Workshop on China-India Joint Research Project on Intellectual Property in Mobile Internet

The workshop on IPRs in mobile internet, on 18th July 2014, was hosted by the Institute for Internet Policy& Law of BNU. Professor Xue Hong, Director of the BNU Institute for Internet Policy& Law, moderated the event and Professor Jorge Contreras from Washington Law School of America University, Sunil Abraham, Director of India Center of Internet and Society (CIS), Nehaa Chaudhari, the Senior Researcher of CIS, and the other researchers joined the workshop in person or remotely and gave the presentations.

Prof. Xue gave an overview of the research project and introduced the the member and status of the Chinese team. The project on mobile internet addresses the rights, obligation, and liability of the stakeholders involved in the mobile Internet, including the software/ hardware providers and right holders, and attempt to improve intellectual property norms on mobile Internet.

Two Chinese team members presented their preliminary research respectively. Mr. Leo Liu, Attorney and Patent Agent at Beijing L&S Intellectual Property Law Firm, briefed the patent disputes and recent lawsuits regarding mobile Internet. Mr. Handong Wen, PhD student of BNU Law School, briefed copyright protection on mobile internet. Ms. Nehaa made the comments on the presentations.

The Chinese team discussed the implementation timelines, work methodology and regular communications with their India peers. Both Parties were pleased with the consensus and progress made so far and committed to purse the research in close collaboration.





Comments off






Comments off

北京师范大学-联合国国际贸易法委员会联合认证项目正式启动 UNCITRAL-BNU JCP Launched!


联合国国际贸易法委员会亚太区域中心主任Joao Ribeiro,北京师范大学党委副书记刘利,北京师范大学刑事法律科学院暨法学院院长赵秉志,北京师范大学教务处处长郑国民,北京师范大学国际交流与合作处处长王秀梅,北京师范大学法学院副院长张红等领导出席了该会议,联合认证项目中方主任、北京师范大学法学院薛虹教授参加并主持此次会议,


Joao Ribeiro主任指出国际电子商务发展的巨大前景,并表达了与北京师范大学合作的欣喜之情,希望能将和北师大合作的这种模式推广到中国的其他大学乃至全世界。




Comments off

Enhancing ICANN Accountability: User Prospective

ATLAS II Thematic Group on ICANN Transparency and Accountability

Prof. Hong Xue is the co-leader of the thematic group on ICANN Accountability and Transparency at At-Large Summit II to be held at ICANN London Meeting in June 2014. The following is the write-up by theme leaders on the topics. Prof. Xue completely the first draft and made the primarily updates that is shown in the current version.


ATRT Final Recommendation #9 generally reflects the community feedback on existing appeals mechanisms and includes a set of necessary improvements. Rec.9.2 is particularly important for accountability of decision-making process and reform of appeal mechanism. It’s suggested to form a Stakeholder Group Committee to examine the options to restructure the current Board reconsideration process and the Independent Review Process (IRP).

However, it is unclear whether Board reconsideration process and the IRP  will remain the only or the  “final” appeal channel available for reviewing other appeals decisions, either from internal bodies or outside service providers, especially in the various gTLDs and ccTLDs processes. For example, will improved appeals mechanisms take into account  the processing of reconsideration requests and objections on decisions made in the new gTLD program by ICANN or its dispute resolution providers,  or will it apply to a review procedure for decisions made in IDN ccTLD program, for issues such as string similarity.

In the long run, enhancement of accountability depends on the improvement and development of mechanisms in three correlated areas, namely (1) institutional transparency, particularly in the decision-making process; (2) check and balance through duly separation of powers, especially after the transition of stewardship of IANA function; and (3) effective and efficient appeal system, within or outside ICANN, including the external final appeal system to “judicially” supervise the decision of ICANN Board and its members, like the constitutional court.

As we have not seen what the Board intends to do about recommendation 9.2  it is good to be cautious.  But if the Board and ICANN staff do honor the suggestion for a community wide discussion of ICANN accountability and appeals, then At-large needs a strategy for contributing to that and needs to begin substantive work on identifying the features required in a well formed ICANN appeals process.  In developing accountability and transparency mechanisms, from a At-Large perspective,  discussion needs to extend to all of the At-Large Structures (ALS) so that they can contribute from the diversity of global user experience on accountability and transparency and access to appeals mechanisms, that only At-Large can bring to ICANN.

Questions raised by the community:

  1. What sort of appeals mechanisms does ICANN need? Does ICANN need to a final appeal mechanism to supervise the Board and its (paid) members?
  2. Is the soft bottom-up oversight offered by the AOC adequate or does ICANN need some other form of oversight, especially in this time of IANA stewardship transition?
  3. How can the AOC process and current Accountability and Transparency measures be improved?
  4. Do you agree with Transparency by default for an organization like ICANN?  Should all issues that are not treated with full transparency be logged as such with a description of why Transparency was not appropriate treatment for the issue?  Should there be a time limit on items that are deemed secret?
  5. Does ICANN need a yearly Transparency audit? Why or why not?

