The Internet and the entire Internet technology (IT) revolution is ultimately based on 1s and 0s. Everything we experience online has its roots in 1s and 0s. These two digits have had such an impact on society that they can be included with other major breakthroughs in the history of mankind, including fire and the wheel. 1s and 0s have deeply influenced social, political and economic life.

Paradoxically, the world created by them cannot be managed by binary logic and dichotomous approaches of either/or, good/bad, progressive/regressive, open/closed, us/them. The governance of the Internet requires an appreciation for different perspectives, various approaches, subtle differences, and managing paradoxes. It has to be analogue.

Internet Governance encompasses a number of fundamental paradoxes. As with all paradoxes, they involve certain in-built contradictions and potentials for both conflict and thinking “out of the box.” Solving or, more realistically, managing those paradoxes will be the major challenge in the field of Internet Governance. Here are a few examples of paradoxes in Internet Governance.

­***Internet Architecture: Openness vs. Control & Privacy –vs. Security***

One of the main advantages of the Internet is its open architecture, which allows end users the ability to create. As long as users observe a few simple IT protocol rules, they can create their own applications. In this way we got the World Wide Web, Skype, Google and Wikipedia, among others.

The same openness of the Internet was exploited by others, who see the Internet as a medium for destruction and criminal activity. Here we can list viruses, spam, cyber-crime and cyber-terrorism. Sometimes negative creativity is more powerful than positive creativity.

The same Internet technology can be both enabling and constraining. A proper balance must be achieved by preserving the Internet’s creative potential while reducing risks of the Internet’s misuse. This is an issue that cannot be tackled with either/or logic. It requires establishing a proper balance, one that requires constant readjustment.

***Copyright***

With the availability of the copy-and-paste option, the whole concept of copyright is questioned. On the one hand, the Internet has a strong enabling potential in providing people with access to information and material. On the other hand, the request of copyright owners to protect their rights is clearly legitimate. A necessary balance needs to be established, whose main aim is the facilitation of the further development of the Internet.

***Spam***

Almost all of us have learned the difficult balancing act of fine-tuning anti-Spam filters. If it is set too strictly, it could filter out messages that we want to receive. Yet, more relaxed anti-Spam won’t serve the purpose. Very soon we realise that we cannot find only a technical solution for Spam. The solution requires legal provisions for punishing spammers. If we establish a solution in a national legal system, we then realise that most of our Spam comes from abroad and that we need an international solution. Spam is particularly burdensome for developing countries in which a limited Internet bandwidth is blocked by Spam traffic. Yet, in the same developing countries small Internet-based businesses rely on the advertising that lies on the grey border zone with Spam. And so on…. It becomes clear that any functional solution requires careful balancing between technical, policy and legal solutions involving governments, Internet providers and software producers.

An illustration of such a complex situation is the US anti-Spam law, which arose as the result of compromise among advertisers, those interested in a relaxed anti-Spam regime, and the general public concerned with Spam. The result is a law, which according to many critics, paradoxically, actually tolerates Spam. The starting, “default,” position set out in the law is that Spam is allowed until the receiver says “stop” (by using an opt-out clause). It places the enforcement burden on the victim (the recipient of the Spam), not on the spammer.

***ICANN – Exercise in Managing Paradoxes***

ICANN (Internet Corporation of Assigned Numbers and Names) has been in the focus of the Internet Governance debate due to its role in managing domain names and IP numbers. The creation of ICANN in 1998 was the result of a compromise between various interests and views including the early Internet community, businesses, civil society and the US government. Like most compromises, it is built on numerous, preferable constructive, ambiguities. They sometimes evolve into paradoxes. Here are the main ones:

• ICANN is a private institution (established under California law) that protects the public interest of the global Internet community.
• ICANN is a national institution (registered in the USA) that addresses international issues (global Internet governance) with an international constituency (governments, international organizations, civil society).
• ICANN must work in an efficient manner in order to keep up with the development of the Internet, but it has to facilitate the participation of various stakeholders, which can be a slow and laborious process.
• ICANN should be democratic (in order to promote openness, representation and due process in organizational deliberation), but it also must accommodate specific requests by governments for sessions behind closed doors.
• ICANN must be able to change rapidly in order to follow rapid developments in this field, but also must remain stable in order to guarantee the basic functionality of the Internet.

ICANN involves wide variety of stakeholders. The early Internet community, the so-called fathers of the Internet, are concerned about the future of their baby. Fortunately, like every success, the Internet has many fathers--which also further complicates matters. The Internet’s fathers are particularly concerned about the strong influence of governments in Internet Governance. Civil society is also very vocal in protecting those values, in particular openness, inclusive decision making and preservation of a flexible infrastructure.

Since the Internet has become part of the critical infrastructure of most societies around the world it made many governments increasingly interested in Internet infrastructure. To this list of players, one should add business people who run businesses connected to the Internet. The more businesses migrate to the Internet, the more the business sector needs to be consulted. Both issues and players make Internet Governance and ICANN in particular real exercise in managing paradoxes.

At the end of September 2006, the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the US Department of Commerce (DOC) and ICANN expired. The MoU provided the legal basis for ICANN. Its expiry offers an appropriate occasion to reconsider the future of ICANN and to accommodate some suggestions for change, mainly towards lesser dependence of ICANN on the US DOC and higher involvement of other governments. The new agreement between the US DOC and ICANN provides a framework for restructuring ICANN and addressing some of the above listed paradoxes.

Practical Guide: How to Deal with Internet Governance Paradoxes?

Analogues – carefully balanced and constantly improved mechanisms – could provide possible solutions for Internet Governance paradoxes. In this regard, much can be learned from the Asian tradition. The problems of the 21^st century may be tackled by almost twenty-century-old wisdom, such as Lao Tse’s teaching of “actionless activity”: we have to act (guide the Internet Governance process) without acting (avoiding unnecessary interference and unnecessary advancement). Out of the broad teaching of Lao Tse the following few metaphors could be useful for Internet Governance.

1. Be Cautious, Like Crossing a Frozen Stream in Winter. The fox crossing a frozen stream is one famous metaphor from Taoism. The fox carefully tests the ice before taking each step. The ice, which may look solid, could break under the fox’s weight at any time. The complexity and interdependence of Internet Governance issues requires a cautious approach. Solutions for one problem should not create numerous new problems.
2. Be Supple and Pliant, Like Ice about to Melt. “Ice about to melt” is another metaphor frequently used by Lao Tse. Things that appear to be powerless at first glance may happen to possess long-lasting power. The Internet-enabling element is the best example of this metaphor. In the business, policy, and advocacy worlds, many examples how powerless turns into solid structural power can be found.
3. Be Genuine, Like a Piece of Uncarved Wood. As Lao Tse teaches us, we should not cling to firm, “carved” views. Firm and strongly carved views and positions are usually supplanted in the rapid development of the Internet. Any Internet governance regime should provide flexibility for future development. Any carving should be carried out with utmost care.
4. Be Open and Broad, Like a Valley. Lao Tse uses the metaphor of the valley to describe a wise person who does not exclude other people. This metaphor highlights the need to include and accommodate. The valley conveys fast streams and waters from the mountains further down towards the sea. As Taoism enlightens, it does not matter whether the water comes from gentle rain, violent thunderstorms, or melting snow. Like the valley, a global Internet Governance regime has to bring together all the different views and players, harmonise the views, and safeguard the Internet as a tool of creativity and development.