ICANN
March 2013, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) said its overnight of several internet functions—which, in essence, allow ICANN to carry out its role as the domain name system’s overseer—will be transferred to the “global multi-stakeholder community”.
It’s a vague term, but ‘multi-stakeholder’ is common in ICANN circles, referring to the ‘bottom-up’ way in which multiple groups make policy, including governments, internet users and IP owners. Using this approach, ICANN has set in motion a process for deciding what should replace the NTIA, but it’s early days yet.
Te NTIA has explicitly ruled out handing over to a government-led or
inter-governmental
organisation solution. Although the current NTIA-ICANN contract, which covers the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions, expires in September 2015, the government holds all the cards, and can cling on until it sees an acceptable proposal.
In theory, this means governments will not assume any contractual sway over the internet’s address book, but that has not stopped people worrying. Some US politicians are concerned that the US might hand ‘control of the internet’ to countries such as Russia and China, which might impose restrictions on free speech. Under one bill, named the Dotcom Act, the NTIA would be blocked from approving any ICANN proposal by up to one year while the General Accountability Office reviews it.
Tese fears are partly based on Russia and China’s unsuccessful attempt in 2012 to bring ICANN under the remit of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN agency responsible for information and communication technologies. Tat attempt might have failed, but there is nothing to suggest they won’t try again at the next ITU plenipotentiary meeting, set for October 2014.
Notwithstanding the NTIA’s vow to block any government from replacing it, the chance of China coming in and cracking down on free speech doesn’t seem likely anyway.
“For years, authoritarian regimes have pointed to the NTIA’s oversight role of ICANN as an example of why other governments should be given greater control of the internet, on a level par with the US,” says Crescent Ezekwu, client project manager at domain name consultant Valideus.
“More recently, the US has become concerned that this idea had become more widely accepted by ‘middle countries’, such as Brazil, concerns
www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com
“WILL ICANN SEEK TO BECOME AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION, LEGALLY
CONSTITUTED IN GENEVA? HOW WOULD THIS IMPACT THE HUNDREDS OF BRAND REGISTRIES CONTRACTED TO ICANN OVER THE COMING YEARS?”
that were accelerated in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations.”
If followed through, the NTIA’s handover to the multi-stakeholder community would remove that argument from the table at a politically sensitive time, says Ezekwu, pointing to the ITU meeting later this year.
Pushing for influence
Tere may, however, be another way for governments to gain more power in the new NTIA-free era, and this is where the GAC comes in. As Ezekwu notes, there have already been growing signs of governments seeking to use the GAC’s advisory role within ICANN as a means to push for greater controls, particularly over content-related issues outside ICANN’s purview.
“In some cases, this has seen pushes by the GAC in the ‘ICANN sphere’ for rights that are currently inconsistent
with international or national
laws,” she says, citing the controversy over the applications for the .wine and .vin gTLDs.
In March 2014, ICANN agreed to let three applications for .wine and one for .vin proceed through the gTLD programme, despite some GAC members asking for additional safeguards within those gTLDs, including special protection for geographical indications such as ‘Champagne’. ICANN’s decision is subject to an internal appeal by the UK, France, Spain and the European Commission.
Roland LaPlante, chief marketing officer at domain name registry Afilias, says the GAC will become more powerful when the NTIA walks away from ICANN.
“It will remain either as an advisory group with expanded power or it will evolve into a constituent group, with some level of actual votes (and potentially some government-named board members).”
If this prediction becomes true, he says, “everyone will be worried”.
LaPlante says the groups involved in the new multi-stakeholder approach should include at least the following: governments; private sector; civil society;
technical community; academia;
and internet users. But, he says, at this point it is hard to tell what ICANN’s solution will look like, whereas it’s much easier to say what it will not look like.
When change does come, there are more questions to consider, such as a possible move for ICANN from its base in California. Under the affirmation of commitments (AoC) agreement with the US government, ICANN must be set up as a US corporation, but this dynamic may alter in the future, as Ezekwu explains.
“Will governments turn amending or
their attention to even replacing the AoC? Will
ICANN seek to become an international organisation, legally constituted in Geneva? How would this impact the hundreds of brand registries contracted to ICANN over the coming years?” she asks.
“ICANN’s leadership says it currently has no intention to relocate, but history offers a precedent that’s close to home. Te World Intellectual Property Organization had its roots as a private corporation, but as its functions grew in global importance over time, it evolved into the specialised agency of the UN, answerable to member states, that we know today.
“So while the stated intention of the NTIA is for things to remain as they are under a new symbolic multi-stakeholder oversight mechanism, how governments fit into this picture will be subject to much discussion within ICANN, and among governments themselves, in the months to come,” she adds.
If a government-led solution is off the table, more or less everyone else with a stake in the running of the internet will breathe a sigh of relief. But as Amazon will testify, if the GAC assumes even more power at ICANN, that will not be such a welcome solution either. A replacement for the NTIA could be years off yet, but brands will be watching closely as the new era plays out.
Trademarks & Brands Online Volume 3, Issue 2 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60