Welcome:
Login
|
Sign Up
|
About CircleID
Follow:
|
|
|
I just wanted to call people's attention to this International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) paper on Internet governance. I don't endorse it; haven't actually read it yet, but their say will play a big role and should be widely known: "Coming barely a month after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, and prepared by ICC's Commmission on E-Business, IT and Telecoms, the paper divides the issue of Internet governance into three main components - technical engineering, coordination of the names and numbers system and public policy matters." more
Harvard Law School's distinguished Berkman Center for Internet & Society has published a preliminary study, "Public Participation In ICANN." ...The problem with the preliminary study is that it fundamentally misunderstands the role of ICANN in Internet governance. Specifically, ICANN's duty is not and should not be to simply carry out the will of the "Internet user community." Instead, ICANN's duty is to carry out the responsibilities the organization agreed to in its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and contract with the Department of Commerce. This does not mean that ICANN should exclude stakeholder views. more
In this two-part series article, Andrew McLaughlin takes a critical look at the recently reported study, Public Participation in ICANN, by John Palfrey, Clifford Chen, Sam Hwang, and Noah Eisenkraft at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School..."The study's presentation and analysis of data contain much of interest, and much that could assist ICANN (and other policy-making bodies) in improving its use and management of online public forums. But the study's value is diminished by two rather fundamental shortcomings: (1) its misapprehension of both the theory and the practice of ICANN's policy-development process, and (2) the sizeable gap between the broad scope of the study's conclusions and the very narrow -- indeed, myopic -- focus of the analysis from which they are derived. Simply put, the study scrutinizes a small and misleading corner of ICANN (namely, its online public comment forums) and leaps to a sweeping (and, in my view, unwarranted) conclusion." more
What's remarkable about this moment is that the hot potato of DNS standard-setting is still up in the air. The US government didn't want to appear to be in charge, and wanted to convince European governments that it wasn't in charge, and so it created (or called for the creation of) ICANN. ICANN was designed to keep other governments at bay. ICANN has, however, no particular delegated power beyond that accorded to it by the contracts it has signed with registries and registrars. In fact, it can't have more power than that, because if it pretends to be a regulatory agency it should be complying with the APA -- and if it pretends to be a regulator its private nature probably violates US law in a number of respects. more
When it comes to stealing domain names, I suspect that there are two reasons why so many web bandits appear to be immune from ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers uses the acronym ICANN): the first reason I discussed in my last column on domain name theft (where I described a substantive void in domain name "regulation" as a primary factor for the increasing incidence of domain name theft), the second reason, which is the focus of this column, is the procedural anomaly that currently infuses ICANN's uniform dispute resolution process (UDRP) by providing no administrative forum for domain name registrants who become victims of domain name theft carried out by ICANN's registrars. more
As IP addresses move across borders, outdated geolocation guesses cause service failures and regulatory risks. Geofeed and Signed Geofeed replace inference with verified declarations, promising accurate, resilient and sovereign foundations for global internet infrastructure governance. more
A three-decade natural experiment suggests America's centralized regulatory review fostered far greater wealth creation than Europe's precautionary principle, raising stark questions about whether importing EU-style AI rules would undermine US innovation and prosperity. more
Under ICANN's ICP-2 framework, RIR emergency operations extend beyond technical redundancy to encompass legal relocation, policy divergence and geopolitical risk, exposing tensions between operational resilience and national sovereignty in safeguarding global internet governance. more
A 2026 outlook charts Internet governance between fear and hope, tracking cyber conflict, digital trade and taxation, shrinking rights, and global AI rivalry, while asking whether multistakeholder cooperation can still steer the network toward stability. more
The ICC's new cyber policy reframes Internet infrastructure as crucial to prosecuting atrocities, prompting DNS operators and network providers to grapple with emerging obligations around evidence, neutrality, and cooperation in international justice. more
Outdated policies at Regional Internet Registries hinder the efficient transfer and leasing of IP addresses, driving up internet costs in emerging markets and limiting innovation. A faster, more inclusive governance model is urgently needed. more
2025 is not a banner year for the status quo. A fashion for deregulation, ignoring processes and questioning whatever was long-established is finding enough adherents that even things which work well are being upended. That's why those looking for leverage to use in hurried dealmaking, or countries with plans to rebalance where digital power lies, may find a handy tool in ICANN. more
The future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is an important part of the WSIS+20 review process. But after 20 years, the key question should now be its organizational evolution, more than just how long its mandate should be extended or whether it should be rebranded. The time has come for a constitutional moment for the IGF. A dedicated review process should take place in 2026 around three core questions. more
The future of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process will be one of the main topics of the 2025 Internet Governance Forum. Many in the IG community are heavily invested in the renewal of WSIS. They imply that if it is not renewed, there will be major, negative effects on the way we govern the Internet. IGP believes that it is healthy and productive for the community to consider the possibility of ending WSIS. more
What happens when governments don't just regulate content, but forcibly repurpose the very guts of the Internet's infrastructure to enforce their policies? The chilling answer, increasingly evident worldwide, is widespread, devastating collateral damage. Around the world, neutral systems like Domain Name System (DNS) resolvers and IP routing, the bedrock of our digital lives, are being weaponized as enforcement tools. more
A World-Renowned Source for Internet Developments. Serving Since 2002.