'European Commission calls for greater government control over Internet'
Hi Cooperation WG, I came across http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-greater-government-control and decided it was a good enough reason for a first post to the list. 'Among a long series of measures promoted in no less than six papers by the EC’s Information Society and Media Directorate-General are: • A government veto over any new Internet extensions • The creation of a list of names, drawn up by governments, that would be banned from registration • Significant structural changes at overseeing organization ICANN, including at Board level and in the crucial IANA contract • An obligation for ICANN to follow governments’ advice unless deemed illegal or damaging to the Internet’s stability • Two new bodies to oversee ICANN decision-making and finances Combined together, the measures would provide governments with de facto control over the Internet’s naming systems and bring an end to the independent and autonomous approach that has defined the Internet’s domain name system since its inception.' The papers 'are billed as “informal background papers” and have not yet been published.' (For an 'analysis' see http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-papers-analysis: 'Together the papers represent a wholesale effort to put governments in charge of the Internet.') I am not an ICANN-watcher myself, nor am I aware of the nitty-gritty details of DNS-related discussions that go on in different (EU) fora. So it is hard for me to judge the merits of these .nxt articles. And maybe it is indeed just 'informal background' stuff. But this does sound quite serious though and, if it is, it comes as a surprise that I haven't seen it being mentioned elsewhere a lot... Any thoughts? Cheers, -- Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX Governance and Policy Officer AMS-IX B.V. tel: +31 (0)20 514 1712 Westeinde 12 fax: +31 (0)20 305 8990 1017 ZN Amsterdam http://www.ams-ix.net bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net
Bastian, thanks for bringing this to the list. I think there are a number of confusions in the posting you quote. For example just the term "...Internet extension". What we talk about are new top level domains, and that a domain name is the full domain name, including the TLD. Yes, there are a number of parties that claim the "domain name" is only the 2nd level domain, and then that can have extensions. I presume you and everyone else on this list can understand and extrapolate to what such a view/terminology would do with the dispute resolution processes that exists. I am an ICANN watcher, in fact, I am an officer of ICANN in the form of the chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and have been participating in for example the discussions on blocking of domain names, and the approval process. What can be added, before I summarize, is that from a human rights perspective, there is of course a need to be able to express whatever you want (anyone should be able to choose TLD name) and to be able to communicate (communicate using the 2nd level domain name you have registered in some TLD). What we see is a conflict between these two needs: - One might block ability to register all words as domain names - One might block ability to communicate using a registered domain name Which one of these two wins? I have been talking with various HR people and the way they normally handle these cases of conflict is to see which one of these have more impact. And in this specific case, impact on the ability to communicate is stronger than the ability to use whatever word you want. And because of this, it might not be correct from a pure HR perspective, to allow any TLD to be registered. But, that said, having a discussions on these items, and more, to clarify a bit, and reduce the amount of fog, smoke and mirrors so that everyone themselves can make a decision on what they feel would be the correct path forward could be interesting. What do people think? Patrik, co-chair of coop wg On 2 sep 2011, at 16:04, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
Hi Cooperation WG,
I came across http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-greater-government-control and decided it was a good enough reason for a first post to the list.
'Among a long series of measures promoted in no less than six papers by the EC’s Information Society and Media Directorate-General are:
• A government veto over any new Internet extensions • The creation of a list of names, drawn up by governments, that would be banned from registration • Significant structural changes at overseeing organization ICANN, including at Board level and in the crucial IANA contract • An obligation for ICANN to follow governments’ advice unless deemed illegal or damaging to the Internet’s stability • Two new bodies to oversee ICANN decision-making and finances
Combined together, the measures would provide governments with de facto control over the Internet’s naming systems and bring an end to the independent and autonomous approach that has defined the Internet’s domain name system since its inception.'
The papers 'are billed as “informal background papers” and have not yet been published.'
(For an 'analysis' see http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-papers-analysis: 'Together the papers represent a wholesale effort to put governments in charge of the Internet.')
I am not an ICANN-watcher myself, nor am I aware of the nitty-gritty details of DNS-related discussions that go on in different (EU) fora. So it is hard for me to judge the merits of these .nxt articles. And maybe it is indeed just 'informal background' stuff. But this does sound quite serious though and, if it is, it comes as a surprise that I haven't seen it being mentioned elsewhere a lot...
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
--
Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX Governance and Policy Officer
AMS-IX B.V. tel: +31 (0)20 514 1712 Westeinde 12 fax: +31 (0)20 305 8990 1017 ZN Amsterdam http://www.ams-ix.net bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net
Patrik, all - On 03.09.2011 11:05, Patrik Fältström wrote:
But, that said, having a discussions on these items, and more, to clarify a bit, and reduce the amount of fog, smoke and mirrors so that everyone themselves can make a decision on what they feel would be the correct path forward could be interesting.
What do people think?
having some more light shed on these recent EC papers might help the discussion in the Coop WG - even though mostly non *IR topics are touched. Cheers, -C.
hi Carsten, On Sep 6, 2011, at 18:27, Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de> wrote:
On 03.09.2011 11:05, Patrik Fältström wrote:
But, that said, having a discussions on these items, and more, to clarify a bit, and reduce the amount of fog, smoke and mirrors so that everyone themselves can make a decision on what they feel would be the correct path forward could be interesting.
What do people think?
having some more light shed on these recent EC papers might help the discussion in the Coop WG - even though mostly non *IR topics are touched.
eh... Sorry, but what are 'non *IR topics'? As far as 'more light' goes: here's a series on these papers (part two) http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/4/4893009.html -Bastiaan
Hi Bastian, Am 07.09.2011 10:13, schrieb Bastiaan Goslings:
On Sep 6, 2011, at 18:27, Carsten Schiefner <enumvoipsip.cs@schiefner.de> wrote:
On 03.09.2011 11:05, Patrik Fältström wrote:
But, that said, having a discussions on these items, and more, to clarify a bit, and reduce the amount of fog, smoke and mirrors so that everyone themselves can make a decision on what they feel would be the correct path forward could be interesting.
What do people think?
having some more light shed on these recent EC papers might help the discussion in the Coop WG - even though mostly non *IR topics are touched.
eh... Sorry, but what are 'non *IR topics'?
non LIR/RIR topics - my apologies for having been a bit TOO brief here,obviously.
As far as 'more light' goes: here's a series on these papers
(part two) http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/4/4893009.html
Interesting reading. Maybe it is an idea to have this as an agenda item in Vienna? Best, -C.
On 07/Sep/11 11:07, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
Am 07.09.2011 10:13, schrieb Bastiaan Goslings:
As far as 'more light' goes: here's a series on these papers
(part two) http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/4/4893009.html
Interesting reading.
Maybe it is an idea to have this as an agenda item in Vienna?
Yes, please. I thought censorship and other freedom limitations were due to local governments misinterpretations; e.g. the Italian law that requires a certified professional to configure even an access point, as an application of 2008/63/CE. In retrospect, it must be an EC stance. Can we schedule Tahrir Square for RIPE 65?
It may not be that useful to discuss this in Vienna if nobody who was involved in producing these papers (requesting them or drafting them) is present. So one thought is that some effort could be made to ensure that an appropriate person from the Commission, from INFSO, is present. On the other hand why wait for Vienna? There is a RIPE/government roundtable in Amsterdam early next week. Perhaps questions could be put there and people could report back to the list. I would also suggest that people ask questions elsewhere and report back to the list. I would hope that everyone on this list knows which officials, which civil servants, from their country attend ICANN meetings and participate in the GAC. I would also hope that people know who is on the HLIG - the "high-level group" - from their country. And of course the personalities involved in the Commission, in DG INFSO, are well-known. I am not trying to raise the profile of these papers. I am just suggesting that any hesitance on the side of officials regarding participation on this list or even in the WG meetings need not be the end of the story. You should have no inhibitions about asking them questions directly and sharing what you learn. Do not worry. They are professionals after all. And your taxes pay their salaries. Gordon
FWIW, Niall and myself have reached out to INFSO regarding participation due to our interest in knowing what connection, if any, INFSO see between the proposed E.164 CC and ENUM. First attempt was turned down, but a 2nd was fired off towards Brussels this week. If that get some traction, I, as chair of this wg, will use that to expand also to other areas. I will also participate coming Monday in Amsterdam and bring it up there, and if INFSO people are on site (which they normally are) I promise to rise the question with them. But, the point that I as chair can not help with is for all of you to contact your HLIG representative and talk about this. It is easy for me as "my" HLIG representative (from Sweden) is my co-chair for this wg, Maria Häll. :-) For a discussion to happen, we MUST (as Gordon says) get more people at the meeting so that we can have a discussion. Being chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee of ICANN, I can if I read the papers with one pair of glasses (just like the articles) agree with some faults and needs for improvements of ICANN. On the other hand, some of the [interpretation] of the papers I do not agree with. And finally, some details about "selection of domain names"... Of course the applicant should be able to choose whatever domain name they want. But, in various countries there are certain words, or set of words, that are prohibited from use, or specific use. In Sweden for example you are not allowed to claim in your name to be a bank without being one. What now happens if someone actually do want to have "bank" (as a TLD), and use that in a manner that is not related to banking activities? Well, if the business is done in Sweden, my interpretation is that that is a violation of already existing legislation so that the CEO or whoever can be dragged into court. Given that such laws exists, where in the ICANN process should a review be done? Should one be done? Many countries I talk with is not in reality objecting to names per se, they try to in the ICANN approval process implement the legislation we already have. Another way could be for people to register whatever they want, but as soon as they use the domain name, they will be in court. Or? And when looking at the human rights perspective. One HR person told me that when calculating the balance between the impact of an individual not being able to choose whatever name he want, and the impact of a name existing (be registered) but being blocked so that it can not be used for communication, the blocking has MUCH higher impact on the ability to exercise the human rights. With this reasoning, domain names that will be blocked should not be registered. I do not say I agree with the calculation, I just wanted to explain so that people understand that the ability to exercise freedom of speech is not absolute. Sometimes choices has to be made. Blocking of domain names is of course not good, extremely bad (see above) and (I claim) do not solve the problem people want to have solved. That might be a good conclusion of the meeting, referencing for example SAC050(*) that SSAC published as a response to a question from GAC. This is not easy, and why we all non-government people must talk with our government contacts. Patrik (*) http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/ssac-documents.htm On 8 sep 2011, at 04:09, Gordon Lennox wrote:
It may not be that useful to discuss this in Vienna if nobody who was involved in producing these papers (requesting them or drafting them) is present. So one thought is that some effort could be made to ensure that an appropriate person from the Commission, from INFSO, is present.
On the other hand why wait for Vienna? There is a RIPE/government roundtable in Amsterdam early next week. Perhaps questions could be put there and people could report back to the list.
I would also suggest that people ask questions elsewhere and report back to the list. I would hope that everyone on this list knows which officials, which civil servants, from their country attend ICANN meetings and participate in the GAC. I would also hope that people know who is on the HLIG - the "high-level group" - from their country. And of course the personalities involved in the Commission, in DG INFSO, are well-known.
I am not trying to raise the profile of these papers. I am just suggesting that any hesitance on the side of officials regarding participation on this list or even in the WG meetings need not be the end of the story. You should have no inhibitions about asking them questions directly and sharing what you learn. Do not worry. They are professionals after all. And your taxes pay their salaries.
Gordon
On 8 Sep 2011, at 11:23, Patrik Fältström wrote:
And finally, some details about "selection of domain names"... Of course the applicant should be able to choose whatever domain name they want. But, in various countries there are certain words, or set of words, that are prohibited from use, or specific use.
Given that such laws exists, where in the ICANN process should a review be done?
I think the problem here is one of transparency. If there is to be a list of reserved words which cannot be used as new gTLD strings, this list needs to be visible before the application process starts. It'll cost upwards of $1M to start a new gTLD -- ICANN's application fee is just the tip of the iceberg -- and if someone's going to spend that sort of money, they would want to know in advance if the name they want is not going to be blacklisted. BTW that fee is likely to go up: ICANN's just issued an RFP to get someone to carry out background checks on gTLD applicants for criminal records, bankruptcy, etc. Whoever does those checks will need to be paid. I'm sceptical a list of reserved words could be compiled in a reasonable amount of time. Getting consensus on that will be even harder. Then there are the questions about how that list is maintained and updated and the processes for that. Frankly, I am astonished that ICANN could let the gTLD process get to this point (start next year?) when there's this level of uncertainty about such a fundamental issue. It surprises me too that the people applying for gTLDs don't seem to be bothered about it either.
Blocking of domain names is of course not good, extremely bad (see above) and (I claim) do not solve the problem people want to have solved.
+100 Patrik. But where and how does this argument get made? And will the others listen? There seems to be a very strong mindset amongst IPR types and law enforcement that take down notices against web sites is the only tool they have.
On 8 sep 2011, at 07:10, Jim Reid wrote:
On 8 Sep 2011, at 11:23, Patrik Fältström wrote:
And finally, some details about "selection of domain names"... Of course the applicant should be able to choose whatever domain name they want. But, in various countries there are certain words, or set of words, that are prohibited from use, or specific use.
Given that such laws exists, where in the ICANN process should a review be done?
I think the problem here is one of transparency. If there is to be a list of reserved words which cannot be used as new gTLD strings, this list needs to be visible before the application process starts.
No such list exists. In Swedish legislation, there is only words about "you can not claim to be a bank if you are not" (or something like that).
It'll cost upwards of $1M to start a new gTLD -- ICANN's application fee is just the tip of the iceberg -- and if someone's going to spend that sort of money, they would want to know in advance if the name they want is not going to be blacklisted. BTW that fee is likely to go up: ICANN's just issued an RFP to get someone to carry out background checks on gTLD applicants for criminal records, bankruptcy, etc. Whoever does those checks will need to be paid.
Let me be devils advocate here. If you want a new TLD, spend $1M on a new name you will use, you better do a darn good due diligence on what legislation exists in the world -- or at least the markets you will do your businesses in. I am not saying blocking the application should happen, that is a fair discussion. I just wanted to point out that some legislation that is absolutely not related to IT do set limitations on what words you can use in your business. And the question is then what responsibility (if any) there is during the application process of ICANN to approve/not approve such names that violate local legislation.
I'm sceptical a list of reserved words could be compiled in a reasonable amount of time. Getting consensus on that will be even harder. Then there are the questions about how that list is maintained and updated and the processes for that.
Bingo.
Frankly, I am astonished that ICANN could let the gTLD process get to this point (start next year?) when there's this level of uncertainty about such a fundamental issue. It surprises me too that the people applying for gTLDs don't seem to be bothered about it either.
I do not have to comment on this... ;)
Blocking of domain names is of course not good, extremely bad (see above) and (I claim) do not solve the problem people want to have solved.
+100 Patrik. But where and how does this argument get made? And will the others listen? There seems to be a very strong mindset amongst IPR types and law enforcement that take down notices against web sites is the only tool they have.
Yes, but my point is also that IF they are to take down a website, or block traffic to it, then do that. Do not play around with domain names. Patrik
On 8 sep 2011, at 07:16, Patrik Fältström wrote:
No such list exists. In Swedish legislation, there is only words about "you can not claim to be a bank if you are not" (or something like that).
And, btw, just to have that said, I do not see Swedish position be that they as Sweden would object to someone that requests such a name. If they request such a name, they might end up in court. Their problem. Their are supposed to have done your due diligence before you apply for a name and use it in Sweden. But Maria is on the list and will be at the meeting so possibly better if Sweden explain what the Swedish view is ;-) Other countries might have different view on the topic. They might find they do have a responsibility to object against words that would be illegal if used. And if they object on such grounds, what impact would it have on the application? If any? Patrik
On 8 Sep 2011, at 12:16, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Let me be devils advocate here. If you want a new TLD, spend $1M on a new name you will use, you better do a darn good due diligence on what legislation exists in the world -- or at least the markets you will do your businesses in.
True. But it's not that simple Patrik. As I'm sure you know. Due diligence in every jurisdiction will be a non-terminating function. Good luck chasing that ever-moving target. And even then you might not know if your string is "illegal" until there's a legal action and the courts decide. :-( Your example of .bank is a very good one. I expect many countries have rules like Sweden's where only nationally-licensed banks can use that name. Which in turn reflects the national regulations for running a bank. So far so good. Now suppose I get a banking licence from a country with very lax regulations. Can or should Sweden be able to reject jim.bank because it doesn't meet Swedish banking requirements even though it meets those of the banana republic where I legitimately registered my bank? Would Swedish Internet users be prevented from doing business with jim.bank? Whose law prevails, Sweden's or the banana republic's? These issues will crop up with all sorts of regulated businesses or professions: doctors, lawyers, accountancy, shipping, telephony, pharmacies, insurance, etc.
I am not saying blocking the application should happen, that is a fair discussion. I just wanted to point out that some legislation that is absolutely not related to IT do set limitations on what words you can use in your business. And the question is then what responsibility (if any) there is during the application process of ICANN to approve/not approve such names that violate local legislation.
Yes. This goes to the very heart of the problem Patrik. National law should of course prevail as a matter of principle. But figuring out a viable universal process for that and injecting it into the gTLD sausage making machinery will be hard. The new gTLD thing seems to want to dance around this tricky issue and it appears ICANN isn't paying attention to the GAC's national sovereignty concerns. Which is unlikely to have a happy ending. :-(
On 8 sep 2011, at 11:45, Jim Reid wrote:
Whose law prevails, Sweden's or the banana republic's?
According to Swedish law, the law where the customer is. But that itself of course varies depending on jurisdiction ;-) Patrik
Patrik, all - On 03.09.2011 11:05, Patrik Fältström wrote:
But, that said, having a discussions on these items, and more, to clarify a bit, and reduce the amount of fog, smoke and mirrors so that everyone themselves can make a decision on what they feel would be the correct path forward could be interesting.
What do people think?
having some more light shed on these EC papers might be helpful - even though mostly non *IR topics are touched. Best, -C.
participants (7)
-
Alessandro Vesely -
Bastiaan Goslings -
Carsten Schiefner -
Carsten Schiefner -
Gordon Lennox -
Jim Reid -
Patrik Fältström