Veronika Bauer and Matthias C. Kettemann – Safeguarding the commons in (and of) the information society: How internet governance can help avoiding the real ‘tragedy of the commons’

The time has come for the information society to clarify the importance of commons to digital inclusion and the protection and promotion of human rights in the information society, argue Veronika Bauer and Matthias C. Kettemann.

The concept of (global) commons, or global public goods, is of central importance to the development of the information society, in general, and internet governance, in particular. In terms of the three-part definition of the International Task Force on Global Public Goods, commons are public goods which are deemed important to the international community; cannot, or will not, be adequately addressed by individual countries; and are thus best addressed multilaterally and collectively. In light of this definition the demise of the traditional dichotomy of private participation and public control becomes nowhere more apparent than with regards to society in the information age. Yet, the influence of the notion of commons has not always been recognized. While the natural and social dimensions of commons have been pointed out, the informational dimension of commons is yet to become a topic of intensive international discourse. This explains why the two World Summits on the Information Society (WSIS), which took place in Geneva in 2003 and in Tunis in 2005, respectively, paid only little attention to the concept of commons.

Two main problems can be identified in relation to commons in information society: first, the understanding of commons varies; second, internet governance mechanisms will exert an influential role on commons but inclusive and conclusive models, safeguarding human rights and providing for a multilayer/multiplayer approach have not yet been proposed.

Information society policies must recognize the importance of global commons

Turning to our first point, we should like to highlight that the concept of commons in the information society is janus-faced; two commons exist, which differ from the traditional definition insofar as they are not a finite resource: the contents (i.e. the global commons of information and know-how available on the web) and the access (i.e. the information and communication technologies (ICTs) ensuring the availability of information regardless of time and location). WSIS documents have so far focused predominantly on aspects of the ‘material’ dimension of information society’s commons and have only referred to specific aspects of its ‘procedural’ dimension. These references include efforts to develop and use ICTs for the preservation of natural and cultural heritage (paragraph 23 (c) of the 2003 Geneva Plan of Action) and use of ICTs to ensure long-term preservation of, and continued access to, historical data and cultural heritage (paragraph 93 of the 2005 Tunis Agenda for the Information Society).

In the Geneva Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda access to the global commons of informational heritage has been recognized as a goal of the information society; but significant problems remain in relation to internet access due to the ‘digital divide’. The rise of ICTs has served the cause of commons more than any other development in the information society. Since the conception of informational heritage as a global commons implies the necessity of internet access for all, identifying strategies aimed at reducing the digital divide is one the most important tasks for the future. The Digital Solidarity Fund (DSF) is an important first step to bridge the digital divide; yet, the WSIS documents could have put more emphasis on this and similar initiatives.

Can over-exploitation of the commons of information society pose a danger? This remains to be seen, but ICT experts argue convincingly that the only limits to ICTs are legal and political, not technical. This insistence on the legal and political dimension leads us to the questions of who controls information society’s commons? Who governs the flow of information in the internet – and how? In other words, who is responsible for internet governance? And according to which principles should they ‘govern’?

Which challenges is internet governance confronted with?

With regard to our second point, we should like to present a set of challenges that internet governance must meet in order to safeguard information society’s commons for this and future generations:

First, internet governance must ensure the protection of all human rights for all as a precondition of ensuring the global commons. The outcome of the WSIS process is semantically reassuring: In the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Commitment, states reaffirm the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. In the Declaration of Principles and in the Tunis Commitment they avow their desire to build a “people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented” information society”, based on, inter alia, the commitment that “people everywhere can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, to achieve their full potential and to attain the internationally agreed development goals and objectives.” The implementation of these commitments has not yet been assured. Any regulation of internet governance must meet this challenge. Additionally, abuses of ICTs by private actors have to remedied. ICTs do not only ‘enable’ citizens worldwide, but also authors of hate speech or cybercriminals. The rise of the information society does not question the nature and extent of for human rights protection regimes per se, but human rights have to evolve in order to answer the challenges of the information society.

Second, internet governance must react, and react wisely, to the decrease in importance of territorial states. They have ceased to be the only determining actors of information society. Without traditional structures playing a smaller role than before, the dichotomy private/public needs to be rethought. Legitimate governance of the internet is not feasible without a multilayer/multiplayer approach that encompasses all relevant stakeholders. In this regard the first session of the Internet Governance Forum in autumn 2006 plays a vital role for civil society dialogue.

Third, any governance of the internet needs to be international. States are no longer in any position to control the internet, much less to regulate in a way that ensures the safeguarding of the global commons. Is a ‘United Nations Organization of the Internet’ the answer? That remains to be seen. Yet, ‘privatizing’ the internet (or, to be exact: keeping it in the hands of private actors, such as ICANN) would violate the multistakeholder principle that states have committed to in the WSIS outcome documents.

The moon, the sea – and the internet?

Article XI of the 1979 Moon Treaty regards the moon and its natural resources as a “global heritage of mankind”, as do Articles 136 and 137 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea in relation to the sea-bed, ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. The time has come for the information society to take a similar step and to clarify the importance of commons to digital inclusion and the protection and promotion of human rights in the information society. Mainstreaming the notion of commons into the discussion on internet governance is an important next step. Because the real ‘tragedy of the commons’ would be this: not including the notion of commons into the information society.

Further links

WSIS: Whose vision of an information society?

Richard Stallman’s 2005 WSIS presentation

Special issue: commons, recent articles
Tags: commons, matthias kettemann, veronika bauer, WSIS