WECANN!

“China adds top-level domain names”

That is the title of todays article by People’s Daily Online. It says:

China’s Ministry of Information Industry (MII) has made adjustment to China’s Internet domain name system in accordance with Article 6 of China Internet Domain Names Regulations.

After the adjustment, “.MIL” will be added under the top-level domain (TLD) name of “CN”.

A new Internet domain name system will take effect as of March 1 in China.

Under the new system, besides “CN”, three Chinese TLD names “CN”, “COM” and “NET” are temporarily set. It means Internet users don’t have to surf the Web via the servers under the management of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) of the United States.

The new regulations stipulate that under “CN”, two types of second-level domain names, namely categorized domain names and those for administrative regions.

There’ll be seven categories: “AC” for research institutions; “EDU” for Chinese educational institutions; “GOV” for Chinese government departments and “MIL” for Chinese defense departments.

There’ll be 34 domain names for the organizations of China’s provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under central government, and special administrative regions. They are mainly composed of the first letters of the Romanized spelling of the names of the regions, for example Beijing’s domain name is “BJ” and Shanghai’s is “SH”.

These really are news.

http://www.wecann.net/ralowiki this is the new wiki which should help us to work on the following project:

Help to strengthen Civil Rights and Consumer Protection in ICANN’s policies!

The question of how Internet Governance is shaped is one of the central sociopolitical tasks of the coming years. It will be a matter of how consumers and Internet users can become involved in the policy making of ICANN.

We are all aware of how sorry the tale of direct participation by Internet users in ICANN has been.

There is, nevertheless, a civil society element in ICANN, the At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC), composed to represent Internet users, five regions in world each providing 3 representatives. At this point these representatives are chosen by a nominating committee of ICANN and its board. However, the goal is to build structures to foster participation in the respective regions, and furthermore facilitate the direct election of regional ALAC representatives.

This year, a European Regional At-Large Organisation (EU-RALO) will be build to facilitate the broadest possible participation of European Internet users.

Current ICANN bylaws require organizational participants, who would like to build up a regional structure, to represent individual’s interests and concerns. These organizations - or groups of people working on internet users’ issues, which in ICANN’s terms are “At-Large Structures” (ALSes) - form the so called “Regional At-Large Organisation” (RALO).

To reach the status of what ICANN refers to as an “At-Large Structure” (ALS), has a few simple requisites and a questionnaire to be filled.

There are already some European organizations that have become ALSes (or just applied to, e.g. several member organisations of EDRI). However, yet they are not representative for the diversity of European Internet oriented Human rights and consumer protection organizations.

With a Regional At-Large Organisation, we want to work issue oriented and influence ICANN’s policies - with the profound knowledge of as many as possible European internet related consumer protection and civil rights organisations.

It would be helpful if you could use your individual and institutional contacts in north, south, west and east Europe to solicit for an inclusive civil society engagement and accrediting as At-large Structure.
—————–

I just set up a WIKI to discuss the best possible structure for building up a European Regional At-Large Organisation (EU-RALO). Our aim is to give user’s interests a voice in ICANN and make an impact on its policies.

All people interested in promoting consumer and civil rights in ICANN’s policies and work are welcome to take part in this discussion.

Just go ahead and put up questions and proposals for a possible structure of the EU-RALO.

“The Villain in the ICANN-VeriSign Struggle is the U.S. Government”, that is the title of a very intersting article by Michael Roberts, posted on Feb. 20, 2006 in CircleID.

Roberts gives a nice overview on the history of outsourcing the assignment of Internet domain names from the Networking Division of the National Science Foundation to a corporate predecessor of VeriSign. He states:

“Unfortunately, the contractual agreement used was of a form designed to facilitate the transfer of government funded technology from research agenices to the private sector where it could be properly commercialized. Only after dot-com had become a multi-billion dollar government granted monopoly service did people see that a public good was being converted into enormous and unwarranted private gain.”

Roberts points out that monopolies require regulation.

“ICANN, VeriSign and the government currently are bound to each other in an icestuous legal triangle in front of which an appearance of public -private partnership is maintained. This arrangemnet masks the monopoly related tensions which have surfaced in the latest contract renewal debate… In truth, VeriSign is still protected from government anti-monopoly action by its residual cooperative agreement with the Department of Commerce. ”

I think the question of the internet infrastructure as a public good and what legal framework is needed to give that concept a stable basis would be a very interesting issue for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Athens this year.

After strong opposition against the proposed VeriSign settlement and .com contract of October 2005, ICANN now posted a newly revised proposed set of agreements, which is still unacceptable.

The proposed settlement remains subject to final approval or disapproval of the ICANN Board.

ICANN’s At-Large Advisory Committee, looking after internet user’s interests and consumer protection, made the following public comment:

Dear Dr. Cerf and Members of the Board of Directors:

The At Large Advisory Committee (”ALAC”) has carefully reviewed and considered the revised agreements between ICANN and Verisign and does not believe that the revisions address the serious concerns of registrants previously described by the ALAC in both its written submissions and its meeting with the Board in Vancouver. In order to fulfill ICANN’s role of promoting and sustaining a competitive environment, the ALAC recommends that the Board take the following actions:

1. Reject the proposed settlement agreement;
2. Proceed to trial with Verisign; and
3. Begin a renewal/rebid process for .COM in accord with the renewal provisions of the existing agreement.

The ALAC understands that ICANN Staff believes that one of the litigation risks to ICANN is that the legal foundation on which ICANN was built will be eroded. We believe that this is a risk worth taking. An ICANN that cannot ensure competition and protect registrants from monopolistic pricing is not an ICANN worth retaining.

Respectfully submitted,

At Large Advisory Committee

Background: Over three months ago, on 24 October 2005, ICANN announced the first proposed settlement to its litigation with VeriSign and opened a forum for public comments on the proposed settlement documents .

A full description of the history of the settlement negotiations, the settlement documents, and the issues raised in public fora can be found at http://www.icann.org/topics/verisign-settlement.htm This summary includes clean and red-lined versions of the amended agreements. ICANN has also published a matrix summary of Revisions to the Settlement and Registry Agreements.

Also you can check out:

ALAC statement 2005: http://www.wecann.de/2005/kritik-an-verisign/

First reaction by the ICANN board:
http://www.wecann.de/2005/erste-reaktionen-des-icann-boards-zu-com-kritik/

Geneva. Lobbies are for lobbying. In the evening reception “A l’occasion des consultations sur la convocation du Forum sur la Gouvernance de l’internet (FGI)” not only the Swiss host, ambassador Ulrich Lehner, took his chance to welcome the guests.

The floor was also given to Marc Furrer, the swiss candidate for the Secretary General of the ITU. People from abroad are surprised: “Didn’t Europe agree on Mr. Matthias Kurth from Germany to run for that position?” Well, yes, but only EU-members and some others. Not all europeans. Not Switzerland. Switzerland is special.

In the end, a third party might be happy.

Geneva. Today the Consultations on the Convening of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) started, which is going to take place in Greece, the 24th to the 26th October 2006. This meeting is result of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), where Internet Governance was identified as one of THE important issues of information society.

The World Summit on the Information Society was the first summit in the framework of the United Nations, which practised a multistakeholder approach. This was not an easy way and today it seems that all governments agree on the multistakeholder approach for the IGF.
Renate Bloem of the Confederation of Nongovernmental Organisations (CONGO), called this is “A Signal for Future Diplomacy!”

Of course, we have to take into account, what power governments want to give to the IGF. And here we can find clear differences. Whereas the Brazilians want to use it as a Forum to develop Public Policies and to prepare an International Convention on Internet Governance, the American Government just wants to have the IGF as a place of debate. But still, the agreement on a “multistakeholder approach on an equal footing” is a step forward.

This first meeting today is mainly about finding procedures for the IGF. Most important for civil society members (many members of the Internet Governance Caucus and the At-Large Advisory Committee to ICANN) is, that the IGF would not be misused to only discuss “soft and smooth” issues like capacity building and others, which of course are important too.

Instead Civil Society stressed the need for building up on the WSIS and find ways to implement the principles already agreed on, but which are not free of conflict: For example, to find a way to translate the Human rights principles - like freedom of expression, privacy, access for all to infrastructure and content of the internet - and implement these Human rights principles in Internet Governance mechanisms.

Dearest comrades and companions,
dear Sir or Madam,

the question of how Internet Governance is shaped is one of the central sociopolitical tasks of the coming years. It will be a matter of how consumers and Internet users can become involved in the policy making of ICANN.

We are all aware of how sorry the tale of direct participation by Internet users in ICANN has been.

There is, nevertheless, a civil society element in ICANN, the At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC), composed to represent Internet users, five regions in world each providing 3 representatives. At this point these representatives are chosen by a nominating committee of ICANN. However, the goal is that the current ALAC members build structures to foster participation in their respective regions, and furthermore facilitate the direct election of regional ALAC representatives.

As new European member of ALAC, I am standing up for the broader participation and political ownership of those who would make human rights and consumer protection fundamental aspects of ICANN’s structure and work.

Now is the time to found a regional structure to facilitate the broadest possible participation of Internet users. Current ICANN bylaws require organizational participants who would like to build up a regional structure to represent individuals interests and concerns. These organizations (or groups of people working on internet users’ issues) are, in ICANN’s terms, “At-Large Structures” (ALSes).

There are already a few European organizations that have become ALSes, however, yet they are not representative for the diversity of European Internet oriented Human rights and consumer protection organizations.

Some out of these few ALSes (nine in number, almost all ISOC European chapters) have developed a ‘principles’ document, in which they campaign for the founding of a European Regional At-Large Organization (EU-RALO).

Up to now, this recommendation bureaucratizes our opportunity for participation in ICANN.
Instead of fostering direct participation and defining political goals for a RALO, it proposes the following rules: Representatives are to be elected who in turn elect representatives that may then advise ICANN…

To build reasonable information flows and foster involvement in ICANN on the part of European Internet users requires the participation of all Internet oriented Human rights and consumer protection organizations.

To reach the status of what ICANN refers to as an “At-Large Structure” (ALS), has a few simple requisites and a questionnaire to be filled.

It would be helpful if you could use your individual and institutional contacts in north, south, west and east Europe to solicit for an inclusive civil society engagement and accrediting as “At-large Structure”.

For the discussion of the best possible structure of a European Regional At-Large Organisation,
I will set up a Wiki .

This discussion needs time. The period of three weeks (end in the middle of february) proposed by our european fellow members is absolutely unrealistic and neither gives time for the democratic process of finding a position within an organisation, nor collectively in public. Please go ahead, and let them know about this mistake of procedure.

Now is the time for you to act and strengthen civil society in ICANN. Check the form attached to this document: Obtain your accreditation today.

Best regards,

Annette Muehlberg,
European member, ALAC, and Co-chair network new media

This call to action is supported by:

Peter Bittner, Computer Science Forum for Peace and Social Responsibility; Forum InformatikerInnen Frieden und gesellschaftlicheVerantwortung, (FIfF)

Markus Beckedahl, Co-chair of network new media (nnm)

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, ICANN-Studienkreis, University of Aarhus

Andy Mueller-Maguhn, Chaos Computer Club

Dr. Volker Grassmuck, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Kulturtechnik, Humboldt-
Universität, Berlin
———————-
And this is the way to get accredited as ALS:

Please fill out this form (also see), and send it to: als@alac.icann.org.
(Spanish and italian speakers can use the following link)

Contact information

1. Organization’s Name:

2. Organization’s email address:

3. Organization’s phone number (include country/city codes):

4. Organization’s address (location and postal address, if different):

5. Organization’s website (URL) (if available):

6. Organization’s contact for ALS application (email, phone, address):

Description

7. Is your organization constituted so that participation by individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of countries within the Geographic Region in which your organization is based will predominate in your organization’s operation?

