[ccwg-internet-governance] The Mapping of International Internet public policy issues

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Mon Dec 29 23:14:41 UTC 2014


Good evening. 

Thanks Marilyn for this useful feedback and comments.  Can confirm NRO and
ASO were on list of contacts for UNCTAD.

Would be grateful for any further reflections in next day so can respond by
deadline of 31st December (assume 23.00 UTC).

Best

Nigel 

 

From:  Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
Date:  Thursday 25 December 2014 16:45
To:  Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Cc:  Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, "cwg- >>
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org" <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] The Mapping of International
Internet public policy issues

Nigel, thanks for sharing this. As this document is being read by many non
technical policy makers, I think that it is worthwhile to ensure that the
descriptions provided are validated, and do appreciate ICANN contributing to
these important clarifications.


ICANN's proposed responses on IP addresses do not seem to me to actually add
any clarification.  The Wikipedia definition is probably what most lay
readers turn to.   If you find it inadequate, you may want to also consider
how to contribute to getting it updated.

I am assuming that you are encouraging the NRO or ASO to respond directly to
the CSTD Secretariat as relevant.

However, I am not so sure that your proposed change really accomplishes what
is needed.

IP addresses are unique in and of themselves -- I think you are describing
how IP addresses may be used, in certain applications.  BUT, that does not
make the number non unique.  I would not think it useful to say that the
numbers are not unique....

ICANN Response on deployment of IPv6:
I also find ICANN's response in need of improvement here, or perhaps ISOC's
response may be additive, as they are doing so much to encourage the rollout
of IPv6. 

I agree that the adoption of IPv6 is driven by business factors, including
the importance of applications that benefit from IPv6, the cost of replacing
existing equipment, etc. However, policy decisions do drive adoption, as we
have seen when national government policies have established dates by when
international government networks must be IPv6 ready.

I do  not agree that removal of the paragraph is the solution.  Again, this
is an opportunity to get facts in the document.  I was one of the speakers
during the Intercessional who strongly encouraged outreach to entities
named, such as ISOC, ICANN, etc. and again, I appreciate your sharing the
initial draft with the CCWG-IG.

GAC ROLE
I wonder if you might improve the last sentence.  While it is factual, it
ignores that there is an agreed procedure, in the ICANN bylaws, which
requires a formal process, should the Board not accept consensus advise from
the GAC.  I believe that is a very important safeguard to mention in this
document, as it is being read by many who are not experts in ICANN.

DRAFT from ICANN copied from Nigel
s email. 
> 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. Insert new sentences about Board procedure
> should they not accept consensus advice..



Sent from my iPad

On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org> wrote:

> 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
> Exercise. 
> 
> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_Mapping_Internet_en
> .pdf
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Nigel 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sirs 
> 
> Please find comments below on behalf of ICANN in relation to ³The Mapping of
> International Internet public policy issues² as dated 21 November; 2014.
> 
> Best wishes 
> 
> Nigel 
> 
> Nigel Hickson
> VP; UN and IGO Engagement
> Geneva 
> 
> E-mail:  nigel.hickson at icann.org
> Twitter:  @njhickson
> 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:
> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/SERVICE-Region-MAP2014.png
>  
>  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
> RIRs.²
>  
> 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. 
> 
> 
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics²
>  
> 
> 
> 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
> Œ.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 Œ.doctor¹ or Œ.lawyer¹
> could run the risk of misleading
> Internet users should individuals who ­ for example ­ do not have necessary
> medical and/or
> 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
> paragraph.    
> 
> 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.
>  
> 
> 
> 5.4 Trademark
>  
> 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
> courts.
>  
> 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 Œ.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 Œ.lawyer¹ and Œ.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
> consumer-related issues.
> 
> 
> 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 countries.
> 
> 
> 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 reflect
> e-commerce.
>  
> 
>  
> 8.3 Multilingualism
> 
> 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 languages.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 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 development.
>  
>  
> It is unclear what is meant by ³Š insufficient existence of a structured
> approach to addressing the multilingual aspect in developing technical and web
> standards of relevance Š².  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
> environmental protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20141229/e8182782/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20141229/e8182782/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list