Page History

Internet governance and domain names

Internet protocol (IP) addresses are the identifiers that enable communication between end points on the Internet. Not terribly easy to remember, domain names were developed as a way of enabling people to translate IP addresses into easily remembered strings of characters that generally map to words, abbreviations or acronyms in various languages of the world.

Words can have multiple layers, and over time, as the Internet has become more widespread and more critical to more people, the use of specific strings in domain names has moved beyond a simple solution to navigate the Internet to become linked to a wide range of governance issues such as:

In addition, while the management of Internet identifiers (domain names and IP addresses) is overseen by ICANN, other Internet-related identifiers are being discussed and developed in other forums. For example, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is discussing the use of identifiers for objects in the Internet of Things (IoT) – in particular, via the Digital Object Architecture.

These developments mean there are increasingly more connections between the work of ICANN and the work of other bodies engaged in aspects of Internet-related governance. These connections do not only have an impact on the way that ICANN operates, but also affect the set of behaviors and activities that members of the ICANN community – registries, registrars, and domain name users – are permitted to engage in.

Why it’s useful to keep an eye on other Internet governance processes

“Forum shopping” is widespread in the international context. While forum shopping is often viewed as an inherently bad thing, in many cases, it occurs because a “forum shopper” is unable to find resolution to a real problem that they are having via one forum, so go on to seek another forum(s) that may be more responsive to their needs. This may happen because the problem is new and no forum yet has a mandate to deal with the issue. This dilemma was recognized during the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), where part of the agreed solution in creating the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was to have it be venue for discussing emerging or cross-cutting issues that did not fall within the scope of any existing forum.

Despite the creation of the IGF, however, forum shopping continues, particularly on issues where there is overlap between bodies. For example, the debates about protection of geographic indications at ICANN regarding applications for new gTLDs such as .wine were partly related to the fact that geographical indications at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have long been an issue of contention amongst some of the participating governments. The debate at ICANN resulted because some governments, despite the lack of progress at WIPO, wanted to have their needs for global protection of geographic indications met at least in the context of domain names.

A side effect of forum shopping, however, can be a tendency for the scope of forums to gradually expand over time as they are stretched to incorporate new issues related to existing mandates. As a result, there can be greater overlap between forums, and a greater need for the members of different forums to be aware of related decisions being made elsewhere that may have an affect on their own activities. This is why it is useful for the ICANN community to keep an eye on other processes that are either directly discussing issues related to domain names or that are discussing issues that are increasingly affecting the discussion of domain names within ICANN.

Key venues discussing Internet-related issues of interest to ICANN stakeholders

International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

Domain names are discussed within ITU as part of its work on the following public policy issues:

-        Multilingualization of the Internet Including Internationalized (multilingual) Domain Names

-        International public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses

ITU members discuss these issues in working and study groups – such as the Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues – and at regularly held conferences such as its Plenipotentiary Conference (next held in 2018), World Telecommunication Development Conference (next held in October 2017) and World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (held in October/November 2016). Working and study groups can produce reports and recommendations, which the larger ITU conferences draw on to develop resolutions. Resolutions, ultimately, can lead to treaties, and the need for signatory Member States to abide by the contents of those treaties.

United Nations Commission for Science and Technology for Development (CSTTD) Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)

WGEC is not directly related to domain names but is directly related to the future direction of the multistakeholder model in the international context. The debates about what “enhanced cooperation” means are the result of late night compromises made at WSIS in 2005. The original argument that the “enhanced cooperation” language was meant to settle was the role of the United States government in IANA and ICANN. Now that the IANA transition has been completed, that is no longer an issue. However, there are still two divergent views on what enhanced cooperation means. For some, it is about enhancing cooperation between all stakeholders and ensuring that governments feel part of Internet governance processes that previously were centered around the participation of the technical community and ICT industry. For others, it is about ensuring all governments can participate equally, and that governments can play their rightful role in public policy matters related to the Internet. WGEC, which was unable to reach consensus during its first incarnation (2013-2014), will try again, in 2017, to find a way to “fully implement” enhanced cooperation. One area that the WGEC may examine is how to implement enhanced cooperation, where different stakeholders could have different roles and responsibilities, depending on the different contexts of the issues involved. Internet resources, currently managed globally in a multistakeholder manner, could, if they were deemed to be national resources, be seen as issues needing multilateral leadership rather than bottom-up policy development by all stakeholders.

Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council began its discussions on Internet-related matters in 2008, when it resolved to request the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression to investigate, amongst other things, the advantages and challenges of ICTs, including the Internet, for the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Since the Special Rapporteur’s 2011 report, the Human Rights Council has adopted three increasingly more detailed resolutions titled “The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet”. The first resolution (2012) states, “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online”; the most recent resolution (2016) calls on all States to refrain from and cease preventing or disrupting access to or dissemination of information online.

World Economic Forum (WEF)

Over the past few years, the WEF has increased its activities in the Internet space. Two past ICANN CEOs – Rod Beckstrom and Fadi Chehade – both became involved in WEF activities, and WEF was one of the three original funders of the NETmundial Initiative. WEF’s current focuses that have a large Internet component are a connectivity project, Internet for All, and a wider-ranging agenda on the impact of ICTs, The Fourth Industrial Revolution. In the past few years, WEF has also looked at cybercrime, Internet governance and cyber resilience. While WEF does not produce resolutions like UN agencies, many key government and business leaders attend the annual WEF meetings in January and will take back its ideas on Internet issues for further discussions in other forums.

Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

The IGF was created as part of the compromise between governments at the WSIS in 2005 over the best way to manage Internet resources. Some governments wanted Internet resources to be managed by a multilateral body while others were happy for ICANN and its stakeholders to continue their role in developing and managing Internet resources. Over the years, there has been less emphasis on the discussion of critical Internet resources at the IGF. However, domain names are still discussed in wider contexts, such as supporting multilingualism to increase Internet access and use. In addition to the formally organized sessions and workshops at IGF, a key attraction is the fact that it is the one event held every year where there is the widest variety of participants from many different stakeholder groups and forums that host discussions related to Internet issues. This results in many, many side meetings (“bilaterals”) being held during the week of IGF, as well as co-located meetings hosted by specific entities held before and after IGF.

IGF has financial constraints that have limited its ability to perform all the functions its stakeholders wish it to perform, and its lack of concrete recommendations has been criticized in some sectors. As a result, there have been various external initiatives, such as the NETmundial Initiative and the European Commission’s Global Internet Policy Observatory, that have aimed to fill some of the gaps, with varying degrees of success.

While IGF may not be able to meet all the needs of its stakeholders, one advantage of participating in IGF is the ability to meet directly with other stakeholders to understand what their needs are and, in some cases, being able to provide solutions. For example, early in the IGF’s history, through informal discussions, the technical community was able to help with mitigating the high cost of international connectivity in African countries by helping set up Internet Exchange Points throughout the continent.