Questions raised by ICANN for enhancement of accountability:

  1.  What issues does the community identify as being core to strengthening ICANN’s overall accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government?
  2.  What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the community?
  3.  Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN’s accountability and so, how?
  4.  What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is  meeting its accountability commitments?
  5.  Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives up to its commitments?

Comments off

Chinese Multi-Stakeholder Meeting on IANA Transition ICANN政策中文社群研讨会






The Consensus Statement formed at the Meeting has been submitted to ICANN.

Issue:  Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA’s Stewardship of the IANA Functions.

Date:  6 May 2014

Public Comment Announcement URL:

 In response to the ICANN’s call for the Public Comment on Transition of Stewardship of IANA, Internet Domain Name System Beijing Engineering Research Center (ZDNS), Beijing Internet Institution (BII) and Beijing Normal University Institute for Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) hosted a Chinese Internet Community multi-stakeholder meeting on May 5th, where technical community, TLD registries, civil society, academic, private sector, and government and other stakeholders came together to discuss the views of Chinese community on the principles, mechanisms and processes of the transition as well as the ICANN recently published proposal on IANA Transition.

Based on the input and opinions from experts, scholars and representatives from relevant parties and organizations at the meeting, our comments may be  summarized as follows:

  1. Comments on the proposed multi-stakeholder model of transition
  2. Comments on Involvement of the Global Communities
  3. Comments on Mechanisms to ensure Accountability

Comments on the proposed multi-stakeholder model of transition

We strongly agree to the proposed multi-stakeholder model of transition, which shall optimize the Internet governance. However, we do think the model should be more specific, including who exactly the stakeholders are; the whole structure of the multi-stakeholder; if government is eligible to participate, to what extent can it be involved; if Internet companies are eligible to participated and have the right to input; how many members will the multi-stakeholder be; if they can represent the interest of majority of Internet community; what the decision–making process will be, by voting or any other way. The outline of the multi-stakeholder model is expected to be published soon.

 Comments on Involvement of the Global Communities

Under current governance model of ICANN, representatives from developed countries are the majority, which is theoretically against the openness of the Internet. We strongly suggest that regional balance and diversity should be enhanced by creating new process and mechanism to involve more relevant governors, representatives from different communities. Besides, customized communication channels should also be provided for experts, scholars and representatives to deliver their opinions to the new takeover party of current IANA functions, so that relevant parties can participate in the whole process of decision making. What’s more, the members of IANA function transition steering group should include more representatives from Asia-pacific region. With respect to Chinese Internet community, we do call ICANN’s special attention that more and more direct customers and partners of IANA function (e.g. hundreds of new gTLD registries) are emerging and are worthy ICANN of more effective engagement efforts and participation opportunities.

Comments on Mechanisms to ensure Accountability

If the key Internet domain name functions are going to be transferred to ICANN, the transition should begin with clarification of the NTIA’s oversight role that it’s been playing. Corresponding accountability mechanism should be established profoundly so that ICANN is able to function properly and serve the whole Internet community. Concerning the unpredictable issues that may arise, an accountability mechanism is imperative to supervise ICANN and urge ICANN to make amendments and adjustments. Therefore, a sound and responsible accountability mechanism should be put in place during the process of transition to prevent any disorder of key Internet domain name functions. Instead of conducting the badly needed reform and improvement of accountability system in a parallel and separate process, we do call ICANN to effectively integrate the accountability mechanism with the transition of stewardship of IANA function.


Based on discussion, relevant representatives and parties have come to the comments above. We do hope they can be taken into account by NTIA to work out a more reasonable and efficient transition proposal.

Names of Participants in the Comment Developing Process :

Beijing Internet Institute and Beijing Normal University Institute for Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) (Prof. Hong Xue)

InternetDomainNameSystemBeijingEngineeringResearchCenter(ZDNS)(Director General, Mao Wei)

BeijingInternet Institution (BII)(Director General, Liu Dong)

Internet Society ofChina(Doctor Cao Huaping)
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications ( APNIC executive Member, Prof Ma Yan)
Tsinghua University (IETF IPv6 Excess Workshop Chairman, Prof Cui Yong)
Internet International Affairs Counselor (Doctor Zhang Jianchuan)
IEEE (Director of APAC, Hua Ning)
CNNIC( Internet Policy Research Managers, Han Liyun & Zhu Cong)
Zodiac Registry ( Internet Policy Expert, Tan Yaling)


Comments off

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »