BBC News reports that ICANN has made a plea to the US Department of Commerce to become fully independent. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7205609.stm). These news come after many years of controversy surrounding the corporation and its affiliation and influence by the US Government.
In 2006, ICANN entered a Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the US Government agreeing to collaborate in the "developement of the mechanisms, methods, and procedures necessary to effect the transition of Internet domain name and addressing system (DNS) to the private sector". (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/jpa/icannjpa_09292006.htm) This Agreement is due to terminate at the end of September 2009.
According to the President of ICANN, Paul Twomey the agreed objectives between ICANN and the US DoC were "essentially complete". And he added: "Has the process of the MoU and JPA towards building a stable, strong organisation which can do this transition, has that been successful? The board is effectively saying yes".
But, what does this mean? In reality ICANN's independence is something that many have been wishing for. However, will it work? Now, this is a whole different story.
With the Internet Governance debate ongoing, ICANN still tries to place itself and define the scope of its authority on the Internet Governance arena. What this independece implies and, better yet, who will actually be responsible for monitoring ICANN's actions?
According to Mr. Twomey governments would still be able to inform the corporation about developments concerning public policy issues, but they would not be able to influence or dictate ICANN's developement.
If that is the case, this approach will raise a number of new questions. ICANN is already under attack over its 'masonic' structure, secretive meetings, non-inclusive role and generally the way it has been hanlding issues pertaining to the addressing system, like for instance its Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, the addition of new gTLDs in the addressing system and WHOIS concerns. With no one to keep ICANN under scrutiny and with issues of Internet Governance and the role of the private sector still being far from resolved, the corporation can acquire more power and control than it currently holds.
Even though it is still very early to make assumptions, one can not help but wonder whether we will find ourselves thinking that the old status of ICANN would actually be better than the proposed new one.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, 28 January 2008
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
Because some things never change...
It has been a very long time since we have heard any news on ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). It has actually been even longer, since the first study on domain name disputes - Fair.com? (http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf) - by Michael Geist was publised and showed a rather concerning pattern of trademark owners winning in most of the cases. The results of Geist's study were quite revealing: the success rate for complainants of all the cases brought before WIPO panels was, at the time, 82.2%. This relevation brought to light the inadequecies of the system and raised concerns over various issues such as forum shopping.
However, almost seven years after the study, a new report comes to light and shows ICANN's incapacity, inability or indiference to address issues that have constituted procedural flaws within the UDRP ever since its inception.
In a very recent article, the Wall Street Journal has reported that in 2007 domain name disputes have reached an all-time high (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/01/11/domain-name-disputes-at-an-all-time-high/). According to data from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), in 2007 domain name disputes have reached a 2,156 fraction, making it its most successful year yet. Of all these cases, 85% of trademark owners have prevailed.
Even though we can not safely argue that this high percentage is unsubstantiated, still this number is rather alarming.
With the number of dispute resolution providers dropping (since the creation of the UDRP ICANN has lost two of its service providers and has only added one), WIPO is still receiving the majority of the disputes and for obvious reasons. So what is the conclusion? Just because the criticism against the UDRP has gone quite, it doesn't mean that the system is functioning properly. The UDRP obviously still suffers from procedural and substantive issues; and, since businesses and entrepreneurs are depending on domain names to build their businesses online, it is about time we start addressing and answering some very crucial questions - what is - in reality - the legal nature of domain names?
However, almost seven years after the study, a new report comes to light and shows ICANN's incapacity, inability or indiference to address issues that have constituted procedural flaws within the UDRP ever since its inception.
In a very recent article, the Wall Street Journal has reported that in 2007 domain name disputes have reached an all-time high (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/01/11/domain-name-disputes-at-an-all-time-high/). According to data from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), in 2007 domain name disputes have reached a 2,156 fraction, making it its most successful year yet. Of all these cases, 85% of trademark owners have prevailed.
Even though we can not safely argue that this high percentage is unsubstantiated, still this number is rather alarming.
With the number of dispute resolution providers dropping (since the creation of the UDRP ICANN has lost two of its service providers and has only added one), WIPO is still receiving the majority of the disputes and for obvious reasons. So what is the conclusion? Just because the criticism against the UDRP has gone quite, it doesn't mean that the system is functioning properly. The UDRP obviously still suffers from procedural and substantive issues; and, since businesses and entrepreneurs are depending on domain names to build their businesses online, it is about time we start addressing and answering some very crucial questions - what is - in reality - the legal nature of domain names?
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
China,Pop Idol and Internet Governance
In the beginning of December 2007, I had the opportunity to find myself in Beijing, China for a conference, whereby I presented a paper on the feasibility of a Consitution for the Internet.
The paper was well received, some interesting comments were made, but the target audience I was particularly aiming for to criticise my presentation was absent. Talking about a Constitution for the Internet in a country where the Internet is restricted only to 'permitted' sites is a bit ironic - thus, I was anticipating a bigger debate than the one I received. In my audience there were hardly any Chinese students, colleagues or anybody that would have been interested in the topics discussed there.
Is it that the Chinese are not interested or is that the issues discussed could have raised eyebrows within the Chinese culture? In light of this, I can safely say that this experience only made my belief that some sort of a Constitution, 'a framework of fundamental rights', 'an Internet Bill of Rights' - call it whatever you want - might be the only solution to the challenges that we currently face.
The Chinese seem eager to participate in anything that interest them and that can be seen from the latest Chinese experiment. I was discussing with a student from the univeristy of Beijing, who told me that 'Pop Idol' entered the Chinese market. Its popularity is massive and its ratings have hit skyhigh - and this is because of a very simple reason; for the first time in Chinese history people are given the opportunity to vote, to have a democratic process in place and determine an outcome based on basic and fundamental democratic processes.
For this reason, it is vital to have a set of fundamental rights and rules that will be applicable for all of us that use the Internet, Chinese, Europeans, Americans, Indians and all the other people of this world that see the Internet as a means of massive potential and communication. I suggest let's give users a voice and a chance to actually actively participate in the debate. Let's try to remove politics from the Internet and bring it back to its roots - a means of communication and an educational tool.
The paper was well received, some interesting comments were made, but the target audience I was particularly aiming for to criticise my presentation was absent. Talking about a Constitution for the Internet in a country where the Internet is restricted only to 'permitted' sites is a bit ironic - thus, I was anticipating a bigger debate than the one I received. In my audience there were hardly any Chinese students, colleagues or anybody that would have been interested in the topics discussed there.
Is it that the Chinese are not interested or is that the issues discussed could have raised eyebrows within the Chinese culture? In light of this, I can safely say that this experience only made my belief that some sort of a Constitution, 'a framework of fundamental rights', 'an Internet Bill of Rights' - call it whatever you want - might be the only solution to the challenges that we currently face.
The Chinese seem eager to participate in anything that interest them and that can be seen from the latest Chinese experiment. I was discussing with a student from the univeristy of Beijing, who told me that 'Pop Idol' entered the Chinese market. Its popularity is massive and its ratings have hit skyhigh - and this is because of a very simple reason; for the first time in Chinese history people are given the opportunity to vote, to have a democratic process in place and determine an outcome based on basic and fundamental democratic processes.
For this reason, it is vital to have a set of fundamental rights and rules that will be applicable for all of us that use the Internet, Chinese, Europeans, Americans, Indians and all the other people of this world that see the Internet as a means of massive potential and communication. I suggest let's give users a voice and a chance to actually actively participate in the debate. Let's try to remove politics from the Internet and bring it back to its roots - a means of communication and an educational tool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)