Fall

12

ICANN & the G20 nebulous: Multistakeholder decision processes

Gatien Bon
By analyzing the way both the G20 nebulous and ICANN are able to bring all stakeholders to put forward ideas, I shall try to present a few general characteristics of the required actions to take and the steps to make to be able to reach an efficient process. Moreover, by using the consensus driven bodies I analyze, I shall demonstrate how modern technologies are powerful drivers when it comes to managing discussion and moving forward.

M e d i a , P o l i t i c s , P o w e r D P I 6 5 9 N i c c o M e l e

ICANN & the G20 nebulous: Multistakeholder decision processes

Content of the report

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 Two regulatory bodies? Two advisory boards? Two decision nodes! .................................. 4
ICANN: a clear legal mandate constantly expanded ............................................................................................ 4 No G20 bylaws an informal forum .............................................................................................................................. 4 The G20 environment, an undefined nebulous environment ......................................................................... 5

Diverging mission statements but two accountable bodies ................................................ 6

Two opposite creation procedures and diverging mission statements ...................................................... 6 Nuances in accountability but two accountable institutions ........................................................................... 7

G20 and ICANN, a common way of thinking about problems ............................................. 7

No existing formal definition of accountability ..................................................................................................... 7 Core bodies and gravitating influences ..................................................................................................................... 8 Transparency versus efficiency, an alternative for both institutions .......................................................... 9 Best practice exchange in the decision-making process: enhancing public participation ................ 10 A vision different from expectations: remaining close to citizens, a challenge! .................................... 11

Conclusion & Key Learning ................................................................................................ 13 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 14

Introduction
The upcoming conference on International Telecommunications, held in Dubai, at the beginning of December, constitutes once again a challenge for ICANNs power over the Internet. Especially the articulation of such a private body with the power of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will be questioned. If the neutrality of the Internet seems preserved, many fear the United States might be isolated not signing the agreement giving power back to the ITU. Google raised other concerns by asking users at the end of November 2012 to "pledge your support for the free and open Internet". "I see this as a constitutional moment for global cyberspace, where we can stand back and say, `Who should be in charge?' said Ronald Deibert. University of Toronto, "What are the rules of the road? (NBCNews 2012). On the other hand, the G20 has been formalized since it first met at the Heads of States level in 2008. Moreover, the G20 is now surrounded by a nebulous of more or less formalized bodies seeking to influence the decisions. Both bodies therefore can be considered as facing a multi-stakeholder approach to the issues. Comparing the way decisions are made in both organizations will give a chance to bring forward best practices and to raise solutions in order to make these two consensus based organizations to improve. Moreover, the G20 and ICANN despite numerous differences stated in the next few pages have major common points. In particular, they are the two only key bodies operating purely on a consensus basis. Never shall countries vote on an issue at the G20; never would stakeholders vote on an issue at ICANN. If the legitimacy of the G20 remains debated and mainly is issued by the personal legitimacy of heads of States, for the past 15 years ICANN has forced a very unique concept of legitimacy. Despite uncertainties on the mandate granted by the American Commerce Department and on its independence, ICANN now is an operating body with defined rules making it a functional organization. However, in order to improve the process of decision making in international institutions as a whole, comparing decision- making guidelines from one to another is usually very insightful. Therefore, this paper will show how the G20 and the ICANN can learn from each other to be at the source of new governance. In particular, the use of technology as a facilitator shall be considered as a means to build on a diverse environment. This paper does not aim at defining the future of the ICANN, which has already been commented in depth by many experts, analysts and scholars, more qualified than I am to monitor the future of this unique UFO in the world of international institutions. This paper aims at considering the decision-making process used by the ICANN and the G20 nebulous in order to be able to define a common set of practices and diverging view. We aim to demonstrate that a convergence of practices could benefit both parties. To do so, my paper will start by analyzing both organizations and presenting the key characteristics they have before contrasting their key differences in mission statement. By analyzing accountability, transparency and decision making procedures, we shall then shift to a micro-level comparative analysis before pointing out a few key best practices.

