0930-1100 hrs Workshop 43: Legal aspects of governance critical internet Policy issues of public relevance
1st presentation
The issues on that have legal implications include:
• internet security intellectual property rights, infringement, privacy and protection mechanisms
• IP domain name protection, conflicts arising out of data and content ownership privacy therefore increasing role of P2P in growth of internet 2
• Consumer status and rights in relation to e-commerce cross border and domestic online trade
• Telecom issue viz backbone deployment and interconnection costs
• Freedom of expression – the extent of censorship and control on online content

There is need for capacity building to create meaningful participation of individual and SMEs as well as increasing connectivity through building IXPs and local content development

The question was raised as to whether there a need of alternative institutional mechanism.
The salient features of the MOU between ICANN and the department of commerce (DoC) include:
- The affirmation of the role of private sector leadership
- The role of DoC in ensuring transparency and accountability and effective GAC participation
- Ensure accountability and publish by-laws and strategic and operational plans
- Agreement can be terminated in 120 days

The MOU has been criticized because of the following reasons:
- US governmental control on root server administration
- Inconsistent with WSIS principle where no single government should have a pre-eminent role
- Domain name allocation policies need better development
- IPv4 address allocation have been imbalanced need to ensure IPv6 address allocation does not suffer the same effects -This assertion was however refuted as IP addresses allocation based on need. The need for prudent management and keeping barriers low for the transition to IPv6 was emphasised.

To overcome this WGIG proposed 4 models:
- Global policy council
- Intenational internet council with leading government role to fulfil the ICANN/IANA functions
- GAC to be strengthened with enhanced coordination function
- Replace US govt role by general internet council or with world ICANN (in lieu of GAC)

The common features of these models were the overwhelming government lead and the presupposition of the possibility of international treaties. During the discussion the viability of these models was questioned given that speed is of essence in the management of internet resources. It normally takes a long time to negotiate international agreements; including treaties instead a set of principles should be endorsed.

The speaker recommended on the management of critical internet infrastructure should take into consideration the following
• Treatment of technical resources of the internet and global economic, social and legal aspects arising out the internet should be at par
• The development and implementation of polices and standards and solutions to various internet issues should be done in a coordinated manner for example telecommunication standard development is done in a hierarchical and predictable way.
• New structure would be a supreme authority over internet

In conclusion the speaker asked: Does the internet as we know it need to be altered radically? Should the status quo be maintained? Should a Red Cross model of recognition by international community states be given to an international entity like ITU, INTELSAT. However fundamental change is not necessary as failure has not been identified.

My comment: this presentation was descriptive and despite the fact that an alternative model was proposed the principles, mechanisms that would need to be put in place in order to make it work were not discussed

2nd presentation
The next speaker spoke about the ccTLDs in latin Amercia which are broadly organised into two main groups: non-governmental and governmental organisations. A contribution from the floor however clarified that the Brazilian ccTLD is a multi-stakeholder – coordinated by government – but on a day by day basis operates as a non-governmental organisation. The Indian ccTLD is managed by government and private sector – sovereign interest taken care of through government representation.

The rules and regulations under which the institutions that manage the ccTLDs are managed determinate legal framework under which they operate. Consequently ccTLDs are regulated under national law while ICANN regulates gTLDs – The possibility of self regulation is based on the assumption that private sector would act in the public interest.

In the discussions some felt that there was need for increased attention of government in the management of ccTLDs – as it was critical infrastructure while on the other hand other felt that there was the risk of excessive regulation with increased involvement of government.