DUTCH WANT "SHARED RESPONSIBILITY" FOR INTERNET

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 002905 SIPDIS STATE FOR EB/CIP (GROSS),EUR/ERA, EUR/UBI STATE PLEASE PASS FCC AND FTC STATE PLEASE ALSO PASS USTR COMMERCE FOR NITA (CSPECK) JUSTICE FOR CWILNER E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/21/2015 TAGS: ECON ECPS KIPR NL EUN SUBJECT: DUTCH WANT "SHARED RESPONSIBILITY" FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE REF: A. OCTOBER 20 NAMDE (IO/T)-ENSTROM EMAIL ¶B. LONDON 8166 ¶C. THE HAGUE 665 ¶D. STATE 196384 Classified By: ECONOMIC COUNSELOR RICHARD HUFF, REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY. Dutch Foreign Ministry contacts appear more receptive to USG concerns about the risks posed by the EU's recent proposal to create an "international cooperation model" for internet governance to further innovation of the Internet and freedom of information issues. Working-level Economic Ministry officials agree on the need to keep the technical management of the Internet in private hands but want oversight of the internet to evolve into a form allowing for greater shared international responsibility of decision-making. They do not believe that such a step will require the creation of a new international organization or UN entity and remain open to suggestions from the USG on future structures. Intervention at higher levels in the GONL, including proposed calls by IO A/S Silverberg to senior Dutch officials (ref A),may be necessary to bring the Dutch around to the USG position. Dutch Economic Minister Brinkhorst has asked for a meeting with the head of the U.S. delegation to the November World Summit on the Information Society. See para 10 for action requests. END SUMMARY. MEA WANTS "SHARED" INTERNATIONAL OVERSIGHT -------------- ¶2. (C) As a follow up to the October 13 conference call with Ambassador David Gross (EB DAS and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy) and U.S. missions in EU member countries, Econoff met October 20 with Rodrigo Pinto Scholtbach and Thomas de Haan, Senior Policy Officers in the Directorate-General for Telecommunications and Post, Ministry of Economic Affairs (MEA),to discuss USG concerns with the recent EU proposal on internet governance submitted to the September 30 Geneva PrepCom for the November World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis. Both Pinto Scholtbach and de Haan attended the Geneva PrepCom and were likely responsible for the hard-line Dutch text proposed at the meeting (see ref B). De Haan also serves as a Dutch delegate to the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) within the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ¶3. (SBU) Pinto Scholtbach noted that the Dutch and its EU colleagues had raised concerns about reaching an agreement on internet governance during Ambassador Gross' March visit to the Netherlands (reported ref C) and subsequent US-EU meetings. He said the Dutch supported the new EU proposal for a new "international cooperation model," which calls for equitable and efficient global allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, procedures for changing the root zone file, continuation of crucial DNS functions, the establishment of an arbitration and dispute resolution mechanism, and rules applicable to the DNS system. He noted that the MEA had also briefed Dutch industry providers, who agreed on the need for a discussion on the future of internet governance. (NOTE: Post has already shared points similar to those in ref D with GONL officials and will also provide these points to industry and business leaders.) ¶4. (SBU) Both Pinto Scholtbach and de Haan were aware of USG opposition to the EU proposal, but believed that the media had exaggerated differences between U.S. and EU positions. Pinto Scholtbach stressed that there was general agreement with the USG on the need to ensure that the technical management of the DNS remained in private hands. De Haan stressed that the Dutch and the EU continued to support the work of ICANN as the technical manager of DNS and had no intention of proposing any replacement organization. There was no doubt of ICANN's success and progress in managing this aspect of the Internet. ¶5. (SBU) Differences did exist, however, over the future role of the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and its supervisory relationship with ICANN. With a growing worldwide dependence on the Internet, de Haan argued that no government should have a sole mandate for decision-making regarding the Internet, including the determination and/or changing of the root zone file system. Rather, this role, which is currently played by the DOC, should be placed within a "more international setting" with participation by all interested governments. Pinto Scholtbach added that the "internationalization" of this oversight role would not require the creation of a new international organization or UN entity. However, the status quo was not acceptable. ¶6. (SBU) While it was too early to discuss models, Pinto Scholtbach suggested that the GAC might play this supervisory role if it were moved outside the ICANN. Econoff countered that such an international mechanism controlled by governments could risk stifling further innovation of the Internet and could ultimately endanger the security of the system. Econoff added that the DOC relationship with ICANN was not a case of the regulator and the regulated, but rather a joint partnership, where the DOC played no role in the internal governance of the day-to-day operation of ICANN. Pinto Scholtbach agreed that governments should not be involved in the technical aspects of managing the Internet. The key issue for the Dutch and the EU, he stressed, was a "sharing of the responsibility" of the oversight of the system. LOOKING FOR USG SUGGESTIONS ON FUTURE MODELS -------------- ¶7. (C) When pushed for examples of cases where the USG and ICANN had failed to administer the Internet in an equitable manner, de Haan noted Chinese concerns about a shortage of IP addresses. He suggested that such issues could be addressed within a more independent GAC structure, which could also include a dispute and appeal mechanism to deal with such issues as root zone file changes. Econoff said that the USG recognized that governments had legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns in this area and was committed to working with the international community to address these concerns. Such a dialogue was already taking place among stakeholders within various fora, including the GAC and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). When de Haan raised concerns about a possible Chinese-led fragmentation of the Internet system, Econoff questioned whether there really were economic benefits in creating a separate system, adding that such a development might even be a welcomed step forward as economic realities would necessitate inter-connectivity of such systems. ¶8. (SBU) While differences clearly remained, Pinto Scholtbach stressed that the Dutch and EU were open to suggestions from the USG on future "international cooperative models" on internet governance that would give other governments more of a say in decision-making. Given the success of the current system and the lack of a viable alternative to the existing DOC-ICANN partnership, Econoff argued that the work of the WSIS would be better spent on the issue of how the developed world could better extend the benefits of the Internet to the developing world. International cooperation, she added, was also needed in critical areas such as spam prevention, cybersecurity, and privacy issues. MFA TAKES NOTE OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION RISKS -------------- - ¶9. (C) In a separate meeting later that day, Bart Paans, Policy Advisor on WSIS issues in the United Nations and International Financial Institutions Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA),noted that the MEA had the lead on the technical substance of the Dutch position on internet governance. He agreed in principle with Econoff's arguments about the risks posed by the creation of a new intergovernmental body to further innovation of the Internet. He took note of Econoff's point that such a body could play into the hands of regimes seeking to restrict Internet access to their citizens. However, he acknowledged that his Ministry needed to consult further with the MEA before responding officially to USG concerns. SEEKING MEETING WITH U.S. WSIS DELEGATION HEAD -------------- - ¶10. (U) ACTION REQUESTED: At the conclusion of the MEA meeting, Pinto Scholtbach requested assistance in seeking a meeting between the head of the U.S. delegation to the WSIS and Dutch Economics Minister Brinkhorst, who will lead the Dutch WSIS delegation. He added that Dutch parliamentarians planned to be at the meeting in Tunis and asked whether U.S. Congressmen also planned to attend. He suggested that a meeting could also be arranged between these representatives. Post would appreciate guidance from Washington on the possibility of a meeting between Minister Brinkhorst and the head of the U.S. delegation to the WSIS for 20-30 minutes (sometime between 11 am and 1 pm) on Wednesday, November 16, on the margins of the morning plenary session. Post would also appreciate guidance on whether U.S. Congressmen plan to attend the November WSIS event and the possibility of meetings with Dutch parliamentarians. The following is a list of proposed Dutch delegates to the WSIS: -- Laurens Brinkhorst, Minister of Economic Affairs, Delegation head -- Mark Frequin, Director-General for Telecommunications and Post, MEA -- Mark Esseboom, Director for Strategy and International Affairs, Directorate-General for Telecommunications and Post, MEA -- Willem Rullens, Director for International Affairs, Directorate-General for Telecommunications and Post, MEA -- Rodrigo Pinto Scholtbach, Senior Policy Officer, Directorate-General for Telecommunications and Post, MEA -- Thomas de Haan, Senior Policy Officer, Directorate-General for Telecommunications and Post, MEA -- Judith Thompson, Communications Division, MEA -- Hans Franken, Member of the Upper Chamber of Parliament (CDA) -- Jos Hessels, Member of the Lower Chamber of Parliament (CDA) -- Martijn van Dam, Member of the Lower Chamber of Parliament (PvdA) -- Zsolt Szabo, Member of the Lower Chamber of Parliament (VVD) -- Bart Paans, Policy Advisor, Policy Advisor, United Nations and International Financial Institutions Department, MFA -- Sanne Kaasjager, Dutch Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva -- Ian de Jong, Dutch Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva COMMENT -- REINFORCING OUR MESSAGE -------------- ¶11. (C) Dutch MEA officials have said that they do not favor the creation of a new international organization or UN entity for international oversight of the Internet. However, their views clearly convey dissatisfaction with a perceived USG control of the Internet. Beyond the suggestion of a possible GAC structure outside the ICANN, Dutch thoughts for such an "international cooperation model" remain unclear. Their key concern is that the current internet governance structure evolves into a form that allows for greater shared international responsibility of decision-making. They may also view the current EU proposal as a means of pushing the USG to come forward with suggestions for future internet governance models. ¶12. (C) Post has underscored that the USG does not support the creation of a new oversight mechanism of ICANN to replace the DOC. Follow-on calls from IO A/S Silverberg to key senior officials at the MEA and MFA will reinforce this message. Our Dutch MFA contact was clearly more receptive to USG views on this issue than his MEA colleagues. The MFA could prove to be an ally in bringing MEA officials around to the USG position. END COMMENT. BLAKEMAN