Archive for APILP-SSIG

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

2014年5月5日,由北京师范大学互联网政策与法律研究中心、互联网域名系统北京市工程研究中心(ZDNS)、下一代互联网关键技术与评测北京市工程研究中心(BII)联合主办的“ICANN政策中文社群研讨会”在北京召开。本次会议主题聚焦当前ICANN发布的IANA管理权过渡实施草案热门话题,ICANN北京合作中心主任宋崝,域名工程中心主任、中网董事长毛伟,下一代互联网关键技术与评测北京市工程研究中心主任、天地互联总裁刘东,北京师范大学法学院政策与法律研究中心主任薛虹教授,以及来自工业和信息化部、中国互联网协会、CNNIC、APNIC、IEEE、黄道科技等政府主管部门、行业组织、域名注册管理机构的领导、专家出席本次会议,就IANA管理权移交实施方案进行了深入研讨。

互联网域名系统北京市工程研究中心主任、中网公司董事长毛伟先生和下一代互联网关键技术和评测北京市工程研究中心主任、天地互联公司董事长刘东先生发表了欢迎致辞,就本次研讨会的背景和目做了简要介绍。

北京师范大学互联网政策与法律研究中心主任薛虹教授就IANA管理权过度实施方案的背景、最新进展以及潜在影响做了介绍:2014年3月14日,美国国家电信和信息管理局(NTIA)宣布有意将IANA(互联网域名根服务器管理的关键职能)管理权移交至全球多利益相关方社群。NTIA请求ICANN作为IANA职能运营者和全球域名系统协调人,召集多利益相关方来制定一套移交提案,该移交提案必须获得广泛的社群支持。接着,薛虹教授就IANA管理权过渡实施方案提出了自己的真知灼见:1、多数专家赞成IANA管理权适用多利益相关方的模式来解决,但多利益相关方的范围和定义值得我们探讨。2、要着重考虑中文社区的利益,在IANA管理权过渡移交过程的主张中国的话语权;对于在直接使用IANA,IETF和IRI等的中文社区是非常重要的参与方,要予以关注。3、我们要继续发展和完善多利益相关方的对话机制,考虑互联网的未来发展。4、中国在互联网发展中有举足轻重的地位,我们要很谨慎的设定自己的立场。5针对ICANN运营IANA职能的监管问责体系要确立。

此外,中国互联网协会曹华平博士、域名工程中心实验室主任马迪博士、下一代互联网关键技术及评测北京市工程研究中心宋林健博士等也纷纷发言,对此提出各自的见解。

互联网域名系统北京市工程研究中心主任、中网公司董事长毛伟先生总结时表示,在多利益主体模式下,中国互联网社群其实大有可为。中文社群应该多做贡献,多做人才储备,才能在国际舞台上有更多角色以及更大的话语权。中文社群也要多举办诸如本次的此类会议,集合多方的意见和建议,向ICANN提交相关提案,发出自己的声音,参与互联网规则制定。

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.

Conclusion

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

IANA Transition: Myth, Misconception and Expectation

On Friday, March 14 the U.S. Government announced its intention to transition its stewardship responsibilities of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions to the global multistakeholder community—a key component of the Internet ecosystem. The IANA Functions are the Internet’s technical identifiers, specifically, the top-level domain names of the Domain Name System, IP addresses, and protocol parameter registries.

However, it is still not very clear and uncertain what would happen over such a turbulent period. Firstly, it should figure out what the stewardship has ever been played by NTIA and what is the specification of the oversight. How would we know the new oversight mechanism when we are not even sure of the existing one? Secondly, it is not logical to have ICANN to oversee itself if IANA is a function within ICANN. Thirdly, what would be the way forward? Should that be a so-called “Chinese Wall” to let IANA relatively independent of ICANN when more solid accountability system is build up in or surrounding ICANN?