ICANN & the G20 nebulous: Multistakeholder decision processes

Two regulatory bodies? Two advisory boards? Two decision nodes!

ICANN: a clear legal mandate constantly expanded

In 1998, in order to privatize the way Domain Name Systems were distributed, the ICANN was created. Having the monopoly of the attribution of the top-level domain names, the body was due to find an attribution process satisfying private bodies, public stakeholders as well as the civil society. Therefore, the bylaws of the body as well as the general process used to award new domain-names is particularly interesting as being an attempt- contested of course- to satisfy all parties. Therefore, its bylaws, many times modified, chose to include diversity right from the beginning in the way he board and various decision committees are composed. In the end, we ended up with a hybrid structure, very segmented and stratified, operating under the general guideline: "in a bottom up, consensus driven, democratic manner." This process is slightly different from the guideline of the Internet Engineering Task Force, reporting to the ICANN and working with regards to the motto: rough consensus and running code . In order to clarify the formal way the ICANN should be structured, they have just released an At-Large White paper on Future Challenges called: Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected showing how crucial the issue of governance is for them. In fact two key questions close to our subject are raised in this paper: Is ICANNs multi- stakeholder approach sufficiently robust and sustainable in the long run under increased external pressure? and Are the arrangements related to the governance of the Internets critical resources, including that of ICANNs own internal governance, adequate to meet the needs of a growing and diverse community of internet uses worldwide? (ICANN September, 17th 2012). The International Telecommunication Summit in Dubai, early December 2012, raised concerns throughout the world about the future of the Internet and in particular, the way governments might be willing to take over the way the Internet works. In fact the mandate of the ICANN is the worst solution to Internet governance, expect for all the alternatives to quote Jonathan Koppell (Koppell 2012).

No G20 bylaws an informal forum

On the other hand, the G20 was created in 1999 as a gathering of Finance ministers for 19 economies, supposed to be the most powerful not with respects to the GDP nor GDP per capita ranking- and the European Union. During the 2008 economic crisis, the decision by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy to make this become a conference of Heads of States was accepted. By bringing the G20 to a high level conference, the G8 became a les useful forum and allowed decisions to be made by taking interest of 80% of the world population representing 95% of GDP into account. However, some countries deeply resent not being part of this club.

 From a governance point of view, the G20s decisions are taken by consensus, they have no mandatory value apart from the political accountability of the heads of states signing the Final Communiqu. These decisions come from the sole will of Heads of States with no supporting permanent secretary, with no bureaucracy to ensure continuity and with a presidency initiating all major reforms and pushing on specific topics.

The G20 environment, an undefined nebulous environment

The G20 does not stand on its own as a decision-making body. Since it was created in 2008, many informal bodies have been created and gravitate around the Heads of State conference. In particular, do the B20, the L20, the Y20 and the G20 Youth Summits hold a special role and do pretend to have an impact on the issue of the summit. The upcoming Russian presidency ahs set the stage to a new environment with the formalized: Buisness 20, Civil 20, Labor 20, Think 20 and Youth 20. Before assessing the links between these different parts of the G20 nebulous, lets present all of them briefly. The B20 or Business 20, created in 2010 by the Korean presidency of the G20 is meant to express common views from the international business community. More specifically, its main purpose consists in developing recommendations and issuing relevant commitments from the business leaders and business organizations to deal with nowadays issues (Buisness 20 2011). Perpetuated ever since, the structure is now composed of eight taskforces in order to structure the message business leaders cant to deliver to Heads of States. The L20 or Labor 20 was created by the French presidency of the G20 and regroups the trade union organizations of the G20 countries. Since 2011, they have been able to host a joint B20 L20 meeting issuing a final Communiqu uniting the positions of the Business and Labor representatives. In 2011, they seize[d] the opportunity of social issues being put on the agenda of the G20 to draw the attention of governments to some major issues on which they have developed a common vision (B20 & L20 2011). The Youth 20 requires involvement of Youth of the G20 countries. However, on this side, diverging initiatives have been initiated. In order to involve Young Entrepreneurs, the G20 Young Entrepreneurs Alliance organizes the G20 YES a gathering of young entrepreneurs and the organizations that represent them, to convene, network and discuss the policy and regulatory changes needed to foster entrepreneurship in the G20 countries (G20YES 2012). However, the French Presidency endorsed the G8 & G20 Youth Summits which since 2006 gathers students and young professionals from all G20 countries to address the most pressing international issues thanks to the leadership of the G8 & G20 Youth Network, an international network of student organizations committed to promote international dialogue and cultural openness (Youth Diplomacy 2011). The G20YS (G20 Youth Summit) is constituted by a generation of young and successful business leaders caring about the prosperity of their immediate business environment as well as the development of their communities and countries (G20YS 2012). To the already numerous initiatives, the Russian 2013 presidency has created the Civil G20 represented by grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, academics

