IGP Blog

"Crypto-nationalism" and competition in secure DNS

Brenden Kuerbis — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:19:56 -0500

The public forum at the recent ICANN-Seoul meeting included an exchange between IGP's Milton Mueller and ICANN Board member Steve Crocker concerning cryptographic algorithms used in DNSSEC and the requirement in ICANN's new gTLD application to deploy DNSSEC. Both raised points which bear repeating and further elaboration of the underlying competition issues that comes with signing the root.

Upcoming Event: Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GIGANET): 4th Annual Symposium

Brenden Kuerbis — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:03:57 -0500

The 4th Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) Annual Symposium will be held in Sharm-El-Sheikh, Egypt, on November 14th, 2009 - one day before the IGF official opening at Maritim Sharm El Sheikh International Congress Centre (SHICC). The program includes presentations by IGP members Michel van Eeten, Jeanette Hofmann, Derrick Cogburn, Milton Mueller, and Hans Klein, as well as other recognized experts in the field. The symposium is free to attend but you must register.

Fresh start, or another week on the treadmill?

Milton Mueller — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:32:10 -0400

The Seoul ICANN meeting is over and my reaction to it is complex. On the one hand, the meeting felt like a fresh start: it was a showcase for the optimistic, likeable and accessible new President, Rod Beckstrom; it marked the end of the Commerce Department JPA; and it put into place a new domain name policy making structure with a revitalized and somewhat more empowered civil society segment (the NCSG). On the other hand, ICANN's continuing inability to define an ongoing process for the routine addition of new top level domain names, and the multiplication of new obstacles in their attempt to do so, hung over the meeting like a thick cloud of gray Seoul smog. It produced a deadening feeling that we have been on the same stupid treadmill for 10 years.

Grumbling about the Affirmation

Milton Mueller — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:22:21 -0400

The new "Affirmation of Commitments" was, naturally, a major topic at the Seoul ICANN meeting. In the short meeting held to discuss it, ICANN seemed more interested in discussing methodology than in talking about the purpose and scope of the reviews. The audience, however, wanted to talk about accountability. The following comments, circulated afterwards by Becky Burr, reflect the tone of much of the discussion:

Domain name market structure debate intensifies

Milton Mueller — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:15:56 -0400

At the Seoul meeting the Registrar Stakeholder Group has adopted a position paper supporting the removal of rules that prohibit them from selling names in TLD registries they own or control. Prior to this, many observers of the controversy assumed that it was only Demand Media (ENom) and a few other large registrars who supported the removal of this restriction from new TLDs. Now we see more of an industry-wide cleavage between registrars and registries.

Civil Society reps, ICANN Board bridge differences at Seoul meeting

Milton Mueller — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:30:52 -0400

The all-important direct meeting between the ICANN Board and the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC), which represents civil society in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization, took place today. It cleared up a number of misunderstandings, providing a sobering reminder of how badly things can go awry when bureaucracy mediates between the Board and ICANN participants.

Seoul ICANN Agenda packed

Milton Mueller — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:57:58 -0400

A lot of interesting issues are simmering as we head to the Seoul ICANN meeting.

For civil society activists, the highlight of the week comes when the Noncommercial Users Constituency meets with the ICANN Board in an attempt to resolve differences over how the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group will be organized.

Giganet award goes to paper exploring use of social networking tools in IG

Brenden Kuerbis — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:38:36 -0400

The 2009 Giganet scholarship award, intended to promote participation and scholarly work in Internet governance, has been awarded to Dr. Robert Bodle for his paper, Social Media and Global Internet Governance: Innovations and Limitations, which will be presented by him at the 2009 Giganet Symposium. The Internet Governance Project, which gives the award, would like to thank all applicants and congratulates them on their contributions

Live Event Tonight!: "Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now?"

Brenden Kuerbis — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:09:33 -0400

ISOC-NY is hosting a forum, "Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now?," tonight at NYU's Warren Weaver Hall from 18:45-20:45 (EDT). IGP's Milton Mueller, consumer advocate Beau Brendler, and longtime ICANN participant Danny Younger will debate the ongoing GNSO reforms occurring at ICANN, and the possible structures for civil society participation in its policy making activities. You can watch the debate live here and join the discussion.

Loud and clear: ccTLD operators vote (again) for ICANN to sign the root

Brenden Kuerbis — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:22:39 -0400

Affirming the results of a 2007 survey and consistent with numerous comments submitted in a 2009 NTIA proceeding on DNSSEC, ccTLD operators have again indicated in a new survey they want ICANN to sign the root. Their request stands in stark contrast to the June announcement made by the DoC which maintained the current root zone management arrangements and recommended Verisign sign the root zone.

