[WSIS CS-Plenary] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines

[Internet Governance Project]

January 31, 2010

Google, China and the U.S: Did Clinton’s Internet freedom speech backfire?

The At Large Board seat should represent the public

Google v. China: the larger issues

Could Google-China smackdown lead to WTO complaint?

The Top 10 of 2009

Nonstandard standards action at ICANN

ITU on root signing and ccTLDs

DNSSEC requirement for new gTLDs raises concern outside US

Emerging Threats to Internet Security: Incentives, Externalities and Policy Implications

New domain name restrictions in China

ICANN Staff finally admits it: There is no bottom up process and no difference between "policy" and "implementation"

Search Internet Governance Project Headlines

 
________________________________________________________

* Google, China and the U.S: Did Clinton’s Internet freedom speech backfire? - http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=44023330&f=175425&u=11399690&c=3386801
 
 

As we’ve been telling people for six years, the global governance of the internet is creating geopolitics of the highest order. With the Google-China rupture and the subsequent responses of the US and Chinese territorial governments, it is clear that the issues of cybercrime, censorship, trade and technology policy are converging on the problem of transnational governance of internet-based communications. As much as we appreciated Secretary Clinton’s ringing endorsement of internet freedom, however, to solve this problem we really need states to step back from the Internet. Politicians leading symbolic, flag-waving campaigns for their country’s values only provoke the same, polarizing response in the other country.• Email to a friend • Article Search - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main Page;Google, China and the U.S: Did Clinton’s Internet freedom speech backfire?;3386801 • •

 
 

* The At Large Board seat should represent the public - http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=43952714&f=175425&u=11399690&c=3386801
 
 

In August 2009 the ICANN board decided to give its At Large community a voting position on the board. This change was hailed by many advocates of democratizing ICANN as a small but significant step toward improving ICANN's accountability to the public. Ideally, the new board position would be democratically selected by the world's Internet users to represent the voice of the public in ICANN.

Last week, ICANN's At Large Advisory Committee released its proposed process for the selection of a Board member. It has issued a call for public comment on its proposals, and it appears as if you comment at the same link as noted above. But don't get too excited. In designing the process, the only question the 5 people appointed by ALAC to design the process seems to have asked themselves is: what process will maximize our own chance of getting one of ourselves a voting position on the Board?• Email to a friend • Article Search - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main Page;The At Large Board seat should represent the public;3386801 • •

 
 

* Google v. China: the larger issues - http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=44157976&f=175425&u=11399690&c=3386801
 
 

This comment from Professor Ron Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski about the wider implications of Google's clash with China deserves the widest possible circulation. As they put it, at issue here is whether "the once unified global Internet space will begin a process of disintegration as countries define their own sovereign clouds."• Email to a friend • Article Search - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main Page;Google v. China: the larger issues;3386801 • •

 
 

* Could Google-China smackdown lead to WTO complaint? - http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=44053844&f=175425&u=11399690&c=3386801
 
 

Citing instances of espionage and surveillance of its customers, Google announced in coordinated fashion yesterday that they are no longer willing to continue censoring results on Google.cn, and threatened that it might withdraw operations from China entirely. Some are wondering if Google would actually walk away from the China market. Frankly, China routinely leverages the size of its market and counts on the fact that no business dares to give up a market of that size. But when businesses are willing to play rough and threaten exit they are more likely to get positive results than when they kow-tow. That being said, you don't make the move Google did without a plan. And that makes me think we might be witnessing the precursor to a major development in the application of trade principles to Internet governance.• Email to a friend • Article Search - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main Page;Could Google-China smackdown lead to WTO complaint?;3386801 • •

 
 

* The Top 10 of 2009 - http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=43952144&f=175425&u=11399690&c=3386801
 
 

Many thanks to our readers, both old and new, from civil society, industry and governments all over the world. Interest in IGP's work continues to grow dramatically, visits were up over 70% in 2009. Reflecting the growth of the Internet and those impacted by its governance, two-thirds of IGP's visitors come from outside the United States (although Washington DC is definitely following us). The greatest growth is among the BRICs, with visits from China up over 8000%. Here's to another year of in-depth coverage and analysis of global Internet governance developments! Keep reading to take a look at the top blog posts, papers downloads and visitors by country.• Email to a friend • Article Search - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main Page;The Top 10 of 2009;3386801 • •

 
 

* Nonstandard standards action at ICANN - http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=43952145&f=175425&u=11399690&c=3386801
 
 

This week's post on DNSSEC requirements for new gTLDs piqued my curiosity - what exactly are the differences between the registry agreements ICANN has executed to date and the proposed registry agreement in the DAGv3 with respect to technical standards requirements? A quick review of the documents reveals a stark difference.• Email to a friend • Article Search - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main Page;Nonstandard standards action at ICANN;3386801 • •

 
 

* ITU on root signing and ccTLDs - http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=43952146&f=175425&u=11399690&c=3386801
 
 

The ITU, in its comments submitted to the UN Secretary-General for a report to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) on "Enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet," states that concerning management of critical Internet resources, specifically domain name system security extensions (DNSSEC) root signing authority:

The root signing authority is of critical importance to the security, stability and reliability of the Internet. The role and functions related to policies governing the harmonized and global coordination of such services for country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) must be assumed by a relevant intergovernmental body with the mandate from Governments and the experience in providing such services so that concerns and interests of sovereign States can be taken into account.• Email to a friend • Article Search - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main Page;ITU on root signing and ccTLDs;3386801 • •

 
 

* DNSSEC requirement for new gTLDs raises concern outside US - http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=43952147&f=175425&u=11399690&c=3386801
 
 

As noted by previously by IGP, it is not entirely clear where requirements for DNSSEC in the Draft Applicant Guidebook emerged from within the ongoing consultation. Public comments to date from several organizations are mostly negative, including China Organizational Name Admininstration Center (CONAC), Uninet Bulgaria, Domain the Net (Israel), DotAfrica, Regtime (Russia), and CORE (Switzerland). They cite a variety of concerns, ranging from potential conflicts with deploying IDNs, to conflicts with local and national laws, to concerns about data escrowing, and question whether it is appropriate for all registries. In general, they argue that requiring DNSSEC could prevent new gTLDs.• Email to a friend • Article Search - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main Page;DNSSEC requirement for new gTLDs raises concern outside US;3386801 • •

 
 

* Emerging Threats to Internet Security: Incentives, Externalities and Policy Implications - http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=43952148&f=175425&u=11399690&c=3386801
 
 

The Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management has published a new article by IGP's Michel van Eeten and Johnannes Bauer, Emerging Threats to Internet Security: Incentives, Externalities and Policy Implications. The paper, based in part on numerous interviews conducted with network operators, is particularly useful for cutting through the often analytically empty cybersecurity dialogue. Using a marginal security (law enforcement) vs. precluded-event security (national security) framework, the authors identify why the issue of botnets leads to such controversy when it comes to policy responses.• Email to a friend • Article Search - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main Page;Emerging Threats to Internet Security: Incentives, Externalities and Policy Implications;3386801 • •

 
 

* New domain name restrictions in China - http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=43952149&f=175425&u=11399690&c=3386801
 
 

China's government is using its control of domain names to impose more strict controls over the Internet. In a recent announcement of China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), individuals can no longer register .cn domain names unless they can provide business registration information in paper. The documents include: domain name registration form (with enterprise official seal), a copy of the business license of the enterprise or corporate code certificate and copy of the national ID card of the applicant.• Email to a friend • Article Search - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main Page;New domain name restrictions in China;3386801 • •

 
 

* ICANN Staff finally admits it: There is no bottom up process and no difference between "policy" and "implementation" - http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=43952150&f=175425&u=11399690&c=3386801
 
 

In response to a motion from Noncommercial Users, ICANN has released a staff issues report about the topic of registry-registrar separation. The NCUC motion asked the staff whether contracts that liberalized cross-ownership restrictions among registries and registrars of new top level domains constituted a policy change that required a new policy development process, or were merely minor implementation issues that could be developed by staff within existing policy parameters. Forget about the substantive issue for a moment. The staff report contains one whale of a process issue. Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:• Email to a friend • Article Search - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;12422;Main Page;ICANN Staff finally admits it: There is no bottom up process and no difference between "policy" and "implementation";3386801 • •

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe from all current and future newsletters powered by FeedBlitz - http://feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?EmailRemove=_MTEzOTk2OTB8fHBsZW5hcnlAd3Npcy1jcy5vcmd8MzM4NjgwMQ==_
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20100131/ac131ed1/attachment-0001.htm>