ORDIG offers six working principles that togetherestablish some parameters and context for discussionsof Internet governance in Asia-Pacific.Three working principles are derived from WGIG’s owndefinitions
, presented in its preliminary report inFebruary 2005:1. The terms “governance” and “govern” mean morethan “government activities.”2. The enabling dimension includes organized andcooperative activities between differentstakeholders.3. Internet governance encompasses a wider rangeof conditions and mechanisms than Internetprotocol (IP) numbering and domain nameadministration.In addition, ORDIG proposes the following threeworking principles for Internet governance in the Asia-Pacific region:4.
Broad, holistic and oriented towards humandevelopment:
As recognized by the WSISprocess, the Internet has an essential role to playin meeting the objectives set forth in the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs), and the outcomes ofits governance therefore extend beyond merely thetechnical domain.5.
Balancing global and local interests:
Governance mechanisms and processes shouldrecognize the Internet as a unified and coordinatedglobal platform, and should foster internationalcooperation and coordination. In addition, Internetgovernance should recognize (and, when possible,reconcile) the genuine conflicts that sometimesexist between the need for global solutions and thedesire to safeguard national interests.6.
Maintain stability and interoperability:
TheInternet is an essential service and a criticalinfrastructure in the region, and it should begoverned in a manner that reflects its operatingrealities and exigencies. Any proposed evolutionsor changes that arise through the process ofgovernance should therefore take into account theneed to maintain the stability and continuedinteroperability of the network.Based on these six principles, activities have beenimplemented and research findings analyzed toproduce six key recommendations and priorities forInternet governance in the Asia-Pacific region.1.
The Internet is a distributed networkand Internet governance should similarly bedistributed with its mechanisms and decision-making located as close as possible to the issues
or problems that are being addressed. While someissues require global or regional coordination,many others, notably internationalized domainnames (IDNs), country-code top-level domains(ccTLDs), and localized content and software,demand local input, and are best designed with theparticipation of those most directly affected. It istherefore vital to design mechanisms andstructures that include representation from thenational level, as well as from grassroots and otherlocal communities.2.
Governments have a role:
National governmentshave a vital facilitating and enabling role to play inInternet governance. Governments can set up anefficient market environment, establish and monitorbroad competition principles, and ensure that thebenefits of the network are equitably maximized. Aliberal market environment, nurtured by thegovernment is often important in lowering accesscosts and encouraging innovation. Governmentsshould also encourage the development ofcomprehensive national ICT agendas to optimizeresources and ensure coordinated participation innational and international governance processes.3.
Multi-Stakeholder participation is required:
Internet governance is a broad-ranging processthat affects, and frequently requires collaborationbetween, a variety of stakeholders. Governancemechanisms should therefore include allstakeholders from government, the private sectorand civil society in the processes of decision-making and implementation.4.
Preserve cultural diversity:
Bodies responsiblefor international Internet governance functionsshould reflect the priorities of all affected cultures intheir operations. They should ensure an effectivevoice for all cultures in the deliberations anddecision-making processes of these bodies. Suchrepresentation will facilitate the development oflocal content in local languages, help implementIDNs, and ensure that cybercrime is confronted inan effective and culturally appropriate manner.5.
Enhance participation with capacity building:
Multi-stakeholder participation is most meaningfulwhen supplemented by capacity and awarenessbuilding measures. Governance topics (e.g.standards) are frequently complex and requiretechnical knowledge and other forms of expertise.In order to participate in a substantial way,stakeholders need information, knowledge,resources, and the opportunity to participate.6.
Supplement law with other tools:
Law andregulation are not the only tools available forInternet governance. On a variety of issues (e.g.cybercrime, content pollution and localizedsoftware) these traditional tools should besupplemented by a variety of innovativemechanisms, including codes of conduct, self-regulatory mechanisms, and international, multi-stakeholder collaboratives. In addition, technologyitself can play an enabling role in achievinggovernance goals. Free and open source software,