The report states:

"Just like in the 2007 survey, an overwhelming majority of the respondents represents the opinion that ICANN/IANA should be the signer of the root zone. The support for ICANN/IANA has even clearly increased compared to the previous study – from 68% in 2007 to 76% in 2009."

IGF-USA plenary voices support for global Internet Governance Forum process

Brenden Kuerbis — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:21:30 -0400

The first Internet Governance Forum-USA was held last Friday in Washington DC. During the closing plenary session panelists from all stakeholder groups agreed the IGF is a useful exercise that contributes positively to Internet governance. “(The IGF) deals with global issues, transnational issues, ones that require coordination across political boundaries, and that is probably the most important thing about the IGF,” IGP's Milton Mueller said. “We cannot deal with the Internet in a purely national context. We don’t want to put the Internet back into boxes for the purposes of regulation.”

France on the ICANN Affirmation

Milton Mueller — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:30:48 -0400

The government of France has weighed in with a positive statement on the ICANN Affirmation of Commitments. The full text is available here in French and in English.

Board's "noncommercial" appointments raise eyebrows

Milton Mueller — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:38:57 -0400

Yesterday the Board announced its appointments to represent Noncommercial Stakeholders on the GNSO Council. These positions should have been elected directly by noncommercial stakeholders organized in the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC). The only reason they weren't is that the NCUC is being punished for not being sufficiently pliable to Board and staff wishes.* So the Board decided to appoint three of their six representatives for them. How good of a job did they do?

Taking a Hard Look at the "Affirmation"

Milton Mueller — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:45:36 -0400

The new agreement involving the U.S. Commerce Department and ICANN really does constitute a new phase in ICANN’s existence. It is a step away from unilateral U.S. oversight, and that is a good thing. (Of course, the IANA contract, which still gives the U.S. a unilateral, life-or-death power over ICANN’s authority over the DNS root zone file, is unchanged by this.) The Obama administration NTIA is to be commended for making changes that attempt to address longstanding issues regarding unilateral U.S. oversight of ICANN. While acknowledging this effort to move forward, we call attention to some design flaws in the approach taken. More fundamentally, we are surprised by the approach to accountability that seems to underlie the AoC.

Internet Governance Forum-USA to raise awareness of debate over governance of global Internet

Brenden Kuerbis — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:48:08 -0400

The first IGF-USA will take place this Friday, Oct 2 from 8:45-5:30 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, located at 1800 K Street, NW, in Washington, DC. The forum will engage civil society, government, industry, technology/research and academia in workshops and plenary sessions covering a variety of Internet issues including: The Future of the Internet, GenNext's Online Future; Cyber Security; Freedom of Information in a Web 2.0 World; Critical Internet Resources; Privacy and Security Implications for Web 2.0; and Access Perspectives, Challenges and Opportunities.  

Speakers in the morning plenary session will include Markus Kummer of the UN Secretariat for the global IGF, Larry Strickling of NTIA and Lee Rainie of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, with participants such as Marc Rotenberg, Electronic Privacy Information Center; Phil Bond, TechAmerica; Lee McKnight, Internet Governance Project and others. The closing plenary will include Ambassador Phil Verveer and Richard Beaird, U.S. State Department, as well as other participants from business and civil society including IGP's Milton Mueller. This plenary will address the upcoming deliberations regarding the future of the global Internet Governance Forum - a process now in its fourth year that was originally chartered for an initial five-year period and whose future is being debated.

Registration for the event is free and can be done on the IGF-USA website. Remote participation is also available.

Ask us about ICANN's, um, "affirmation"

Milton Mueller — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:02:14 -0400

We are all waiting for the other shoe to drop - i.e., for the NTIA to formally release the actual document that constitutes the "Affirmation of Commitments" that will replace the Joint Project Agreement. We have a pretty good idea what's in it but at this point it's best to wait for the official release. Once it is, IGP's crack team of ICANN-analysts stands ready to provide commentary and analysis of it. Call us at +1.202.657.5881 or email info {at} internetgovernance.org. While you're waiting, be amused with Jeremy Rabkin's quip about the new title for the Agreement. An "Affirmation of Commitment," he said, sounds a lot like marriage vows exchanged by same-sexers in a state where gay marriage is not yet legal. It's sort of like a legal vow, but not quite, and no doubt some conservative types will find it all a bit strange. Internet governance is getting so New Age.

ICANN oversight: a change of phase

Milton Mueller — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:55:59 -0400

Details are beginning to emerge about the replacement for the ICANN – Commerce Department Joint Project Agreement (JPA). The Economist is reporting that the JPA will be replaced by an “affirmation of commitments” that is only four pages long. This corresponds to what we are hearing from various sources here in Washington. Unlike the JPA, which had to be renewed every few years – a process that triggered what we at IGP considered to be a dysfunctional politics in which U.S. business interests ran to Congress every time ICANN did something they didn’t like – the “affirmation” has no fixed term. From this point on, the details become hazier. The new agreement is organized around four policy areas around which regular reviews will be conducted: 1) competition among generic domains; 2) Whois; 3) security; and 4) transparency, accountability and the public interest. The reviews will be conducted by “oversight panels” that include representatives of foreign governments. That is an area where the details are especially hazy. We do not know how these “oversight panels” will be selected, or whether they will include business and civil society in a balanced way as well as foreign governments. But it does look like a move to a more transnational approach to oversight. The Economist article reports that the U.S. government will retain “a permanent seat” on the panel dealing with accountability. It also claims that “there are no penalties if ICANN fails to heed its new overseers.” This sounds like the kind of “soft oversight” we proposed be conducted through the Internet Governance Forum. We have also heard that NTIA officials were actively vetting the proposal among foreign governments.

Overall this sounds like a mixed bag. One can only marvel at the elevation of Whois (the policies governing the display of data on domain name registrants) to the same level of importance as “transparency, accountability and the public interest.” But we all know that the trademark lobby is strong and focused. The shift in the form of oversight and the move to a more international approach is welcome – but we await the details.

Consumer Fraud

Milton Mueller — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:28:34 -0400

Two people in ALAC are pushing to create a Consumer constituency within the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. While superficially this may seem like a good idea, nothing in ICANN is simple or straightforward. The Board should not recognize a Consumer Constituency now. There are four reasons why the Board must wait until next year before even considering it.

A new ICANN-Commerce Department deal: Does the public get to comment?

Milton Mueller — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:28:48 -0400

It is no secret that ICANN and the U.S. Commerce Department are engaged in intensive negotations over the future of their relationship as we approach the expiration of the current Joint Project Agreement. We have no inside information about what will happen, but we do suspect that there will be some kind of a new agreement that breaks some new ground. We have already seen the U.S. Congress openly ask for some kind of permanent charter or agreement (which of course we think would be a mistake) and such a new agreement could have long term consequences. Shouldn't ICANN's constituencies and participants be allowed to have their say before ICANN itself signs on to it?

European Internet Governance meeting calls for oversight role for IGF

Brenden Kuerbis — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:28:55 -0400

Reports are emerging from European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG), one of the regional Internet Governance Forum events, of calls for a greater role for the IGF in monitoring Internet governance institutions. During a plenary session held today, "The post-JPA phase: towards a future Internet governance model," there was discussion amongst the European governments and other participants about the role of the IGF in contributing to ICANN's accountability.

Participants identified the creation of a "Dynamic Coallition on ICANN Accountability and International Conformity" at the IGF as a possible solution to deal with the ICANN related issues more strategically, and in conformance with the Tunis Agenda. Although details are emerging about what the new Dynamic Coalition would entail, the suggestion sounds similar to the soft oversight role proposed by the IGP in its 2008 comments to the Department of Commerce during its mid-term review of the JPA.

According to one account, provided by a member of the IGF MAG and relayed to ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency, a reason given for such a mechanism was that "although ICANN's constitutional documents and by-laws require it to co-operate with relevant international organisations and to carry out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law, there are no related formal accountability arrangements and this can be the first step to create this process."

Who's the real Communist?

Milton Mueller — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:53:40 -0400

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the China's Ministry of Culture has announced sweeping new regulations for online music. The new regulations attempt to make the Ministry a bottleneck and gatekeeper for all commercial exchanges of online music in China. Foreign-produced music must be approved by censors and checked for copyright compliance before it can be distributed over the Internet. According to the Journal, "Online music distributors will be required to provide written lyrics for each song, translated into Chinese, and documents to prove they aren't infringing on intellectual property rights, the ministry notice said. In addition, companies wishing to provide music download services will be required to apply for an Internet culture license to do so." In other words, this is an attempt to undo exactly what the Internet is designed to do.

Normally the West loves to hold up Chinese censorship as a bad example to the rest of the world. But guess who has expressed enthusiasm and support for the new regulations? You guessed it: The music publishers! Both the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) are quoted in the article as supporting this new extension of Chinese censorship. Remember the satiric poster "when you pirate MP3s, you're downloading communism?" Now maybe we need a new one: "Communists and Copyright owners: perfect together."

Drinking from the firehose

Milton Mueller — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:06:49 -0400

The new President of ICANN, Rod Beckstrom, is making the rounds, listening. He's quickly figured out what makes the global institution he is supposed to run tick: the diverse and fractious "stakeholder" groups that cluster around the business and technology of IP addresses and domain names. He's trying to acquaint himself with the people and attitudes of each one and learning about their issues. Registries and trademark lawyers complaining about registrars; registrars complaining about registries; business badmouthing civil society; frustrated Russians, Chinese, European Unionists complaining about the U.S.; the ITU, the RIRs....all have their own angle, their own feuds, their agendas and demands to press.

In Washington Wednesday he made a point of meeting with public interest groups, the noncommercial stakeholders his predecessor went out of his way to marginalize. I was there, along with representatives of Free Press, EPIC, the Media and Democracy Coalition, and OneWebDay. He barely had time to sit down before I presented him with a copy of the Top Ten Myths about Civil Society in ICANN, which I jokingly offered to autograph. He totally one-upped me. He pulled out a copy of Ruling the Root and asked me to autograph that instead. Then he graciously presented me with my very own copy of The Starfish and the Spider, which I insisted he autograph for me. Auspicious exchange.

It was a get-acquainted session; no deals made, no promises sought. But there seems to be some badly needed wafts of fresh air. This new CEO of ICANN thinks his job is to run the organization and not to drive policy, and for now, at least, he's willing to listen. And if anyone can drink from a firehose, it's Aquaman.

Another mini-Internet Governance Forum: in the U.S.A.

Milton Mueller — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:06:51 -0400

Although you may not have heard about it yet, there are plans afoot for an Internet Governance Forum for the U.S. The location has been set for Washington, DC at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The date is set at October 2. The purpose of the affair is to debate, discuss and seek out common ground on some of the issues facing the global Internet Governance Forum operated by the United Nations, which will be held in Egypt November 15-18. In particular, we seek agreement on whether to support the IGF's renewal for another 5 year term. We note, however, that this is really an IGF Washington not an IGF-USA, as its organization, awareness and programming are pretty much confined to the nation’s capitol and it lacks the preparation time and breadth of participation to be considered a nationwide effort. UPDATE: You can now visit the website for more information, including a program agenda.

The Internet Governance Project along with several other civil society groups, notably EPIC's Public Voice project, has decided to support and participate in this event. Although the initiative came from Washington-based business interests and the program plans reflect the sometimes-parochial concerns of that crowd, we believe that it is a good way to raise awareness of the IGF and of global Internet governance issues in the nation’s capitol. If more civil society groups and people with diverse perspectives get involved, perhaps the event will become more than an echo chamber for the usual Washington lobbyists’ line on ICANN and Internet governance. EPIC has set up an email listserv exclusively for civil society; if you want to get involved please contact Katitza Rodriguez at igf-usa@thepublicvoice.org

National and regional IGFs have proliferated in the last two years. One of the most developed is European dialogue on Internet Governance.

Top Ten Myths about Civil Society Participation in ICANN

Milton Mueller — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:32:07 -0400

This gem was produced by the Noncommercial Users Constituency in line with the NCSG charter wars - if you want a quick introduction to what that's all about, here it is:

Top Ten Myths about Civil Society Participation in ICANN

And now in French: DIX LEGENDES AUTOUR DE LA PARTICIPATION DE LA SOCIETE CIVILE A L’ICANN

NCUC Letter Makes 3 Simple Requests: Will the ICANN Board cooperate?

Milton Mueller — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:51:44 -0400

Yesterday the Chair of ICANN's noncommercial users constituency, Robin Gross of IPJustice, sent an important letter to the ICANN Board and its new CEO, Rod Beckstrom. The letter, which had the unanimous support of 145 members of the GNSO constituency, makes three specific requests of the Board. The Board's willingness to grant these demands is being carefully watched by civil society groups, and is considered a test of ICANN's willingness to accommodate - or exclude -- the participation of public interest groups.

First, NCUC asks for a direct meeting between the full Board and NCUC representatives at the Seoul ICANN meeting in October. Second, the letter asks the Board to completely review the transitional NCSG charter by July 30, 2010, and to acknowledge that the charter originally proposed by the NCUC and overwhelmingly supported by the noncommercial community will be considered in the review. 3) Third, it asks the Board not to approve any new Constituencies under the SIC and ICANN staff-imposed transitional NCSG charter until the ongoing debates over the status of Constituencies and their role in the NCSG is resolved next year. The full text of the letter can be found at the NCUC's web site.

