supporting increased oversight over Internet activities. Although the disclosures raise important
questions, there is a risk they could be used to justify unrelated or over-reactive policy responses
that could have a negative effect on Internet economics and freedom.
The disclosures already have featured prominently in discussions at various international,
regional, and national gatherings, discussed below.
Brazil. In September, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff addressed the UN General Assembly
complaining about alleged surveillance and calling for the UN to take a leading role “in the effort
to regulate the conduct of States” with regard to ICTs and also espoused the creation of new
“multilateral mechanisms for the worldwide network.” Brazil later announced an international
conference in Brazil in 2014 on Internet governance, drawing upon the themes of President
Rousseff’s speech.
IGF. The disclosures also featured prominently at the 2013 meeting of the Internet Governance
Forum (IGF), the UN-created annual multistakeholder meeting discussing Internet policy issues.
The official press release from the forum referred to the disclosure issue as “the elephant in the
room” that “cast a long shadow over the discussions.” A major theme of the IGF became
“restoring trust” in the Internet and the issue permeated the four-day conference.
European Union. Although European countries were among the strongest voices in support of
Internet freedom and multistakeholder processes at WCIT-12, the disclosures have stimulated
calls for change by some European countries and the European Commission. An EU Parliament
committee approved a strong draft General Data Protection Regulation that, should it be
approved, would restrain the ability of international companies to do business electronically
regarding the EU. Additionally, although the European Commission warned against a “Fortress
Europe” mentality, the surveillance disclosures have fueled some calls for the development of
EU-centric cloud computing platforms that raise concerns about the erection of digital borders.
2014 – A Year of Many Meetings
The confluence of current events and the large number of high-level meetings on the calendar
make 2014 potentially a seminal moment for the future of international Internet and ICT policy.
Although potential pitfalls could hinder the development of international networks and the flow
of international business, there are significant opportunities to advance globalisation and the
development of positive international norms, as well.

4. 4
WTDC-14 & WSIS+10 High Level Event. The ITU’s 2014 World Telecommunication
Development Conference (WTDC-14) and WSIS+10 High-Level Event currently are scheduled
for March and April 2014. In addition to emphasising broadband deployment and economic
development issues, these events will likely debate the role of governments in Internet
governance processes, international cybersecurity issues, data protection, and child online
protection.
Brazil Internet Governance Conference. Also in late April or early May, Brazil intends to hold
an international conference on Internet governance issues. Although at the time of this writing
details on the structure and goals of the conference are sparse, it is expected that the conference
may focus on the principles articulated in President Rousseff’s address to the UN General
Assembly and Brazil’s calls for the formation of new multilateral mechanisms for Internet
governance.
PP-14. In October and November 2014, in Busan, South Korea, the ITU will hold its 2014
Plenipotentiary (PP-14), at which the foundational ITU treaties will be renegotiated and
potentially revised. PP-14 will likely be an opportunity for those countries seeking an enhanced
role for governments in international Internet governance to try to realise those goals through
changes to binding international treaties.
UN. Other UN bodies, such as the Economic and Financial Committee (Second Committee) and
the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) will be meeting,
composing reports, and potentially adopting resolutions addressing the use of ICTs in
development. These bodies will be looking ahead to a full evaluation of the WSIS Action Lines
in 2015.
Potential Consequences
While there are many important and legitimate international policy issues to be addressed, there
could be serious consequences if the results of these discussions favour protectionism over
interconnectedness and strong government control over traditional private sector leadership.
Turning the Cloud into a Raindrop. One troubling outcome would be acceleration of forced
data localisation, which could slow the extraordinary global growth of cloud services. Some
countries seek, in the name of security and economic development, to require international cloud
and other ICT services to host local data and applications within their borders. These obligations
raise costs—for consumers, service providers, and manufacturers alike—while reducing the
speed and efficiency of ICT services, and, ultimately, will reduce access to innovative
technologies and services to the developing world.
Content Regulation. Conference outcomes, particularly through treaty language, could be used
to justify increased government control over the commercial and cultural activities of individuals
or businesses online under the rubric of child protection, security, or spam. Such regulations
could have a serious chilling effect on Internet freedom and on access to and generation of
content.
Internet Charges. Some countries may seek additional regulation of international peering, data
termination charges, or other Internet-related rate issues, either through an intergovernmental

5. 5
organisation or through Member States themselves. This could take the form of new taxes on
Internet businesses or mandating new IP termination charging models. Such mandates could
raise costs for network operators, content distributors, service providers, and, ultimately,
consumers. Moreover, such charges also could slow or prevent the introduction of new services
and business models.
Balkanisation of the Internet. At worst, 2014 could see a move toward segmentation of the
Internet through the establishment of separate, alternative network infrastructures. While such a
monumental technical undertaking seems unlikely, the consequences are too significant to
ignore. A Balkanised Internet would defeat the beneficial network effects of global
interconnectedness, raise the costs of doing business online by requiring duplicative
infrastructure, reduce the ability for startups and individuals to reach a global audience, and lead
to divergent technological and cultural developments. It could also create opportunities for
governments to take their national Internet segments offline. In the end, this result could hit
developing countries the hardest, as their populations find themselves without access to
international markets, and cut off from the global community.
Conclusion
Aside from the importance of the issues and the possible consequences, the sheer number of
potentially significant events occurring within a short period of time raises logistical challenges.
To monitor and participate effectively in each of the conferences, decision-making fora, and
preparatory meetings of consequence in 2014 could stress the resources of even the most well-
funded groups. For most companies acting alone, the task is infeasible. Therefore, it will be
important for companies to take advantage of opportunities for collaboration, whether through
associations, government-convened stakeholders meetings, or in ad hoc groups of organisations
with similar interests. By working together with government and civil society allies,
international businesses can formulate and advocate for a positive vision based on the free flow
of information, security, and promoting economic development.