Professor Geist’s regular Toronto Star Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, HTML backup article, homepage version) features coverage of the results of a global study jointly conducted by the ITU and myself on the role of national governments and their national domains. The study, which covered 56 countries from every […]
Post Tagged with: "internet governance"
The Day Internet Governance Mattered
Professor Geist’s regular Toronto Star Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, HTML backup article, homepage version) examines the controversy over VeriSign’s Site Finder service. The column argues that there has been a general lack of enthusiasm for Internet governance issues but when it finally mattered – the moment VeriSign hit […]
Governments Hold Reins in Those National Domains
GENEVA—The story of Internet governance typically focuses on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California, non-profit corporation. Established by the U.S. government in 1998, its mandate is to administer issues such as the allocation of new top-level domains and the implementation of a domain name dispute resolution policy.
ICANN Turf War Playing Out
Last week in Shanghai, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the agency responsible for administering the Internet, conducted the most important meeting in its brief history. Following months of debate on institutional reform, the ICANN board approved the elimination of board positions reserved for the general public, shelved plans for Internet user participation through on-line elections and removed most of the mechanisms that hold ICANN accountable.
Internet Overseer Takes Wrong Path on Accountability
In the age of the Enron and WorldCom scandals, it would be almost unthinkable to try to impede board disclosure and transparency. Almost. Last week, a court case involving the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) — the Internet administrative agency — and Karl Auerbach, one of its most vocal directors, revealed that ICANN attempted to do just that when it established an unreasonable policy that placed conditions on board-of-director access to its own corporate records.
Recent Posts
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act 
Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
