Columns Archive

Governments Hold Reins in Those National Domains

link to html archive

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.

Although the U.S. government retains ultimate power over the system, ICANN serves as the paramount example of self-regulation of the Internet, since its leadership rests with private stakeholders such as business interests, communication infrastructure companies, and, to a lesser degree, Internet users.

Since its inception, ICANN has been at the centre of a storm of controversy. Internet users have bemoaned their lack of influence as the promised nine seats on the board of directors dwindled first to five seats and, more recently, to zero. Commercial interests have complained about hesitancy establishing new top-level domains.

While these criticisms have played out in the public eye, there has also been a hidden side to Internet governance. That side revealed itself in Geneva last week as delegates from around the world participated at an International Telecommunications Union workshop devoted to the interplay between national governments and country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs).

Various presentations revealed that the ICANN model of Internet self-regulation is treated with a healthy dose of skepticism at the national level. Rather, in the world of ccTLDs, the role of national governments is far more pronounced than is generally appreciated. Many governments eschew a purely self-regulatory approach in favour of actively administering their domain, or retaining ultimate control through legislation or contractual controls.

In domain-name parlance, the Internet is divided between two types of top-level domains. Generic top-level domains (gTLDs), which include dot-com, dot-net and dot-org, are generally considered international domains without an attachment to any specific country or government.

Operating alongside the dozen or so generic top-level domains, are nearly 250 country-code top-level domains representing countries and territories from every corner of the globe.

Within Canada, for example, the dot-ca domain name has become increasingly popular in recent years as organizations seek to establish an online presence that is clearly Canadian.

National governments tend to play an active role in their national domain due to public interest concerns. In many countries, the country-code domain is viewed as a national resource, with governments anxious to preserve at least a small slice of the Internet that reflects local values and policies.

This approach frequently manifests itself by limiting domain name registrations to individuals and businesses that meet local presence requirements. This in turn ensures that local law will apply should a dispute arise, and enshrining local privacy and free speech laws within the national domain name policy framework.

Not all countries have chosen a public interest model. Some have adopted a more market-oriented approach, competing directly with the generic top-level domains by opening their domain name to registration by anyone. The two largest country-code top level domains — dot-uk (United Kingdom) and dot-de (Germany), which both have millions of registrations, have adopted this approach.

At last week's Geneva meeting, it became increasingly clear that many country-code domains are now struggling to reconcile commercial success with the public interest. Some fear that as their domains pursue a market-based orientation, the public interest priorities may be cast aside in the hope of garnering ever more registrations and commercial success.

For example, representatives of the tiny Pacific Island of Niue attended the meeting and reported how the island government had granted the rights to sell dot-nu domains to a foreign company in return for Internet access throughout the island and a share of the resulting revenue. With the company firmly in control of the domain, the government lamented that the country had seen few of the promised benefits. In response, it has now passed national legislation seeking to re-affirm control over its own name.

The challenge of balancing commercial and public interest concerns resonates particularly loudly in Canada. The Canadian Internet Registration Authority, the agency responsible for administering the dot-ca (I currently sit on the CIRA board), has admirably held two open elections and has so far retained Canadian presence requirements that limit registration to those who reside in Canada or with a Canadian connection. At the same time, commercial success has come at a price as CIRA faces the challenge of achieving an effective governance balance that limits conflicts and adequately reflects the views of all stakeholders including Internet users, commercial enterprises and governments.

With ccTLDs growing faster than gTLDs in most countries, the tension between governmental and self-regulatory models of Internet governance is bound to increase. National domains can clearly compete with gTLDs on a commercial level or promote the public interest by placing limitations on the commercialization of the domain. Whether both goals can be achieved remains an unanswered question, one that may well determine the role of governments within Internet governance.

Comments are closed.