[ccwg-internet-governance] The Mapping of International Internet public policy issues
nigel.hickson at icann.org
Wed Dec 24 17:37:07 UTC 2014
Olivier cc CCWG
Good afternoon; as promised on our Call last week, I attach (below) a draft
response to UNCTAD on the Call they posted for comments on the Mapping
The submission deadline is 31/12 so will be able, as appropriate, to take
on-board comments before then.
The Mapping Document will be re-submitted to the CSTD Plenary in May; where
a decision will be taken on whether (and if so how) it should be included in
the overall CSTD Report on the WSIS Outcomes.
Many regards and compliments of the season.
Please find comments below on behalf of ICANN in relation to ³The Mapping of
International Internet public policy issues² as dated 21 November; 2014.
VP; UN and IGO Engagement
E-mail: nigel.hickson at icann.org
Tel: 41 79 951 9625
COMMENTS ON MAPPING OF INTERNATIONAL INTERNET PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES
2.4 Internet Protocol Numbers
In the first paragraph:
³IP numbers are unique numeric addresses that are used by all computers and
other devices connected to the Internet.²
This is not quite right. Some IP addresses are unique while others are not.
For instance, all IP capable devices have a loopback interface and they all
use the same address for it. Similarly, there are private addresses, which
are only unique within a local routing domain. We should suggest that unique
be removed from this sentence.
³Two computers connected to the Internet cannot have the same IP number.²
This is not right. Anycast allows the same IP addresses to be used to
provide the same service from different topological locations. For instance,
L-root usesanycast to serve the same root zone from 155 different locations
around the world.
Status of governance mechanisms for IP numbers
The map source is actually NRO and not Wikimedia. The map is not the most
current version. A more recent version is at:
In the first paragraph
"The governance of IP numbers is coordinated by IANA (the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority a subsidiary of ICANN, the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers).²
This is incorrect. Governance is not coordinated by the IANA department and
the IANA department is not a subsidiary of ICANN. The IANA Department is a
part of ICANN.
³The Number Resource Organisation (NRO) coordinates the work of the five
The RIR coordinate a portion of their work through the NRO. The NRO is not a
governing body for the RIRs.
Possible gaps in dealing with IP numbers
³In addition, some submissions to the WGEC/correspondence group point to a
possible policy gap in mechanisms for coordination and faster facilitation
of the transition from IPv4 to IPv6.²
The delay in deploying IPv6 is down to business factors and not policy
factors. Unless there is a factual citation other than ³some submissions to
the WGEC/correspondence group² then the paragraph is best deleted.
2.5 Domain Name System
Status of governance mechanisms for the DNS
Here a clear reference to the gTLD Programme should be made; we suggest that
text could be used as follow:
"The gTLD Program was launched by ICANN on 12 January 2012 and at the close
of the application window (on 13th June) ICANN had received 1932
applications, of which 116 were for IDN strings in scripts such as Arabic,
Chinese, and Cyrillic. Applications were received from 60 countries. As of
December 2014 there were 469 gTLDs (new names) delegated into the root of
the Internet. A further 1017 are proceeding through the system. 385
applications have been withdrawn.
We would suggest changes to the paragraph below:
The importance of policy with respect to the DNS came into sharper public
focus with the introduction of
these new gTLDs. For example, it opened the policy debate on the right to
register geographic names such as
.amazon¹ (which is clearly the names of the company (who owns the
trademark)) as well as a term used for
countries in Amazon basin. Another debate has been conducted on the
³generic² names such as .book.
In addition it has been noted that new domains such as .doctor¹ or
.lawyer¹ could run the risk of misleading
Internet users should individuals who for example do not have necessary
legal qualifications register under these domains
Possible gaps in dealing with the DNS
We would suggest following amendments to this text
However, there is no consensus on this issue. Whereas some view governments'
role through the Government Advisory Council (GAC) insufficient and point
out that formally speaking, the role is only advisory, others are of the
opinion that in practice, governments play an important role and there are
formal procedures in place for cases where the ICANN Board disagrees with
GAC advice. In fact in the vast majority of cases the ICANN Board agrees to
consensus Advice communicated by the GAC.
2.6 Root Zone
Status of governance mechanisms for the root zone
We would suggest the following additions and amendments are made to this
Governance of the root zone has been one of the most controversial issues in
the international Internet policy debate. The main point raising divergent
views has been about the USA¹s historical role in the stewardship of
changes to the root zone as administered through the IANA process by ICANN.
On 14 March 2014, the US government announced that it intended to transfer
its current responsibilities under the contract it has with ICANN for the
IANA functions to the global multistakeholder Community. The process of
transition, which the NTIA entrusted to ICANN, includes a wider array of
consultations with the multistakeholder Community; these being currently in
process (see https://www.icann.org/stewardship)
Rewording is provided for Sections 5.4 and 6.3 in the following texts.
The main relevance of trademark on the Internet is the question of
registration of domain names. In the early phase of Internet development,
the registration of domain names was done on a first come, first served
basis. This led to cybersquatting, the practice of registering names of
companies and selling them later at a higher price. Trademark holders
reacted by introducing mechanisms for stricter protection of trademarks
through ICANN¹s policy development processes, in the form of the development
of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) approved in
2000. The New gTLD Program included a fundamental policy recommendation
that the introduction of new gTLDs had to be done in a way that protected
the rights of others, and additional mechanisms were developed for the
trademark protection as it relates to domain names.
Status of governance mechanisms for trademark
WIPO¹s Madrid and Paris conventions provide the basis for trademark
protection on the Internet. Another WIPO instrument, the Nairobi Treaty on
the Protection of the Olympic Symbol, was in focus during the debate on the
special protection of the Olympic name in the registration of new gTLDs.
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is the primary
dispute resolution procedure. The UDRP is stipulated in advance as a dispute
resolution mechanism in all contracts involving the registration of gTLDs
(e.g. .com, .edu, .org, .net) and for some ccTLDs as well. Its unique aspect
is that arbitration awards are applied directly through changes in the DNS
without resorting to enforcement of trademark protection through national
The Trademark Clearinghouse under ICANN's new gTLD program authenticates
information from rights holders and provides this information to registries
and registrars. There are requirements of when registries and registrars
must access the Clearinghouse, including sunrise (launch) phases where
rights holders are given access to trademarked names. The Uniform Rapid
Suspension (URS) mechanism was also developed to allow trademark holders to
combat clear-cut cases of abuse, and dispute processes such as the
Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) allow rights holders to
assert rights against registry operators where a registry operator¹s
operation or use of a domain leads to or supports trademark infringement,
either on the top level or second level.
Possible gaps in dealing with trademark
One submission to the WGEC/correspondence group indicated a potential policy
gap in dealing with competing claims for protection of trademarks and other
internationally important names (e.g. cases of .amazon¹ as new gTLD).
6.3 Consumer protection
Consumer protection has been transformed with the Internet from a mainly
national to an increasingly international public policy issue. In the past,
consumers rarely needed international protection. They bought locally and
therefore needed local consumer protection. With e-commerce, an increasing
number of transactions take place across international borders. Consumer
protection is essential in ensuring trust as one of the main preconditions
for the successful development of e-commerce.
Status of governance mechanisms for consumer protection
The OECD adopted two important mechanisms for consumer protection on the
Internet: the 1999 Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of
E-commerce and the 2003 Guidelines for Protecting Consumers from Fraudulent
and Deceptive Commercial Practices across Borders. The main principles
established by the OECD have been adopted by business associations,
including the ICC and the Council of Better Business Bureaus.
A number of private associations and NGOs also focus on consumer e-commerce
protection, including Consumers International, the International Consumer
Protection and Enforcement Network, and Consumer Reports WebWatch.
More specifically, consumer protection was raised in relation to the
possible misuse of domain names such as .lawyer¹ and .doctor¹. Some
contend thatif the registration for these domains is not regulated (i.e. if
it does not require a law or medical degree), registration under these
domains could be misused, which could ultimately harm Internet users and
consumers. ICANN is currently addressing advice that it has received from
its Governmental Advisory Committee on the establishment of safeguards for
strings such as these. In addition, ICANN New gTLD Program has a Public
Interest Commitment requirement, with a dispute resolution process available
when if a registry is not meeting its public interest commitments.
Consumer protection is most directly related to the following Internet
policy issues: the Internet of Things, cybersecurity, digital signatures,
cybercrime, data protection, jurisdiction, intermediaries, access, cloud
computing (i.e., consumer protection is related to ensuring trust of
consumers in cloud computing services), content policy, and multilingualism.
While ICANN does not address content issues, it has announced that it is
creating a position of Consumer Safeguards Director within its Contractual
Compliance department, to assist in dealing with some of these
Possible gaps in dealing with consumer protection
The mechanisms analysed appear to indicate the existence of a capacity gap
for the representation of consumer interests in international bodies dealing
with relevant aspects of Internet policy issues (e.g. ICANN, WTO). This
capacity gap is particularly noticeable for consumers from developing
Consumer protection laws vary by country. At global level, there seems to be
a gap in the harmonisation of legislation in this domain.
On the policy level, there is insufficient coordination among various policy
initiatives and processes in addressing the online aspects of consumer
protection. Work is ongoing in both the OECD and the United Nations to
update their guidelines on consumer protection, with a view to better
Changes have been made in this paragraph as follows:
The multilingual Internet is a pre-condition for the promotion and further
development of cultural diversity of the Internet. If the Internet is to be
used by wider parts of society, content must be accessible in more
Status of governance mechanisms for multilingualism
Multilingualism is a good example of public-private partnerships. UNESCO is
the lead international organisation. One of the early initiatives related to
the multilingual use of computers was undertaken by the Unicode Consortium
a non-profit institution that develops standards to facilitate the use of
character sets for different languages. ICANN and the IETF IETF and ICANN
took an important steps in promoting to enable the use of Internationalised
Domain Names (IDNs) by developing the underlying protocols and enabling
country code and generic IDN top level domains (TLDs) in the root zone
respectively. IDNs facilitate the use of domain names written in Chinese,
Arabic, and other non-Latin alphabets scripts.
Multilingualism is most directly related to the following Internet policy
issues: web standards, the DNS, digital signatures, freedom of expression,
copyright, trademark consumer protection, access, the digital divide,
education, cultural diversity, and content policy.
Possible gaps in dealing with multilingualism
Apart from the considerable progress made in developing a multilingual
Internet, the mechanism analysis indicates the insufficient existence of a
structured approach to addressing the multilingual aspect in developing
technical and web standards of relevance for the future Internet
It is unclear what is meant by ³ insufficient existence of a structured
approach to addressing the multilingual aspect in developing technical and
web standards of relevance ². There has been considerable work on
publishing multilingual content by W3C (Internationalization team of W3C
could comment further), much work at Unicode (e.g. the CLDR work and other
technical reports) and considerable more work at IETF for internationalizing
email, domain name registration data and services, etc. The recent
initiative on Universal Acceptance by ICANN also includes a focus to promote
multilingualism online by highlighting and trying to address issues in the
use of internationalized email and IDN TLDs. Thus, this statement should be
further qualified to clearly point to where the authors feel there is a gap,
for the community to better understand it in order to address it.
A revised text is submitted as follows for Section 8.5
8.5 Global public good
The Internet provides many valuable services to the global public. It is
considered to be a global resource that should be governed in the global
public interest. The Council of Europe¹s report on ICANN¹s procedures and
policies in the light of human rights, fundamental freedoms, and democratic
values suggests the following public interest objectives: respect for human
rights; fundamental freedoms and democratic values; linguistic and cultural
diversity; and care for vulnerable persons and groups. Of course, ICANN may
only address the issue of human rights as bounded by its mission.
Many aspects of the Internet are related to the idea of the Internet as a
global public good, including: access to the Internet infrastructure,
protection of knowledge developed through Internet interaction, protection
of public technical standards, and access to online education.
Status of governance mechanisms for global public good
There are no major international initiatives focusing on the Internet as a
global public good. One of the non-profit initiatives is Creative Commons,
aimed at promoting Internet content as a global public good.
The Internet as a global public good is most directly related to the
following Internet policy issues: web standards, net neutrality,
cybersecurity, freedom of expression, disability rights, copyright, labour
law, capacity development, access, cloud computing, education, cultural
diversity, and multilingualism.
Possible gaps in dealing with global public good
The mechanisms analysed appear to indicate the existence of a knowledge gap
in research and data on the global public good aspects of the Internet
developments, including sharing experience from other policy fields such as
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance