Stephane Van Gelder - Governance

A very partial view of the Internet… and the world

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Stephane Van Gelder) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:50:53 +0100

Chanced upon a little beauty of an article about how the US invented and paid for the Internet and should therefore keep controlling it forever.

Now I realise that the author's views aren't shared by everyone in the States. The site on which the article is being run is obviously slightly Republican friendly to say the least, and the article's "foreigners are going to take our Internet away from us" diatribe is obviously more political than anything else. Still, I can't help but be worried when the article's author, Bradley A. Blakeman, is an ex American President's deputy assistant and now teaches politics at a major US university.

With credentials like that, some people might actually believe untruths like "the Internet was invented by America". That's sad, because while there's no doubt Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn are the Net's fathers, what about its uncles? People like Frenchman Louis Pouzin, who is credited by both Cerf and Kahn as having laid the foundations for the Internet's cornerstone: the TCP/IP protocol.

And let's not forget that without Brit Tim Berners-Lee, I wouldn't have even been able to read Blakeman's fascinating piece of propaganda on a formatted webpage. At CERN (a European research institute located in Switzerland), Berners-Lee invented the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (http) and the Hypertext Markpup Language (html), two crucial parts of the true multimedia experience that is today's Internet.

Most sane, rational people realise that great enterprises like the Internet aren't built by a single person or nation. That would be like crediting all research and scientific progress made on AIDS to France because Luc Montagnier discovered HIV about 5 seconds before American Robert Gallo did.

But Blakeman doesn't seem to share the view that the Internet belongs to everyone. He argues that the Obama administration has "surrendered the Internet to foreign powers", that there is "no better country to protect the Internet than the United States" because he says "We invented it, and we paid for the research and implementation that made it possible. We are the freest most tolerant nation on earth..."

As I said, I'm worried. It's clear that the ICANN community still has its work cut out to ensure a truly global oversight of the Internet, if it has to fight such narrow minded views from the nation that still technically controls the Internet today.

Read the article here.

Nominet calls for continued self-regulation

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Stephane Van Gelder) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:18:50 +0100

UK registry Nominet is warning against government regulation of the domain name industry.

A Digital Economy Bill proposed by the UK's House of Lords would give the government the power to, in effect, seize a registry and place it under direct governmental control in the case of registry failure.

Nominet has written to its members (the registrars) asking them to take part in a consultation and backing the registry's proposals to maintain the self-regulatory model under which Nominet and other UK-based registries work.

"There are two key issues at stake: self-regulation and public purpose," says Nominet Chairman Bob Gilbert in an email to members. "We (…) need more of you to actively show your support for Nominet and a self-regulated domain name industry. Make your voice heard!"

"We believe the domain name industry should continue to be self-regulated," Gilbert goes on to explain. "It has served members well up until now and we believe it will do so in the future too. On behalf of your Board, I urge you to get involved with this consultation so that together we can shape the future of Nominet and the domain name industry in the UK."

Congress wants permanent ICANN contract

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Stephane Van Gelder) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:30:00 +0200

In a letter dated August 4, the US Congress is asking for exactly the opposite to what ICANN and the rest of the world wants. Instead of allowing ICANN to strive towards complete independence and to become a truly global governing body, Congress would like to see it permanently placed under the US government's control.

"Rather than replacing the JPA with additional JPAs or Memoranda of Understanding that expire every few years, we believe the time has come for a permanent instrument to which ICANN and the Department of Commerce are co-signatories," says Congress.

The June 4 hearing during which ICANN CEO Paul Twomey faced a grilling by congressmen as he requested an end to the JPA is referenced in the letter, which also lists a series of points the new contract should address.

Included in those are a commitment for ICANN to stay headquartered in the US and the assurance that WHOIS will remain publicly accessible and display complete registrant information. This last request seems particularly out-of-phase with existing local privacy and date protection laws which, outside the US, may require WHOIS databases to display only partial registrant information.

Although ICANN does not legally have any obligation to bow to Congress' demands, an outright end to the JPA (set to expire on September 30, 2009), without any kind of transitional contract to replace it, is looking increasingly unlikely.

Do new TLDs and IDNs mean tighter government control?

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Stephane Van Gelder) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:57:11 +0200

The Wall Street Journal is running a fascinating opinion piece about the possible impact of new gTLDs and IDNs. Author L. Gordon Crovitz posits that multiplying TLDs and languages on the Net may make it easier for authoritarian governments to attempt to stifle free-speech and meddle in what the article says is currently a "happy state of affairs" in which "one of the marvels of the Internet is that it is self-governing, with private groups of engineers and technology companies doing their best to keep it up and running without political interference."

I fully agree with what I think is a very good summary of why the ICANN system of governance suits the Internet to a tee. Lets not forget, after all, that both ICANN and the Internet are forays into what only a few years ago was just unknown territory. I think it's safe to say there's never been a medium like the Internet, and there's never been a body of governance like ICANN. Think what went before and you're bound to get the point: telex, print newspapers, cassette tapes and VHS for the Internet… the UN for ICANN.

So although the WSJ article seems right on the money when it describes a pioneering model of governance which shields the Internet from the ravages of too much government intervention, I'm not sure I get the link being made to new TLDs and IDNs. ICANN, says the WSJ, "plans to open the door to many new Web addresses and to give better access to non-English-language users." This, we are told, "could result in authoritarian governments insisting on more influence."

Continue reading "Do new TLDs and IDNs mean tighter government control?"

China says no to endless IGF

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Stephane Van Gelder) — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:48:41 +0200

At the Internet Governance Forum consultations currently going on in Geneva, the Chinese delegation has voiced its opposition to a 5 year extension of the IGF.

"When it comes to Internet governance, developing country points of view are not sufficiently reflected in the discussions," China's representative is quoted as saying by Milton Mueller on the IGP website. "This is why we don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the 5 years are up. So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with extending the mission of the IGF beyond the 5 years. We feel that after the 5 years are up, we would need to look at the results that have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an intergovernmental discussion."

I have to admit to being in full agreement with the Chinese on this. Their approach seems both pragmatic and logical. The UN tends to have a natural tendency to produce entities that have no clear endgame in sight and where no-one really questions the fact that no goals are being reached (or have even been set for that matter).

But the flip side of this coin is China's insistence that an "intergovernmental discussion" replace the IGF. Is that a way of throwing the UN wrench back into the ICANN slash Internet governance works?

EU to US government: let go of ICANN by the end of the year!

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Stephane Van Gelder) — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:27:08 +0200

In a video message posted on her website this morning, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media Viviane Reding asks the US government to cut ICANN loose at the end of the current JPA.

This Joint Project Agreement between ICANN to the US Department of Commerce is set to expire on September 30th. "This opens the door for the full privatisation of ICANN," said Reding, "and it also raises the question of to whom ICANN should be accountable, as from 1 October."

Answering her own question, Commissioner Reding suggested that ICANN become fully privatised and completely independent from the US government. She also suggested a "G12 for Internet Governance" as a novel body allowing governments to submit recommendations to ICANN.

ICANN itself, through its Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush, has been pushing for an end to direct US oversight once the current JPA is over and will undoubtedly be happy to see the EU come out in favour of an independent ICANN. A hearing will be held by the European Commission in Brussels on May 6th to further discuss the future of Internet Governance.

UK Internet Governance Forum website now up

stephane.vangelder@indom.com (Stephane Van Gelder) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:29:19 +0100

The launch of the UK IGF's website is a good opportunity to commend the Brits on getting their act together on the subject of Internet governance so quickly.

The original IGF was born out of the UN's World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). It's function: to provide WSIS participants with a place to continue their discussions and for nations, NGOs and civil society representatives worldwide.

But pretty soon people involved in the IGF started feeling the need for having those discussions at a local level too. Enter the UK IGF initiative as a forum for British stakeholders to engage and help new ideas emerge.

Other countries are now starting to follow suit and work on setting up their own IGF at national level. If it can help bring people together to talk about the future of the Internet, then I'm all for it.