6 ICANN & the G20 nebulous: Multistakeholder decision processes and other actors significantly contributes to transparency, review and evaluation processes as well as to monitoring the outcomes and commitments of the G-20 (Civil G20 2012). The presidency also chose to create the Think G20 to gather think tanks around the evolution of the G20. These five major bodies represent a major part of the engagements taken by the G20 Graph 1. Vision of the harmony of these groups by the 2013 G20 Russian presidency

Diverging mission statements but two accountable bodies

Two opposite creation procedures and diverging mission statements

ICANN has been created to establish very little, and obviously it has been successful pointed out Susan Crawford (Crawford 2012). However, in her view, one major intellectual difference is paramount to consider when analyzing the two bodies: ICANN manages a scarce resource, domain names, and it is therefore required that they exist (Crawford, The ICANN experiment 2004). The existence of the G20 is only contingent to the will of leaders, as proved by its creation process. Without the 2008 economic crises, the creation process of the G20 would have ben much longer or even non-existant. Therefore, given their primary purpose, ICANN is a mandatory body and the G20 is an informal forum. Despite this fundamental divergence in their mission statement, both bodies have one strong common feature: operating by consensus is key for them. This operating protocol brings them to be de facto multi-stakeholder bodies. This entails micromanagement specific features, consultation protocols and preliminary discussions to be able to bring all parties to the table. Given this varying basic premise, the implementation process and the mandatory implementation of decisions is not comparable between both institutions. Being an informal club, the G20 derives from the legitimacy of Heads of States and has absolutely

no power to enforce discussions. In fact, the G20 can be seen as an informal forum where heads of states get the opportunity to know each other. When it comes to para- G20 institutions, they are not granted any legitimacy whatsoever and do not implement any decisions. In fact, their Final Communiqus remain on purpose vague and do not talk about specific actions but remain at the level of principles. The only way the G20s decisions are applied relies in the political pressure it puts on members of the group. The G20 Research Group, University of Toronto, led by John Kirton, publishes extensive reports of application of decisions with quantitative measure of achievement to try and push the implementation forward. On the other side, ICANN is more or less ruled by the principle formulated by Lawrence Lessig: Code is Law. Since it is managing a scare resource, and because the mandate granted by the US department of Commerce does not give that precise a definition of the role and status of ICANN, all decisions are implemented. In fact, ICANN is accountable to 2.2 billion Internet users that the decisions they took were the right ones. ICANN has developed a management delivery with objectives and goals with a system and structure to make it happen said Fadi Chehade, president and CEO, of ICANN (Henderson 2012). Therefore, ICANNs decisions are implemented and controlled on a day-to-day basis.

Nuances in accountability but two accountable institutions

For the purpose of this report, the idea is to compare the accountability processes and the decisions on the G20 environment and ICANN. This report will heavily rely on the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society, Accountability and Transparency at ICANN, an independent review on the accountability process at ICANN and the way it could be improved. I shall stick to the criteria they have defined in order to monitor the way ICANN is structured and operates (Berkman Center for Internet & Society October 2010). The assessment of accountability and of decisions needs to rely on a few core principles that we shall now define. In particular, on September, 30th 2009, the Affirmation of Commitments entitled ICANN to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency, so to ensure that all outcomes of its decision- making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders. This broad definition not only reminds of the necessity for ICANN to commit to a multi- stakeholder approach but also defines three key ways to evaluate the action taken by the body. The analysis of these different parts - accountability, transparency and public input- shall drive the comparative analysis of the accountability processes. As of the G20, the accountability, if we stick to the terms relies exclusively on the political pressure of constituents. However, as we shall see, in fact all criteria are met and allow building a more explicit comparison.

