COLLABORATION FOR EXCELLENCE

UNCITRAL-BNU Joint Certificate Program

International E-Commerce Law: Theory and Practice

Mission and Purpose

E-transactions are not limited by national borders by nature.  Their adequate legal treatment is critical to ensure that all the benefits associated with the use of electronic means are fully enjoyed. Electronic exchanges have recently further increased due to the mobility of devices, but this also created additional legal challenges. In order to understand the main issues and the policy and practical implications, learning international law and foreign laws involving e-commerce has become as important as study of the relevant national laws.

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific (hereinafter referred to as UNCITRAL RCAP) and Beijing Normal University (BNU) have established a Joint Certificate Program to provide a high-level research and training forum on various legal issues in international electronic transactions, with special attention for international aspects and transnational legislation.

The partners of the Joint Certificate Program

UNCITRAL is the core legal body of the United Nations system in the field of international trade law. UNCITRAL is a legal body with universal membership specializing in commercial law reform worldwide for over 40 years. The mission of the UNCITRAL is the modernization and harmonization of the rules on international business. UNCITRAL is, inter alia, providing technical assistance in law reform projects to formulate the modern, fair, and harmonized rules on commercial transaction. The RCAP started its operations on 10 January 2012. Its mandate includes enhancing international trade and development in the Asia-Pacific region by promoting certainty in international commercial transactions through the dissemination of international trade norms and standards, in particular those elaborated by UNCITRAL.

BNU, formed 1902, is a renowned institution of higher education known for teacher education, education science and basic learning in both the arts and the sciences. BNU Law School was inaugurated on 26 April 2006, building on the pre-existing Law Department. BNU Law School and the College for Criminal Law Science (CCLS), established in August 2005, form the integral law education of Beijing Normal University. The Law School and the CCLS also have many international links and partnership programs with leading universities and legal institutions around the world.

Prospective Students

The Joint Certificate Program offers a high-quality, international and visionary legal training on the electronic transactions, particular in the cross-border environment. Each year, the Program is only open for up to 15 fellows from governments (particularly from developing countries in Asia and the Pacific), academics and private sector, in addition to a few selected post-graduate students.

Teaching Modules 

The Joint Certificate Program consists of a one-year program structured on two semesters consisting of 6 modules critical to understand cross-border e-commerce, i.e.

1. Legal Issues in Cross-Border E-Transactions （跨境电子交易法律问题）;

2. Legal Issues in Cross-Border Data flow （跨境数据流通的法律问题）;

3. Dispute Resolution For Cross-Border E-Commerce（跨境电子商务的争议解决）

4. Internet Governance in E-Commerce （电子商务中的互联网治理问题）;

5. Intellectual Property Issues in Cross-Border E-Commerce（跨境电子商务的知识产权法律问题）;

6. Governmental Regulation on Cross-Border E-Commerce （跨境电子商务的监管法）;

.

Faculties, Lectures and Academic Supervision

The International Expert Advisory Committee (IEAC), co-chaired by UNCITRAL and BNU, monitors teaching and academic quality of the Program.

Mr. Renaud Sorieul, UNCITRAL Secretary & Co-Chair of IEAC

Prof. Guangju Chen, BNU Vice President & Co-Chair of IEAC

The Program will be taught by the distinguished international and domestic experts in the relevant areas. The Interim Faculties for the first three modules include:

Mr. Alamusi, Internet Rules Research Center Director, China E-Commerce Law Net CEO and China E-Commerce Association Policy & Law Subcommittee Deputy Director

In addition to the regular faculties appointed by the IEAC, guest lecturers from Government, business and the legal profession will provide students with the latest information and knowledge.

Administration, Application & Enrollment

Teaching will be delivered in a compressed schedule in 2 weeks in 2014-2015 Year so as to be compatible with professional engagements of students. Students may elect to take any week may or enroll in the full program. Students who complete all modules will be awarded the Program Certificate. Alternatively, students can obtain a certificate of attendance for each pertinent module.

In Autumn Semester of Year 2014-2015, the intensive course is scheduled in the week of November 23-29, 2014. All the enrolled fellows would be able to join, in addition to the course study, the “E-Commerce Expert Public Lecture Series” and “1st High-Level Forum on International E-Commerce Law” in the same week, free of charge.

Applicants should submit their CVs and personal statements to UNCITRAL-BNU JCP Steering Committee via email <jcp@bnu.edu.cn> before September 30, 2014. Once enrolled, the students may acquire BNU course credits and entitled to the other student benefit.

2014年5月19日，北京师范大学–联合国国际贸易法委员会“国际电子商务法”联合认证项目启动仪式暨招待会在北京师范大学英东学术会堂隆重举行。

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，

刘利书记表示，北京师范大学大力支持北京师范大学–联合国国际贸易法委员会“国际电子商务法”联合认证项目，此项目的建立和实施不仅反映了北京师范大学国际化办学的方针，而且成为联合国面向发展中国家法律援助的有机组成部分，由北京师范大学与联合国贸易法委员会强强联合建立的世界上首个国际电子商务法高端培训项目必将取得圆满成功。

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。

赵秉志院长着重讲述了北京师范大学法学院的过去、现状和未来的发展，表示该认证项目是跨境电子商务领域全球首个高质量、高层次、国际化的集法律科研、培训、国际交流合作于一体的综合发展项目，是北师大法学院的优势项目。

薛虹教授介绍了该认证项目的背景、发展和课程设计，表示该项目将为电子商务领域，特别是跨境电商，带来全新知识与智慧体验。

参加会议的其他领导和嘉宾对该项目寄予了厚望，并表示会从全方面支持和推进该项目的进行，会议在热烈地讨论中圆满结束。

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.

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ATLAS+II+Thematic+Group+on+ICANN+Transparency+and+Accountability

Abstract

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?

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 5^th, 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)

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.