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"
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 […]
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.
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.
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.