G20 and ICANN, a common way of thinking about problems

No existing formal definition of accountability

8 ICANN & the G20 nebulous: Multistakeholder decision processes As mentioned previously, ICANN is ruled mostly in accordance with the set of principles defined in agreement with the Department of Commerce of the United States. ICANN has "authority without legitimacy." Still, it is authority all the same to use Koppells words (Stuff.co.nz 2012). This lack of legitimacy and the necessity to build an operating Internet requires therefore a powerful accountability system. In fact, as previous analyses have already mentioned, ICANN does not build on a single definition of accountability. In fact, the transparency Frameworks and principles refer to three types of accountability: public sphere accountability, corporate and legal accountability and participating community accountability. Given the fact that corporate and legal accountability do not exist for the G20 we shall not expand on this issue. Public sphere accountability relies in the idea that stakeholders should be certain ICANN has behaved responsibly. Specifically this issues, when it comes to ICANN derives from the board composition and the ability not to renew the mandate of a board member not giving satisfaction to the Internet community. The G20 has obviously no such type of mechanism since the members of the Club are chosen. However, in order to ensure representativeness, they have created a process to invite countries to be part in the discussions. To ensure accountability, having a defined process to select these countries and inviting on a permanent basis the President of the General Assembly of the UN (rather than the Secretary General) would be a first step. Graph 2. Conclusions of the Accountability and Transparency at ICANN, an independent review by the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society

Core bodies and gravitating influences

In Los Cabos the G20 has an opportunity to boost multilateral efforts and enhance legitimacy though greater stakeholder inclusion. Leaders can begin by considering these recommendations and strategic perspectives. Emerging as topically focused advisories

to the G20, groups like the L20 of labor leaders, the B20 of business leaders and the T20 of think-tank leaders, have formed as concerned stakeholders and adjuncts of official diplomacy to advise governments. In particular, this years convening of business leaders, or the B20, has re-doubled efforts to offer action plans from business in areas which stand to advance the G20s agenda. Be it through partnerships, amalgamated programs or collective initiatives, the private sector has stepped up to address important issues like food security, green growth and employment - to name a few. With the receptivity of governments, such engagement will go a long way toward delivering timely, concrete and scalable actions by leaders (Birkes 2012). This analysis points out one of the key benefits there would be for the G20 to shift to a multi-stakeholder analysis. Mainly, in one world, this would be a way to use all available brains. The business part of the world wants to be a part of the discussions (DelBianco 2011). By creating their discussion forum they clearly showed their will to cooperate (The Guardian 2012).

Graph 3. Interaction between the B20 and the G20, a formal process (example of the Mexican presidency of the G20) In fact, the mission when creating ICANN that way was to ensure few ideas were coming out and that the stakeholders agreed on a few key points. The general idea is that, when going down the pipeline of discussions and formal exchanges only the core values, the fundamental principles remain (Crawford, Former board member of ICANN - Berkman Center Director 2012). Therefore, analyzing gravitating influences as interesting inputs and valuable ideas, as ways to use all available brains, would allow more interesting summits. Indeed, given the fact that the Final Communiqus do not get many formal engagements or achievements, why not use them to get a few key messages through?

Transparency versus efficiency, an alternative for both institutions

Transparency is a cross-sectional issue playing a specific role in accountability, public participation, corporate governance and decision making, highlights the Berkman Center (Berkman Center for Internet & Society October 2010). When it comes to ICANN, the board of Directors and all levels of decision are suspected not to be inclusive and to

10 ICANN & the G20 nebulous: Multistakeholder decision processes be in favor of certain of the different stakeholders. The transparency process allows to show why decisions were taken, which ideas were considered and how the differing views were reconciled. The report then considers four different policies in order to enhance transparency: information design, information and document request, exemptions and a transparency audit. Pascal Lamy, in a 2010 speech, has highlighted the role of the formal multilateral arrangements, he has also noted the role of the informal groups and in particular the G- 20. While the role of the G-20 lies in providing leadership to address key economic governance issues, decision-making is the prerogative of formal institutions. (Wall Street Journal 2010). From this analysis, I would like to draw two key points when it comes to transparency in the G20 environment and relate each points to two buckets of the report. First, none of the existing parties (G20, B20, L20) have formal transparency procedures and if this will be more widely developed in the next part of this report, I do believe explaining clearly how and when decisions are taken would be a first step. Having the discussion of an economics forum handled by diplomacies of all countries and treated as normal diplomacy, mainly hidden and behind the scenes seems outdated to me. I understand how useful this may be to have a clear Final Communiqu drafted with meetings along the way but why not being public. Having a formal transparency audit for the G20 is utopic and even ICANN has no publicly available transparency analysis. The suggestion made is therefore to add information to the Dashboard on performance metrics. Given the fact that the University of Toronto does the analysis, why could it be displayed on the G20 website to press and urge governments to move forward and to show citizens when they can push? Moreover, reports on ICANN show that exemptions and subjects for which transparency should be limited are defined very widely. For the G20, all is exempted from publication! Narrowing transparency exemptions would increase legitimacy. The second comment relates to the refusal of all parties to build a permanent secretary. Given this denial, the process of releasing documents and data will never be as formalized as it is in IANN. However, even without going that fare, including for the public to request information that is not publicly available through a Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIPD), as exists for the Internet would allow us to continue moving forward on the path of Open Government. Creating a clear information- request procedure and developing independent procedures to explain why some instances lead to denial of information would endanger nor the discussions nor public safety. ICANN is usually told they release so many documents in such a disorderly manner that only experts are able to handle the contents and that one-time users are unable to find what they look for. If the G20 made one step towards this path would be a major step.

Best practice exchange in the decision-making process: enhancing public participation

ICANNs AoC commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input to ensure the outcomes of its decision-making process will reflect the public interest. The by-laws revised in 202 now include staff responsible for public participation and the

Board Public Participation Committee thinks on public involvement at all levels including board levels (to complement the nomination of at-wide elected board- members). In fact, the Berkman Center points out a few points for improvement especially by using open-innovation literature and principles. Following the analysis of participation, we shall focus on bringing people to interact, aggregating inputs and incorporating in the final decision. ICANNs general Manager of Public participation, Kieren McCarthy, noted that ICANN should move towards simpler input mechanisms such as polls not reliant on people reading whole reports to increase public participation (Berkman Center for Internet & Society October 2010). The G20 is far from there, soliciting public comments on drafts does not exist and discussions forums mandatory for all decision taken by ICANN- are not relevant. However, rather than having an informal lobbying process, using the same type of strategy as the EU to manage to deal with inputs could make sense (White paper, Green Paper). In fact, ICANNs at large White papers obey to the same logic and are supposed to bring people to comment and argue. To enhance participation at the G20, starting by announcing all meetings and releasing preparatory documents would be a first step and would give a use to the Civil 20 as well as to the Think20, which could comment on early drafts. When it comes to aggregating and responding to the input, since the process does not exist yet in the G20, what comes out of the gathering done by ICANN is that public comments are rare, heterogeneous and people feel they were not heard. Therefore, rather than having the B20 and Y20 happening at the same time as the summit, it would be more useful to have formal meetings ahead of time to allow inclusion of comments. Moreover, how risky would it be to create contests and calls for ideas? The only risk would be to receive a good idea and not to be able to reach a consensus. In fact, this could be organized through the Y20, T20 or C20. Aggregation and transmission to the board is always a sensitive issue. ICANN does not manage to give people the feeling that comments are taken into account when it arrives to the Board. In fact, I believe from a G20s perspective, they should never arrive to the Heads of States but should be treated as one of the inputs to the B20/C20/Y20/T20 contributions. According to the Berkman center report, ICANN considered delivering a matrix with specific answers by the Board to Comments classified by theme. This matrix could be used by the Heads of States to comment on para-G20s comments. Indeed, this would bring some states to force opposition rather than putting subjects in drawers but I feel citizens would appreciate and consensus would therefore move faster.

A vision different from expectations: remaining close to citizens, a challenge!

Citizens do not see on a daily basis the works of ICANN or the G20 and usually and tempted to comment or analyze what happens only when something has gone wrong and the newspapers are mentioning the body. This can very quickly give of both institutions a very negative image and give the feeling that they are in another world. This ability to be seen as a technocratic body means that a heavy focus must be put on managing the relation with citizens. Therefore, being able to create an accountable, transparent process of decision-making can change everything. In fact, this transparency

12 ICANN & the G20 nebulous: Multistakeholder decision processes will be a key part in implementation and efficiency of the body. This will require a he change in mentalities but can mean an incredible change in impact. From being a discussion forum for leaders, the G20 can became the crossroad where public participation can be expressed if the turn is managed properly and allows all citizens to express their ideas.

Conclusion & Key Learning

The general idea is therefore to point out the idea that because these two organizations operate by consensus, they have much to learn from each other. In fact the three different buckets we have pointed out can each be a place where using the culture of the other organization could be useful. Operating by consensus does not mean that they have the same goals not the same implementation mechanisms. In fact, they do not and by managing a scarce resource, ICANN is mandatory and because of the will of stakeholders it keeps a light touch on the issues. The G20 is not mandatory and relies on the leaders to see it as a Forum. This Forum can become global. Here are some of the ideas the G20 could implement in order to improve efficiency, keeping in mind the fact that the idea of putting forward a Secretary general has been rejected. Release publicly document including preparatory documents Create a procedure to be able to request more documentation and to download transparency reports Shift towards a transparency culture: from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Ministry of Economy?

Create an engagement process through a commenting period on early drafts Enhance the participation of citizens by creating contests to put forward new ideas (through the Y20, C20 and T20) Giving formal answer by the G20 to para-G20 institutions comments Managing an online forum/question box to deal with citizens concerns

Reaching consensus is important but not enough to have an effective governance Making the G20 a truly multi-stakeholder body by creating a formal consultation process of all stakeholdders Ensuring all gravitating bodies are formally heard to see all values which could be recognized in the G20 Final Communiqu Create criteria to decide how to invite the 5 invited countries to the G20

