Digital Rights + Internet Governance + Innovation Policy

Loading...
Internet Governance2021-07-20T19:02:04+00:00

Internet governance issues on which IP Justice engages include:  Accountability of Internet Governance Institutions, Multi-Stakeholderism, the Role of Governments, Civil Society, Domain Name Policy, International Relations, Democracy, Justice, Transparency, Internet Freedom, Development, Human Rights, Whois Privacy Policy, Cross-Border Jurisdiction and the Limits of National Sovereignty in Cyberspace


Internet governance venues in which IP Justice participates include:  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Net Mundial, ITU World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)

Comments to US Government on Review of Joint Project Agreement with ICANN by Robin Gross

By |February 15th, 2008|Categories: Digital Rights, Innovation Policy, Internet Governance, Publications|Tags: , , |

"...In my view, given the international nature of the Internet, it is imperative that ICANN work toward moving away from oversight by a single nation and toward responding to the needs of the global Internet community. However, ICANN has yet to demonstrate that it has sufficiently evolved to the point that it should be left without any oversight and accountability, although it has made some progress in recent years. There remain significant problems with the existing structure and management of ICANN that must be resolved before ICANN can be left to itself to manage this crucial and shared public resource. In particular, “Internet users” (or the public-at-large) still remain outside of the ICANN decision-making process, such that the concerns of individuals, who have no “business” stake in ICANN policy are not adequately taken into account. ICANN continues to be dominated by large business interests and by specific commercial interests involved in providing Internet services...."

ICANN Not Yet Ready to Sever Ties to US Government

By |February 15th, 2008|Categories: Digital Rights, Internet Governance|Tags: , |

ICANN argues that it should be cut-lose from the only oversight it currently knows in the ongoing debate over who governs Cyberspace. I submitted my statement from the 31st public ICANN Meeting at the Taj Palace Hotel in New Delhi, India. I said that ICANN has not provided for sufficient representation of Internet users in its policy making process, nor has it committed to respecting human rights in Cyberspace, although it has made progress to become more international....

25-27 Feb. 2008 Conference on Standards and the Future of the Internet in Geneva

By |February 10th, 2008|Categories: Digital Rights, Innovation Policy, Internet Governance|Tags: , , |

OpenForum Europe are pleased to invite you to a conference on: "Standards and the Future of the Internet - the role of open standards, standards development and standards organisations for innovation and healthy marketplaces" 25-27 February at the International Conference Centre, Geneva In a keynote session on 26 February, OFE Chief Executive, Graham Taylor, will moderate a panel of highly distinguished speakers: Vint Cerf (Google), Bob Sutor (IBM), HÃ¥kon Lie (Opera Software) and Andy Updegrove (GesmerUpdegrove)

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Advisory Group Meeting Transcript: 27-28 February 2008

By |February 4th, 2008|Categories: Internet Governance|Tags: |

Internet Governance Forum OPEN consultations Geneva 26 February 2008 Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Open Consultations of 26 February 2008.   (Gavel) >>CO-CHAIR DESAI:  Good morning. May I welcome you to Geneva for these open consultations on the Internet Governance Forum. We [...]

NCUC Statement on “Domain Name Tasting” ICANN Policy Issue

By |December 7th, 2007|Categories: Internet Governance|Tags: , , , , , |

"The Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on domain name tasting suggests a growing trend of registrants exploiting ICANN’s Add Grace Period (the “AGP”) to receive a full refund on the cost of registration by canceling their domain name registrations within five days. The AGP may have been adopted upon the assumption that all commercial uses of a domain name would require registration for a period longer than five days. Certain registrants, however, have discovered that they can profit from repeated use of extremely short-term registrations through the use of pay-per-click advertising or otherwise. A coordinated response by ICANN may be appropriate to close this loophole. This response, however, should not be disproportionate to the problem nor stem from any misconception of the issue...."

IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

By |November 19th, 2007|Categories: Digital Rights, Innovation Policy, Internet Governance, Publications|Tags: , , , , , , |

Links to Audio, Video, and Photos of IGF-Rio. Where 2007 IGF Excelled: High Quality of Independently Organized Workshops, World-Class Technical Capabilities, Offline Interactions & Networking Opportunities; But: Human Rights & Controversy Avoided, Glaring Lack of Gender Balance & Youth Voices, Last' Year's Speakers ...

Robin Gross’ Remarks at IGF 2007 on Internet Bill of Rights

By |November 13th, 2007|Categories: Digital Rights, Innovation Policy, Internet Governance, Publications|Tags: , , , |

Today I’d like to address a few issues that are specifically relevant to the positive development of the Internet and a healthy information society. 1. Freedom of Expression Rights. 2. Access to Knowledge Rights. 3. Communication Rights. 4. Privacy Rights and Data Protection. 5. Anonymity. 6. Excessive and unbalanced intellectual property rights. 7. Open Technical Standards. 8. Democratic Values. I cannot emphasize enough that the enforcement of our existing legal rights is the first and most important step we can take to ensure human rights are protected in an information society of the future.....

IP Justice at Internet Governance Forum 2007 in Rio de Janeiro

By |November 8th, 2007|Categories: Internet Governance|Tags: |

IP Justice is proud to be involved with a number of different substantive discussions scheduled for the 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. The IGF is a United Nations conference bringing together various stakeholders such as government, civil society, and business to discuss issues related to Internet governance. IP Justice is either an organizer, speaker, or co-sponsor of the following IGF-Rio sessions, which will be held at the Windsor Barra Hotel in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil during the 2007 Internet Governance Forum (11-15 November 2007)....

IP Justice Statement on “GNSO Improvements” at ICANN

By |November 5th, 2007|Categories: Internet Governance, Publications|Tags: , , |

ICANN’s Board Governance Committee Report (BGC), in attempting to achieve the laudable result of greater inclusiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency conceives a near total restructuring of the GNSO and its processes. It proceeds from an assumption that any voting inherently inhibits the process and proceeds to find the most dramatic route to eliminate any vote. While many of the BGC Report’s recommendations would certainly improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, the report does not adequately consider the values inherent in the vote of the GNSO Council and the dangers of forcing consensus in all cases....

Explanation of NCUC’s Votes on WhoIs at LA ICANN Meeting – “Halloween Vote” on WhoIs

By |November 4th, 2007|Categories: Digital Rights, Innovation Policy, Internet Governance, Publications|Tags: , , , , |

NCUC strongly supported Motion #3 because it provided a mechanism to spur uncompromising parties to the negotiating table on Whois in good faith. Without a mechanism to bring to the negotiating table parties who already have what they want, there is no incentive to voluntarily agree to any changes to the status quo with whois. NCUC continues to believe that “sun-setting” the non-consensus policy of Whois is the best course of action for the ICANN Board and the GNSO. There is no legitimate rationale for retaining policies that lack the broad support of the ICANN community, such as Whois. Whois never held a consensus position within the GNSO and it is a tragic mistake to continue with such a non-consensus policy, particularly when ICANN has been warned by national and regional data protection commissioners that Whois violates a number of national laws and international agreements. Reform of Whois is badly and immediately needed to protect the privacy rights of Internet users, bring ICANN into compliance with international law, and remove the legal risk on Registrars and Registries for violations of law imposed by ICANN contracts....

A2K@IGF Dynamic Coalition Session at IGF-Rio 2007

By |November 3rd, 2007|Categories: Digital Rights, Innovation Policy, Internet Governance|Tags: , , |

14 Nov. (16:30 - 18:00) - The public is welcome to attend the meeting of the Access to Knowledge and Freedom of Expression (A2K@IGF) Dynamic Coalition at the 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The A2K@IGF Dynamic Coalition session will include a series of presentations on the impact on access to knowledge and freedom of expression from unbalanced intellectual property rights in a digital environment.

EPIC & NGO Letter to ICANN Board on Need for Whois Reform

By |October 30th, 2007|Categories: Digital Rights, Internet Governance|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

"The purpose of this letter is to express our support for changes to WHOIS services that would protect the privacy of individuals, specifically the removal of registrants' contact information from the publicly accessible WHOIS database. It is also to propose a sensible resolution to the long-running discussion over WHOIS that would establish a bit of "policy stability" and allow the various constituencies to move on to other work. Both the WHOIS Task Force and the WHOIS Working Group agree that new mechanisms must be adopted to address an individual's right to privacy and the protection of his/her data. Current ICANN WHOIS policy conflicts with national privacy laws, including the EU Data Protection Directive, which requires the establishment of a legal framework to ensure that when personal information is collected, it is used only for its intended purpose. As personal information in the directory is used for other purposes and ICANN's policy keeps the information public and anonymously accessible, the database could be found illegal according to many national privacy and data protection laws including the European Data Protection Directive, European data protection laws and legislation in Canada and Australia...."

ICANN Board Discusses Policy to Censor New Domain Names: Public Encouraged to Attend LA Meeting and Voice Concerns

By |October 28th, 2007|Categories: Digital Rights, Innovation Policy, Internet Governance, Publications|Tags: , , , , |

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, holds its 30th International Public Meeting in Los Angeles from 29 October through 2 November. ICANN is the private corporation set up by the US Commerce Department to manage the assignment of Internet domain names and numbers in 1997. An important item on the meeting’s agenda is a proposed policy to allow for the registration of new Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs, such as “.com” or “.net”). On 6 September 2007 ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Council voted to approve this policy and sent it to the Board of Directors, who may vote on it during this meeting. The Keep The Core Neutral Coalition (KTCN) opposes several recommendations in the GNSO’s final report that threaten freedom of expression, and urges the Board to either reject the policy, reject specific recommendations, or to refrain from voting on the policy until its harmful ramifications are addressed.

IP Justice Recommendations for a Development Agenda at WIPO

By |September 24th, 2007|Categories: Digital Rights, Innovation Policy, Internet Governance|Tags: , , , , , , |

IP Justice Recommendations for the 2007 WIPO General Assembly on the WIPO Development Agenda In 2004, at the General Assembly of the WIPO, two member nations Brazil and Argentina submitted proposals for establishing a Development Agenda for WIPO.  This proposal found wide support from most member nations to WIPO.  As [...]

Go to Top