Over the last few years the battle for control over governance of the internet has largely been between the US and its allies, and the UN in the form of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The US has been able to argue that it has done a good job, and that through its contract with ICANN has kept the internet free and dynamic. It has argued that increased and fragmented government involvement in control would inevitably lead to the balkanization of the internet.
But Edward Snowden's revelations on the NSA's global surveillance has changed perceptions. Neelie Kroes, the EU's commissioner for the Digital Agenda, announced Wednesday, "Recent revelations of large-scale surveillance have called into question the stewardship of the US when it comes to Internet Governance. So given the US-centric model of Internet Governance currently in place, it is necessary to broker a smooth transition to a more global model while at the same time protecting the underlying values of open multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet."
The position Kroes advocates for the EU seems to be one of an 'honest broker' between the US and the ITU. “Some are calling for the International Telecommunications Union to take control of key Internet functions," she said. "I agree that governments have a crucial role to play, but top-down approaches are not the right answer. We must strengthen the multi-stakeholder model to preserve the Internet as a fast engine for innovation.”
The balance she is seeking is a difficult one: to promote greater international cooperation in the fight against cybercrime without allowing or persuading national governments to impose their own restrictions on its use and development – while at the same time preventing the sort of global surveillance operated by the NSA and GCHQ.
"The Internet should remain a single, open, free, unfragmented network of networks, subject to the same laws and norms that apply in other areas of our day-to-day lives," says the Communication. "Its governance should be based on an inclusive, transparent and accountable multistakeholder model of governance, without prejudice to any regulatory intervention that may be taken in view of identified public interest objectives such as to ensure the respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values as well as linguistic and cultural diversity and care for vulnerable persons."
The Wall Street Journal believes this is actually not so far from the current US position, which has already said it wants a more international system of internet governance. Crucially, however, the US has not indicated how much of the current indirect control it has via the functions of ICANN it is willing to cede
WSJ also notes, "Some lobbyists warn against a too heavy-handed approach to change, arguing that governments risk stifling the Internet if they take too much control through technical means or via the Internet's governance. 'When you see intergovernmental, it means governments only,' said Frédéric Donck of the Internet Society, which lobbies on matters related to governance. 'That is not what we see as a solution.'"