14

ICANN & the G20 nebulous: Multistakeholder decision processes

Bibliography
Antonova, Slavka. "DECONSTRUCTING AN EXPERIMENT IN GLOBAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE: THE ICANN CASE." INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS LAW & POLICY, no. 12 (Winter 2008). B20 & L20. "B20 L20 joint statement." International Labour Organisation. November 2011. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/--- dcomm/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_166713.pdf . Bachollet, Sbastien. "Internet Landscape & ICANNs role." Global Forum Shaping the future. Bruxels, 2011. Berkman Center for Internet & Society. "Accountability and Transparency at ICANN An Independent Review." October 2010. Birkes, Lara K. From Los Cabos to Rio: Action through multistakeholder multilateralism. June 2012. http://ictsd.org/i/news/bioresreview/135724/. Bradner, Scott. "Structure de l'IETF et Structure de l'IETF et tablissement des normes de tablissement des normes de l'Internet l'Internet." 66ime IETF . Montreal. . "The IETF and the Future of the Internet." Harvard Kennedy School, 2012. . The UN, copyright extremism and you. November 1, 2011. http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2011/110111-bradner-252654.html. Buisness 20. What is the B20? November 2011. http://www.b20businesssummit.com/b20/. Civil G20. About Civil G20. November 2012. http://www.g20civil.com/g20civil- society/index.php. Crawford, Susan, interview by Gatien Bon. Former board member of ICANN - Berkman Center Director (December 11, 2012). Crawford, Susan. "The ICANN experiment." Cardoso International Journal of Law, 2004. DelBianco, Steve. Multi-Stakeholder Debate at the IGF: Lessons from a Safari. September 26, 2011. http://www.circleid.com/posts/multi_stakeholder_debate_at_the_igf_lessons_from_a_sa fari/. Faris, Rob. Berkman Center research Director (December 11, 2012). Friang, Thomas. "Quelle gouvenance mondiale pour le G20?" Scurit globale 19 (Printemps 2011). Froomkin, A. Michael. "Lessons Learned From the ICANN Process." U.Miami School of Law - icannwatch.org. G20YES. What is G20 YES? June 2012. http://www.g20yes.com/que-es-g20yes-en.html . G20YS. Our Vision. November 2012. http://www.g20ys.org/about/vision/. Henderson, Nicole. ICANN 45: CEO Fadi Chehade Outlines Strategy, Goals for New Season of ICANN. October 15, 2012. http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/icann-45-ceo- fadi-chehade-outlines-strategy-goals-for-new-season-of-icann . ICANN. "At large White Paper on Future Challenges : Making ICANN relevant, responsive and respected." September, 17th 2012. John G. Palfrey, Jr. "The End of the Experiment: How ICANN's Foray into Global Internet Democracy Failed." The Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research Publication No. 2004-02, January 2004. Jokela, Juha. "THE G-20: A PATHWAY TO EFFECTIVE MULTILATERALISM?" Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), 2011. Jr., David R. Johnson-Susan P. Crawford-John G. Palfrey. "The Accountable Net: Peer Production of Internet Governance." Virginia Journal of Law and Technology 9, no. 9 (2004).

JUDD, NICK. For Internet Freedom Activists, Dubai is a Warning: Finally Live Up to the "Inclusive" Label, Or Else. December 13, 2012. http://techpresident.com/news/23263/internet-freedom-activists-dubai-warning- finally-live-inclusive-label-or-else. Kirton, John. "The G20s Global Governance: Working for the World." Lecture delivered as part of an international workshop on The G20 and the Democratic Challenges of Global Governance, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies. University of Leuven, 2012. . What is the G20? November 30, 1999. http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/g20whatisit.html. Klein, Hans. "ICANN Reform: Establishing the Rule of Law." The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) . Tunis, 16-18 November 2005 . Kleinwchter, Wolfgang. "BEYOND ICANN VS ITU? How WSIS Tries to Enter the New Territory of Internet Governance." THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR COMMUNICATION STUDIES, 2004. Komaitis, Konstantinos. "Aristotle, Europe and Internet Governance." Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal 21, no. 1 (2008). Koppell, Jonathan. You Got a Better Idea? November 28, 2012. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/11/itu_dubai_summit_w hy_icann_is_still_the_best_option_for_internet_governance.single.html. NBCNews. Bitter struggle over Internet regulation dominate global summit. November 27, 2012. http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/bitter-struggle-over-internet- regulation-dominate-global-summit-1C7276578, (accessed December 2012). Simonelis, Alex. "A Concise Guide to the Major Internet Bodies." Ubiquity, February 2005. Stuff.co.nz. ICANN still the best option. November 29, 2012. http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/8014883/The-Slow-Ineffectual-ICANN-Is-Still-the- Best-Option-for-Internet-Governance. The Guardian. The voice of business: why internet governance needs strengthening. October 17, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-network/media-network- blog/2012/oct/17/strengthening-internet-governance-business?newsfeed=true . Wall Street Journal. WTO's Lamy: G-20 Yet to Fill Regulatory Gap. May 16, 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703745904575248332861168648.h tml. Youth Diplomacy. Youth Summits since 2006. May 2011. http://g8-g20-youth- summits.org/introduction/youth-summits-since-2006/ . Zittrain, Jonathan. "Be Careful What You Ask For: Reconciling a Global Internet and Local Law." Harvard Law School Public Law (Research Paper No. 60).