8. Describe your organization’s constituents/membership (number, citizenship/location, defining characteristic - e.g. profession for professional societies):

9. Explain the eligibility requirements (if any) for your organization’s constituents/membership (if you provide a written application for admission as a member, you may attach a copy):

10. In what language/s does your organization conduct its business?

11. Provide support for the statement that your organization is self-supporting (by answering “yes” you confirm that it will not rely on ICANN for funding):

12. Describe your organization’s structure (e.g. governing and decision-making bodies and processes):

13. Does your organization commit to supporting its individual constituents’/membership’s informed participation in ICANN?

14. Describe how your organization keeps its constituents/membership informed about, and enables them to participate in, decisions regarding issues of interest:

15. Does your organization post on the Internet publicly-accessible, current information about your organization’s goals, structure, description of constituent group(s)/membership, working mechanisms, leadership, and contact(s) (if this information currently is available, provide URLs)?

16. Provide information on your organization’s leadership (leaders’ names, positions, emails):

Objectives

17. What is your organization’s primary goal or mission (please attach any mission or policy statement for your organization, if in writing, or provide a URL, if posted):

18. What ICANN-related issues currently are of interest to your organization’s constituents/membership:

19. If formed, will your organization commit to assisting the Regional At-Large Organization (RALO) for the region in which your organization is based in performing its function?

Signature

(Include the name, and title, if applicable, of the individual who is authorized by your organization to sign this application and commit your organization to comply with ALS criteria.)

Nach jahrelanger Ruhephase wird nun holter die polter von ein paar europäischen ICANN-Aktivisten der Versuch unternommen, eine Europäische Regional At-Large Organisation aufzubauen.

Das wünschenswerte Ziel wäre, Verbraucherrechte zu stärken und europäischen Internetnutzern mehr direkte Partizipation an ICANN policies zu ermöglichen. Davon ist der vorliegende Vorschlag meines ALAC-Kollegen Vittorio Bertola für eine europäische RALO allerdings noch weit entfernt.

Im Gegenteil, Verbraucherbeteiligung, soll sich auf das Wählen eines Councils konzentrieren, das wiederum zwei Vertreter für das At-Large Advisory Committees wählt. Partizipation könnte sich hier im Wählen von Repräsentanten erschöpfen, die wiederum Repräsentanten wählen, die wiederum in einem Gremium partizipieren, das nur beratend tätig werden darf. Es lebe die Bürokratie!

Die Diskussion um bessere Formen der Beteiligung und (regionaler) Organisation von Internetnutzern/Verbrauchern jedoch ist entbrannt. Ihr könnt Euch hier einbringen und auch in andere Foren schauen, z.B. bei ALAC, wo Ihr Beiträge ab dem 23.01.06 findet.

Bringt Euch ein: Allerdings, es eilt, weil trotz Einspruches, der beispielsweise auch von Jeanette Hofmann und dem neuen NomCom Mitglied, Wolfgang Kleinwächter formuliert wurde, unsere Freunde eine Diskussionsfrist bis zum 15. Februar gesetzt haben.

Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter wurde vom At-Large Advisory Committee als europäischer Kandidat für das ICANN Nominierungs-Komittee (NomCom) benannt.

Kleinwächter ist Professor für “International Communication Policy and Regulation at the Department for Media and Information Sciences” der Universität Aarhus.

Er hat die Entstehung ICANNs von Anbeginn aktiv begleitet und sich für eine stärkere strukuturelle zivilgesellschaftliche Beteiligung in ICANN eingesetzt. Er ist Initiator des ICANN Studienkreises. Im Rahmen des Weltgipfels zur Informationsgesellschaft war er Mitglied der Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).

Der Leipziger Wolfgang Kleinwächter tritt in die Fußstapfen der berliner Internet Governance Expertin Dr. Jeanette Hofmann. Für ihre hervorragende Arbeit möchte ich mich hier herzlich bedanken.

Während die Gesellschaft für Deutsche Sprache “Bundeskanzlerin” zum wichtigsten Wort des Jahres 2005 kürte, machte im englischsprachigen Raum das Wort “Popesquatting” seinen Weg nach vorn.

Mal sehen, ob wir in 2006 auch einen Domain-Squatter küren.