More top-down manipulation of the policy process

Milton Mueller — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:57:21 -0400

Rod Beckstrom really has his work cut out for him. ICANN’s policy staff, which is supposed to merely facilitate an open, bottom-up process of policy making by you, me and other stakeholders, has once again taken advantage of the organization’s lack of real accountability to put itself in charge of deciding who can and cannot participate in making critical policy decisions.

This time the topic is “Internationalized Domain Names” (IDNs) or domain names in non-Western scripts like Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, etc. A “working group” is being formed to make some important policy decisions, but the group is neither open nor appointed by elected GNSO representatives; instead, the policy staff decides who gets to participate and who doesn't - and once again, many involved people with a direct interest in the issue are being excluded.

The House Committee Letter on ICANN: All politics is local

Milton Mueller — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:01:13 -0400

On August 4 the U.S. House Committee that oversees the Commerce Department published their opinion about ICANN and the impending expiration of its Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the Commerce Department. The gist of the letter was that the Congressional committee, headed by powerful Democrat Henry Waxman of California, wants something like the JPA to become a permanent part of the global Internet.

The letter proposes that a new, "permanent instrument" between the U.S. Commerce Department and ICANN be created. The list of things the instrument should do was strong and sweeping. It not only allows Commerce to periodically review ICANN's performance but also asks it to "create a mechanism for ICANN's implementation of any new gTLDs and internationalized domain names that ensures appropriate consultation with stakeholders." It would ensure that ICANN will not change its current policy toward indiscriminate access to Whois information.

In other words, this is a rather explicit call for the basic parameters of DNS policy to be made (or rather, re-made) in Washington.

Why? What reason was put forward to justify this rather stark departure from the basic model of ICANN, which was supposed to be an independent, multistakeholder global governance agency, accountable to all the world's Internet users and not just those located in the U.S.? One has to answer the "why" question in two separate paragraphs. There are the real reasons, which can be read between the lines, and there are the rhetorical reasons explicitly stated in the letter.

Four ICANN Board members dissent in vote on NCSG charter

Milton Mueller — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:01:09 -0400

On July 30 a majority of the ICANN Board took a fateful step away from open public participation in domain name policy making. In a decision that seriously impairs ICANN’s claim to be a multi-stakeholder, bottom up institution, the Board voted 10-4 to impose upon civil society groups a charter that they did not support and which is designed to weaken and fragment their participation.

The Board-approved charter for a Non Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) was drafted directly by ICANN’s staff, without any consultations with the affected noncommercial organizations. When it was put up for public comment the reaction was overwhelmingly negative. And yet the majority of the Board (with several strong dissents, see the “silver lining” below) didn’t care, and passively complied with the direction fed to it by its Vice Chair and staff. The staff did not make a single modification reflecting the views of the overwhelming majority of the affected community.

The importance of this issue goes well beyond the NCSG; it relates to the whole problem of public participation in ICANN. Is ICANN a structure to facilitate policy making by any interested and affected stakeholder, or is ICANN nothing more than a self-perpetuating corporation that sees the public as a potential threat and public participation as something to be carefully managed and controlled?

Are you listening, ICANN?

Milton Mueller — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:31:01 -0400

A wonderful thing is happening on the ICANN public comment board. Public interest groups from all over the world have mobilized to express support for the NCUC charter proposal. What seemed to be an obscure procedural issue months ago has attracted worldwide attention. Civil society groups are objecting strongly to the ICANN management's attempt to manipulate and control its allegedly "bottom up" policy making structures. These are not your standard two-line ICANN public comments, "I support this, I hate that." These are not your usual commenters, the same ICANN insiders who have held the same positions in the GNSO for 10 years. The entries are from new people, many of the comments are unusually long and articulate, and motivated by a sense of disbelief and injustice.

IGP files comments on proposed Noncommercial Stakeholder Group charter

Brenden Kuerbis — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:29:35 -0400

The IGP filed comments today in ICANN's second proceeding on GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters. In its comments IGP identified both substantive issues in the revised NCSG charter proposal drafted by ICANN policy staff, as well as procedural flaw in ICANN's proceeding. In light of these concerns, IGP asked that ICANN immediately drop its attempt to impose its revised NCSG charter proposal, and instead reinstate the original Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) charter proposal submitted by the NCUC for consideration by the Board.