Highlights from this week’s Internet governance SCAN: Two significant legal developments in the privacy and surveillance sphere are being debated this week –the Cyber Information Sharing Act (CISA) within the United States, and the Data Retention and Invesigations Powers (DRIP) Act within the United Kingdom. Critics fear both expand the surveillance powers of the state; ICANN’s accountability is under global scrutiny with a proposal by the civil society Just Net Coalition for the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) to come up with a “new model for Internet governance”, and the French Senate publishing a proposal for a remodeled Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and a remodeled ICANN.
Highlights from this week’s Internet governance SCAN: Digital Venice is a conference focused on digital development in Europe held this week in Venice, Italy. Focus topics include how to invest in ICT infrastructure in Europe using both public and private funds, and particularly how to leverage the European Single Market to promote digital competition and innovation in Europe.
On Friday March 14th, the United States government, through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce, issued a formal announcement that it intends to transition key Internet domain name functions to the “global multistakeholder community.” The NTIA has historically contracted with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to […]
Highlights from this week’s Internet governance SCAN: A proposal has been made for how to globalize the IANA function. This is significant given the European Commission two weeks ago called for a roadmap of IANA function globalization; Several important meetings took place this week with regards to Internet governance. The Internet Engineering Task Force held its 89th meeting in London, discussing technical standards development. RightsCon was held in Silicon Valley, discussing digital rights and ICT sector risk.
Highlights from this week’s Internet governance scan: The European Commission called for an acceleration of the globalization of ICANN and its functions, and in particular seeks to establish a timeline for this globalization; In the midst of national positioning around Internet governance, several “camps” have emerged, including the “multistakeholder camp,” the “multilateral camp,” and the “in-between camp.” Many warn that “intergovernmental” in these contexts means “for governments only.” The European Commission has also explicitly expressed that a new international legal instrument should not be instituted for Internet governance.