The global Internet community is now hotly debating the IANA transition from NTIA. I’m fully convinced that the transition should begin with clarification of the NTIA’s oversight role that it’s been playing. ccNSO has made a insightful statement with valuable details. However, it would be more helpful to group up the roles into 2 parts, namely, clerical function and stewardship. In the case that IANA is going to stay within ICANN, which seems gathering support from the community, the clerical role can well be fit into the boxes of direct users of IANA function, from IETF, RIRs to TLD registries (directly rather than through any SO). In such case, the so-called DNSA proposal might not be a very bad one. TLD registries need certain channel, like NROs for RIRs, to make sure IANA follow the normal rules and procedures for any change at zone file. Supporting Organizations (either gNSO or ccNSO) can hardly play such clerical role. It is not logical for a SO to support as well as oversee ICANN. With respect to  the stewardship role, it might be a constitutional moment. The new external and independent accountability for ICANN might be much similar to a global “constitutional court”, where ICANN’s policy decisions can be finally appealed, in addition to the existing territorial jurisdiction in California court, provided that ICANN is still a non-profit organization registered in CA.

In response to the critics and speculations, ICANN CEO made the following statement, which answers some questions but raises more. http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/important-corrections-to-general-inaccuracies-and-misconceptions-regarding-u-s-announcement-and-iana-functions/

  1. The announcement is NOT a final decision to surrender control of the Internet.On Friday, the U.S. government asked the global community to develop a proposal for transferring its stewardship of the IANA Functions. The government was not announcing a new law, rather initiating an inclusive, global discussion. The government also set clear boundaries for that discussion, including a very clear statement that it will not release control of these functions to any government-led or inter-governmental organization solution.Instead, ICANN will lead a transparent dialogue among governments, the private sector, and civil society to determine the transition process and establish a governing body that is globally accountable. This process ensures each of the Internet’s diverse stakeholders has a voice in its governance.In addition, the U.S. government has made it clear that the transition proposal must address the following four principles:
    • Support and enhance the multistakeholder model
    • Maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet DNS
    • Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services
    • Maintain the openness of the Internet

    In other words, any proposal that affects the openness of the Internet and its multistakeholder governance will be rejected.

  2. The announcement is NOT a response to disclosures by Edward Snowden about the National Security Agency and its policies.One media report claims ICANN lobbied the U.S.Government to relinquish its oversight “using the Snowden leaks as a lever.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. The government first envisioned this transfer when it began contracting with ICANN in 1998. For the past 16 years, ICANN has protected the open Internet with increasing operational excellence – itself accountable to the global community. The March 14 announcement was the final step down a path paved years ago.
  3. The announcement will NOT lead to a division of the Internet into smaller, less technically resilient pieces.”A digital Iron Curtain” will not be imposed resulting from this announcement. An opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal claims that by stepping back, the United States will divide “425,000 global routes of the Internet into less technically resilient pieces.” In fact, the exact opposite is true.The March 14 announcement is an important step toward preserving and protecting the open Internet. U.S. oversight will not be usurped by authoritarian governments eager to censor free speech – or by any other inter-governmental institution. Instead, a globally accountable, multistakeholder governing body will ensure the Internet continues to promote the free exchange of ideas, propel innovation and drive economic development.
  4. The announcement transfers stewardship of an administrative and clerical function. ICANN does NOT serve a policing function in the Internet ecosystem.Let me be clear, ICANN coordinates one technical component of the Internet ecosystem – the names, numbers and protocol parameters of the Internet. ICANN does not control content on the Internet. ICANN has no role relating to Internet content and cannot enact Internet censorship.These technical components of the Internet have been working well for nearly two decades underneath a multistakeholder process with the U.S. government holding a stewardship role. In reality, ICANN has successfully administered the IANA Functions with increasing autonomy for the past 16 years and this announcement will not alter its commitment to the security and stability of the Internet’s Domain Name System.
  5. The announcement will NOT affect the billions who use the Internet every day.Some have speculated through the media that the U.S. announcement will “put the open Internet at risk” for everyday users. This concern is not rooted in reality. The transition of stewardship will not affect the functionality of the Internet.  The coordination of the IANA functions will continue unchanged. The announcement reinforces the principles that the Internet belongs to everyone and is responsible to everyone.Instead of politicizing the debate over the U.S. Government’s decision to transition stewardship of the Internet’s technical functions, let’s move forward with the discussion we need to have – how to engage in the necessary discussion to develop an effective transition process, one that continues to ensure an open Internet that belongs to everyone.

 

 

Comments off

2nd Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Project Held Successfully in Beijing

The Second Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Project (APILP), on 12 March 2014 in Beijing, was hailed by the Chinese domain name industry. Since the first APILP succeeded in Beijing 3 years ago, there have always been strong calls for the resurrection of this unique and innovative capacity building project on Internet Governance from both local and AP regional Internet community. The 2nd APILP is a Pilot before the Official Relaunch in Singapore.

Beijing Pilot acquired very strong community support. It was supported, especially, by ICANN Asia-Pacific Hub,  Asia Domain Names Dispute Resultion Center (ADNDRC),  Chinese International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and China Trademark Association, all of which sent the officers to give keynote speeches at the event. As a free and open event, it attracted more than 60 participants from new gTLD applicants, registrars, ccTLD and electronic commerce businesses. Beijing Normal University Institute for Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) and Internet Domain Name System Beijing Engineering Research Center (ZDNS) sponsored the program by providing in-kind donations for meeting room, facilitates, conference materials and participants’ work lunch.

Beijing Pilot featured the theme of “New gTLD Policy & Law” and had 3 theme fora on “Right Protection Measures”, “Dispute Resolution Services” and “Domain Name Registration Policies” respectively. The whole program tremendously interested the Chinese domain name industry. It is worth noting that there has been academic and civil society participation in ICANN through either At Large and NCUC for some years but there has no Chinese participants in the GNSO Commercial, Registry and Registrar stakeholders group, in which there are even hardly any active members from the AP developing world except for a few elites. These policy-making process is dominated almost entirely by US and European business interests, and has been run by essentially the same people almost since the beginning of ICANN.  It was raised at the event that Chinese new gTLD applicants, either Brand, community or open TLDs, would hardly be able to catch up with the policies constantly deriving from ICANN mytrix, albeit exert any influence in the policy development process. Capacity building for these new stakeholders are definitely needed. It is good that ICANN Singapore Hub takes APILP as a important vehicle for community services and regional strategy and sent Mr. Kuek, ICANN VP, to open the event in Beijing. More discussions will continue in Singapore at the Launch.

Prof. Xue, at her keynote speech, gave an overview of the various right program measures in new gTLD program and specifically analyzed Sunrise Registrations and Trademark Claims. Prof. Xue pointed out both the usage and limits of the ICANN-accredited Trademark Clearinghouse in design. Submission of trademark information into the Clearinghouse is a prerequisite for any sunrise registration application but does not suffice or guarantee any actual registration under a specific TLD. It is subject to each TLD registry to decide the registration conditions (on geographic, class of goods, trademark registration dates, etc.) and other eligible requirements. Many brand owners concerned that they received misleading information that their brands would get sunrise registration for sure once submitted to the Clearinghouse. The comments from the community only reaffirm the necessity for such capacity building program.

Agenda

09:00~09:30  Registration

09301040  Opening Ceremony

09:30~09:35  Introduction: Prof. Dr. Hong Xue, Director of BNU Institute for Internet Policy & Law

09:35~09:40  Welcoming Speech: Mr. Yu-Chuang Kuek, Vice-President, ICANN

09:40~09:45  Welcoming Speech: Dr. Wei Mao, Director General of ZDNS

09:45~09:50  Welcoming Speech: Mr. Dennis Cai, Secretary General, Asia Domain Names Dispute Resolution Center

9:50 -  10:30  Release of the New gTLDs Development Report 2014: Mr Xing Zhijie, Director of ZDNS

10301200 Forum OneTrademark Protection Measures and Related Services

10:30~10:50   Keynote Speech “3rd Revision of Chinese Trademark Law- key issues”: Ms. Xiao Yun, Deputy Secretary General, China Trademark Association

10:50 – 11:10  Keynote Speech “Online Dispute Resolution for Domain Name System”: Dr. Li Hu, Deputy Secretary General, China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission

11:10~11:30 Keynote Speech “Right Protection Measures in New gTLD Program”: Prof. Dr. Hong Xue, Director of BNU Institute for Internet Policy & Law

11:30~12:00 Discussion and Q&A

Panelists: Citic Group Management Information Department (.CITIC); Ching Chao, Zhongyu International

1200 Lunch sponsored by ZDNS

13301500 Forum Two: Dispute Resolution Services

13:30~14:00  Keynote Speech “URS and Other DRPs Services by ADNDRC”:   Mr. Dennis Cai, Secretary General, Asia Domain Names Dispute Resolution Center

14:00~15:00  Discussion and Q&A

Panelists: Prof. Dr. Hong Xue, Director of BNU Institute for Internet Policy & Law; Cui Xinmin, CIETAC

15001630 Forum Three: Domain Name Registration and Management Policies

15:00~15:30  Keynote Speech “Reshaping and Redefining Whois System”: Mr. Song Zheng, Director of ICANN Beijing Engagement Center

15:30~16:30  Discussion and Q&A

Panelists: Prof. Dr. Hong Xue, Director of BNU Institute for Internet Policy & Law; Yan Rui, CNNIC; Alan Tan, Zodiac; Walter Wu, Springboard

1630 – 16:40 Closing Remarks

Comments off

Chinese Community Statement on Trademark Clearinghouse and IDN Variants

Chinese Community Statement on Trademark Clearinghouse and IDN Variants

 

Chinese At-large community unaminously agreed at the meeting on April 11, 2013 to submit the following statement to ICANN.

We are very disappointed at the implementation model outlined by “Trademark Clearinghouse: Rights Protection Mechanism Requirements” (hereafter “Requirements’) published on April 6, 2013. Particularly, the model completely overlooks the critical issues of IDN variants with respect to trademark clearinghouse (TMCH) and as a result would seriously impact the public interest in the pertinent user communities.

 

According to the Requirements, matching domain name labels will be generated for each Trademark Record in accordance with the Trademark Clearinghouse’s domain name matching rules.

 

The matching rules at the TMCH obviously, however, fail to take into account the trademarks in IDN scripts involving variants, although the variant issues had been raised by the language community experts at the Implementation Assistant Group (IAG).

 

Variant matching is actually critical for certain language communities. Take Chinese for example, a trademark holder may have registered a word-mark in simplified characters but it is unlikely to register the same word-mark in traditional characters and absolutely unthinkable to register in a mixed-up character setting. In this case, there will only be one trademark record generated in the TMCH. Since the new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and trademark claims for the trademarks recorded in the TMCH, only that simplified word-mark will be eligible for sunrise registration and trademark claim services and leaves all other “variants” open for cybersquatting. Ruling out the un-registered word-mark variants would make TMCH completely useless to Chinese trademarks.

 

What is even more striking is that the Requirements specifically prohibits any registry from implementing variant or bundling rulesand allocating domain names under such variant or bundling rules prior to the conclusion of the Sunrise Period. Such restriction actually excludes any solution for IDN trademarks involving variants to be accommodated in the sunrise period at the TLD level, even though a registry is willing fix the variants through its registration management and at its own costs.

 

Trademarks have very important function of safeguarding public interests by identifying the source of goods or services. The malfunctioned TMCH design would cause serious public confusion and market chaos. The consequence will be even more serious regarding the trademarks in the fields of banking, insurance and other high-secure businesses. Although at-large community never supports over-extensive trademark measures, ICANN should treat all the trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the trademarks, and protect the users in all language communities from confusion equally.

If ICANN  is even willing to protect 50 “derivations” that are DIFFERENT from a trademark per se, why does it refuse to entertain the SAME trademark in variants. This is illogical by all means. On the other hand, all 50 derivations, if applied to a Chinese-character trademark, will all involve variant issues definitely.

At-Large community has made the statement on the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) in September 2012, in which at-large community concerns that the design of TMCH model that uniformly applies to all the gTLD registries, irrespective of their difference, may not provide the tailored services that are really needed by the new gTLD registries. At-large community suggested that “more open and flexible model deserves further exploration.”

The Chinese Internet user community, dating back to October 2011, suggested that IDN-script trademarks involving variants should be taken into account in the TMCH services and ICANN consider adopting community-based solution to address this issue. Many other language communities shared the views of Chinese community.

 

Unfortunately, ICANN has been deaf to the user community’s feedback and inputs and moves steadily toward the centralized, inflexible and variants-unfriendly TMCH. At-large community, therefore, strongly suggests that ICANN support community-based TLD-bottom-up solution for TMCH implementation and address the IDN variant issue before TMCH provides the services to the new gTLD registries.

 

Comments off

Founding Event of Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Program Succeeded in Beijing

The founding APILP organized by the Institute for Internet Policy & Law of Beijing Normal University was held in Beijing on July 6-8, 2011. Program Director and Chair of Faculty Board is Dr. Prof. Hong Xue, Director of Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal University.

Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Program (APILP) is the very first multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder capacity building project on Internet Governance in Asia Pacific. The Founding Event was successfully held in Beijing. A group of distinguished experts from academia, governance organizations, technical community and judiciary in Asia Pacific constituted the faculty board. 20 fellows  from a variety of stakeholder groups joined the event. As the Faculty Chair, Prof. Xue, stated at the Opening Ceremony, APILP features 3 keywords as Internet, Governance and Asia Pacific and is becoming a research/learning center on Internet governance issues for this Region. The core members of the Faculty Board and the leading scholars from Australia, China, India, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan Economy unanimously agree to continue the project. Next year the event will be hosted by India NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad.

Academic Faculty Board for founding APILP

Dr. Prof. Hong Xue, APILP Faculty Chair, Director of Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal University, China

Prof. Ang Peng Hwa, Director, Singapore Internet Research Centre; Acting Head, Division of Journalism and Publishing, Nanyang Technology University, Singapore

Ms. Bonnie Chun, HKIRC, Hong Kong SAR China

Mr. Champika Wijayatunga, Training Manager, APNIC

Ms. Christine Runnegar, ISOC, Switzerland

Prof. Izumi Aizu, Senior Research Fellow & Professor at Institute for InfoSocinomics, Tama University , Japan

Mr. Kuo-wei Wu, Director of Board, ICANN, USA

Prof. Vivekanandan, Ministry of HRD IP Chair Professor, NALSAR University of Law, India

 

Scientific program :

Day 1: Wednesday July 6, 2011

8:30-9:30 Registration

9:30-12:30 Opening and Orientation

Introduction to Internet governance—An Asia-Pacific Prospective

Lectures and discussions will focus on general issues and principles of Internet governance and current policy and legal framework. Historical review and stocktaking will analyze and assess the principles of openness, access, diversity and security. Lecturers and discussions will specifically address the concerns and priorities of Asia-Pacific Region.

9:30-10:30 Welcoming Addresses (Video 1)

Faculty Chair: Prof. Hong Xue, Director of IIIPL, Beijing Normal University

Speakers:

Prof. Bingzhi Zhao, Dean of Law School, Beijing Normal University

Pof. Qiheng Hu, President of Internet Society of China

Prof. Xiangyang Huang, General Director of CNNIC

Prof. Xianqiang Tang, Deputy General Director of CONAC

10:30-10:40 Break

10:40-11:10 Participants’ Networking

11:10-12:30 Keynote Speeches (Video 2)

Prof. Peng Hwa Ang, Director of Singapore Internet Research Center, Nanyang Technology University

Prof. Izumi Aizu, Japan Tama University, Co-Coordinator of Internet Governance Caucus

12:30-14:30 Lunch Break

14:30-17:30 Internet Technology and Infrastructure: Training by APNIC (Video 3)

This session will elaborate on how Internet works, what are the organizations that coordinate its addressing system, how these organizations relate to each other in an ecosystem and how decisions are being made by the Internet community.

Chair: Mr. Champika Wijayatunga, Training Manager, APNIC

Speakers:

Dr. Shuo Shen, Deputy Director of Development and Research Center, CNNIC

Mr. Champika Wijayatunga, Training Manager, APNIC

18:00 Social Dinner Sponsored by APNIC

Day 2: Thursday, July 7, 2011

9:00-12:00 Managing Critical Internet Resources

Lectures and forum discussion will examine the current regime of management of critical Internet resources, particularly ICANN domain name policies that have significant impact on diversity, access and security.

9:00-10:00 Issues in New gTLDs (Video 4)

Chair: Prof. Kuowei Wu, Member of ICANN Board of Directors

Showcase of ICANN Video on New gTLD Program

Discussants:

HKIRC, CNNIC, CONAC, .Asia, .Telnet, JPNIC, Zodiacs

10:00-10:15 Coffee Break

10:15-12:00 Comparative study of registration management (Video 5)

Issues: IDNs, vertical Integration, trademark measures, supporting developing countries, whois accuracy, illegal contents

Chair: Mr. Edmon Chung, CEO of DotAsia and Member of ALAC

Speakers:

Ms. Bonnie Chun, HKIRC

Dr. Shuo Shen, Deputy Director of Development and Research Center, CNNIC

Mr. Yang Yu, Director of Legal and International Affairs, CONAC

Mr. Edmon Chung, CEO of DotAsia and Member of ALAC

Ms. Lucy Wang, General Manager, .Telnet

Mr. James Seng, CEO of Zodiac and Member of ALAC

12:00-14:00 Lunch Break

14:00-17:00 Critical Legal Issues in Internet Governance

Lecturers will address a variety of legal issues, such as alternative dispute resolution to domain name disputes and intermediary liability of Internet service providers.

14:00-14:45 ADR and Data Protection (Video 6)

Chair: Ms. Christine Runnegar, Senior Manager of Public Policy, ISOC

Speakers:

Ms. Christine Runnegar, Senior Manager of Public Policy, ISOC

Dr. Hu Li, Deputy Secretary General, CIETAC

Mr. Fanwu Wang, Chief Judge of Civil Tribunal, Beijing 2nd Intermediate People’s Court

14:45-15:00 Coffee Break

15:00-17:00 Copyright on the Internet (Video 7)

Chair: Prof. Hong Xue, Director of IIIPL, Beijing Normal University

Speakers:

Dr. Dongchuan Luo, Director of Research Division, Supreme People’s Court

Ms. Hong Ge, Judge of Intellectual Property Tribunal, Beijing 2nd Intermediate People’s Court

Ms. Xiurong Ma, Judge of Intellectual Property Tribunal, Supreme People’s Court

Prof.V.C. Vivekanandan Director of Global Internet Governance & Advocacy, Ministry of HRD IP Chair Professor, India NALSAR University of Law

17:00 Conclusion (certificate issuance)

18:00 Social Dinner Sponsored by DotAsia

Day 3: Friday July 8, 2011

9:00-12:00 Faculty Board Meeting (for speakers only)

12:00-13:00 Lunch

13:00-18:00 Tour to Great Wall (for speakers only)

 

Background

“Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” -Paragraph 34, WSIS Tunis Agenda

Asia Pacific has more than a half of world population. The Internet penetration in the Regional is growing rapidly. By the end of 2010, almost a half of world Internet users will be in Asia Pacific. Governance issues, such as Critical Internet Resources, Security and Stability, privacy, e-commerce, cyber-crime, network neutrality, dispute resolution, Internet of things, etc., are critically defining the development of this region. However, Asia-Pacific’s multi-stakeholder participation in the global Internet governance is considerably underdeveloped. Technical community and civil society in Asia-Pacific Region is particularly underrepresented and inarticulate in most global arenas on Internet governance. ASIA-PACIFIC INTERNET LEADERSHIP PROJECT (APILP) wishes to enhance regional capacity on policy-making and process-building for global governance of the Internet.

Given the tremendous diversity in languages, cultures, eco-social status in this Region, a systematic, informative and insightful training program will meet the pressing need of the Regional. Asia-Pacific Internet Leadership Program (APILP) will provide a unique opportunity for the Asia-Pacific participants from various stakeholder groups who have actively involved in Internet governance activities. We invite technical and management community (such ccTLD managers, gTLD registries, registrars), governmental officials, civil society leaders and Internet entrepreneurs to become the fellows. APILP  will provides Internet policy training or brainstorming for current or future leaders of Asia-Pacific Region.

 

Sponsors for Beijing Event

CNNIC

CONAC

APNIC

DotAsia

Singapore Internet Research Centre

 

 

Comments (667)

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »