INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL
|
Document C02/46-E
|
|
|
|
|
12 April 2002
|
|
Original:
English
|
|
GENEVA —
2002 SESSION — (22 APRIL – 3 MAY)
|
|
|
|
PLENARY MEETING
(PL 2.8)
|
|
Report by the Secretary General
|
|
1 Subject:
|
MANAGEMENT OF INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES AND ADDRESSES
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Purpose
To report on ITU activities related
to management of Internet domain names and addresses.
|
|
Ref. doc.
|
|
3 Background
Resolution
102 (Minneapolis, 1998): Management of Internet domain names and addresses. Activities
reported previously to Council in, inter alia, documents C99/51,
C00/27, C00/27B, and C01/EP/8
|
|
PP Res. 102
C99/51
C00/27
C00/27A
C00/27B
C01/EP/8
|
|
4 Recommendation
The
Council is invited to consider this report and to take any appropriate
measures.
|
|
|
|
5 Implications
The
discussed activities are undertaken using existing resources.
|
|
|
Yoshio UTSUMI
Secretary‑General
Management of Internet
Domain Names and Addresses
1. Introduction
1.1 Since the
adoption of Resolution 102 (Minneapolis, 1998) on Management of Internet domain
names and addresses, relevant activities were reported previously to Council in
documents C99/51, C00/27, C00/27B and C01/EP/8.
ITU’s recent activities related to management of Internet names and addresses,
as well as emerging developments in this area, are discussed below.
2. ENUM
2.1 ENUM[1] continues to merit close attention by ITU Member States. In
particular, its potential impact on national regulatory and legislative
frameworks vis-à-vis an increasingly converged telecommunications and
Internet/IP environment warrants careful consideration.
2.2 ENUM takes
numbers from the international public telecommunication numbering plan (ITU-T
Recommendation E.164[2])
and incorporates them into the DNS for the purpose of identifying and finding
network resources; this includes the possibility of assignment of E.164
resources to IP-based devices. The development of a stable international
framework for ENUM deployment will require the assignment of authority over
elements of the E.164 number space when mapped into the DNS, as well as the
assignment of ongoing management to one or more responsible authorities in each
ITU Member State. Work in ITU-T Study Group 2 (SG2) continues to progress based
on the explicit assumption that the
existing role and sovereignty of Member States with respect to the
allocation and management of their country code numbering resources, including
the potential provisioning of those resources in the DNS, will be respected. A
draft ITU-T Recommendation (provisionally entitled E.A-ENUM) is under
preparation and will be further discussed at the next SG2 meeting in May 2002.
2.3 ITU Member
States are considering the appropriate infrastructure, responsibility,
delegation and authority for the ENUM “root zone”: the location in the DNS
where E.164 country code entries would be assigned. While considerable
discussion has taken place, no final decision has yet been made and this could
have an impact on the interim designation of the domain “e164.arpa” as well as
its administration.
2.4 The TSB
recently hosted a tutorial workshop on ENUM in February 2002, principally to
assist participants from developing countries. As a supporting activity, the
Strategy and Policy Unit and TSB have jointly prepared a tutorial paper on ENUM[3],
which may be of interest to Administrations considering the provisioning of
their E.164 resources in the DNS.
3. ITU and WIPO Joint Symposium on
Multilingual Domain Names
3.1 In December
2001, ITU and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in association
with the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium[4]
(MINC), organized a Joint Symposium on Multilingual Domain Names[5]. Day
one of the Symposium was led by ITU and dealt with technology and policy
issues. Day two was led by WIPO and dealt with intellectual property and
dispute resolution issues. ITU and WIPO both provided briefing papers[6].
3.2 The
deployment of multilingual domain names raises a number of complex issues.
These include, inter alia, technical and interoperability issues,
administrative arrangements for multilingual domains and top level domains,
competition policy and market access, intellectual property and dispute
resolution, as well as the cultural and social issues inherently associated
with languages.
3.3 The
Symposium brought together some 200 participants drawn from the Internet and
legal communities, as well as policy-makers and government representatives. The
objective was to raise further understanding of the subject matter as well as
offer an opportunity to share views on possible approaches. The two-day
Symposium took the form of presentations, made available on the Symposium’s
website[7]
as well as round table discussions by experts. Considering the interest in this
topic, additional follow-up activities could be envisaged.
4. Protection of the Names of
Intergovernmental Organizations in the DNS
4.1 The
protection of the names of intergovernmental organizations remains an issue of
concern, with a number of cases of bad faith registrations of the names of
intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)[8]
in the DNS. The final report[9]
of the WIPO Second Internet Domain Names Process[10],
published in September 2001, examined this issue and recommended that “States,
as the constituents of IGOs, should work towards the establishment of an
administrative dispute-resolution procedure … where an IGO could bring a complaint
that a domain name was the same or confusingly similar to the name or acronym
of the IGO, that it has been registered without legal justification and that it
is likely to create a misleading association...”. This recommendation is the
subject of current analysis by WIPO’s
Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and
Geographical Indications (SCT)[11].
5. Management of Country Code Top Level
Domains
5.1 ITU has
received an increasing number of enquiries and requests for assistance concerning
the delegations as well as recommended practices for country code top level
domains (ccTLDs). While there are many ITU Member States that, through
government agencies, act as ccTLD administrators or recognize (informally or
formally) private ccTLD administrators, there are some Member States, mostly
developing countries, that have had prolonged disagreements with the current
delegation and management of their ccTLD. In some cases, these ccTLDs are
operated by private entities outside the relevant country or jurisdiction.
5.2 As all
entities registered in the DNS underneath a ccTLD (e.g., banks, schools,
government agencies) are dependent upon the correct and secure management of
the related ccTLD, administrations may consider this to be an element of
national critical infrastructure. Threats of litigation against the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) may have discouraged efforts
to formally recognize the sovereignty of administrations over their
corresponding ccTLDs. Finally, because the US Government maintains an oversight
role of certain ICANN functions, including the approval of TLD changes in the
DNS root, all ccTLD management changes must be approved by the US Department of
Commerce[12].
6. ICANN
6.1 Considerable
debate continues surrounding the appropriate management and evolution of the
Internet’s naming and addressing system, particularly over the structure,
functioning and funding of ICANN, a non-profit corporation established under
the laws of the State of California, in the United States[13].
ICANN operates under the framework of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with
the US Department of Commerce[14].
PSO
6.2 The ITU-T
has continued its participation in the ICANN Protocol Supporting Organization
(PSO)[15]. As part of this work, ITU-T SG2 was
requested to take a position on the question of alternative DNS roots and the
statement of SG2 can be found on the PSO website[16].
TSB staff and the SG2 Chairman have prepared background briefing material for
SG2, in preparation for potential future requests for comment on this issue[17].
In addition, during the 2001-2002 time frame, the ITU‑T provided the
Secretariat for the PSO.
Governmental
Advisory Committee
6.3 The
Strategy and Policy Unit has also continued to participate in ICANN Government
Advisory Committee (GAC) meetings. The agenda, minutes, chairperson's report,
and media communiqués for the GAC meetings held since Council 2001 are
available on the GAC Secretariat website[18].
Recently, the Australian administration announced that it would cease funding
the GAC Secretariat functions.
Management of
.int Top Level Domain
6.4 As reported
last year, no progress has been made with ICANN on the transfer of management
of the .int TLD to ITU, intended for intergovernmental organizations. In
addition, during the last year, ITU has received a number of complaints from
organizations in the United Nations system concerning the policies related to
management of the .int domain.
ICANN Reform
and Future
6.5 In February
2002, the president of ICANN, M. Stuart Lynn, published an extensive report and
detailed proposal entitled “President's Report: ICANN – The Case for
Reform”[19] where he outlined his view that “ICANN
needs reform: deep, meaningful, structural reform…. If ICANN is to succeed,
this reform must replace ICANN's unstable institutional foundations with an
effective public-private partnership, rooted in the private sector but with the
active backing and participation of national governments.” He further states:
“The process of relocating functions from the US Government to ICANN is
stalled” and “ICANN will, in my opinion, either be reformed or irrelevant
within the next several months.”
6.6 Member
States should be aware that a great deal of uncertainty surrounds the future of
ICANN, its structure, functioning and funding and whether it can, even with the
proposed reforms, act as an effective regulator of Internet naming and
addressing. With a key component of the Lynn proposal role calling for
“significant additional participation and backing from national governments”
(including funding), there have been comments suggesting that ITU play an
increased role, especially in areas where there is already overlap with ITU’s
technical standardization activities related to IP-based networks or analogous
activities (e.g., stewardship of the ITU-T E.164 numbering plan). A discussion
paper on possible future scenarios is under preparation by the TSB and will
become available after 18 April 2002 on the ITU-T website[20]
and will be submitted to the ICANN consultation process. Any further actions
taken will be subject to additional consultations with ITU Members.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN)[21]
performs a number of tasks critical for the good functioning of the
Internet. Recently, ICANN's President
has stated that ICANN is not able to perform its mission, primarily because it
requires greater government support. As
a consequence, ICANN's President has called for reform, and ICANN has invited
comments on reform proposals.
The International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has a long and successful history of performing,
as a government-industry partnership, functions which are very similar to those
performed by ICANN. It has worked
closely with ICANN in recent years. For
these reasons, it appears that ITU can contribute to the ICANN reform process.
It is not suggested that ICANN's functions should be
transferred to ITU. It is suggested
that ITU could increase its cooperation with ICANN in order to help ICANN to
overcome some of its current difficulties.
ICANN is a not-for-profit corporation established under the
laws of the State of California, in the United States of America (USA). It operates under the framework of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the US Department of Commerce[22]. ICANN currently performs a number of
critical tasks related to the management of Internet names and addresses. In particular, ICANN makes recommendations
to the US Department of Commerce regarding the creation of top-level domain
names (such as ".com", ".ch"), and the delegation of actual
operations for any particular top-level domain to any particular operating
entity (for example, ".com" is delegated to VeriSign, Inc.)[23]. The tasks performed by ICANN are widely
acknowledged to be critical for the good functioning of IP-based networks and
IP-based services (which include the networks often referred to as "the
Internet").
ICANN's operating budget[24]
for 2001-2002 is approximately USD 5 million for a staff of 21 full-time
equivalents.
There has long been discussion of the implications of the
increasing international character of IP-based networks, and the increasing
importance to national economies of IP-based services, particularly with
respect to the fact that ICANN is a California company supervised by the
government of the USA. Some have argued
that the legal character of ICANN and lack of formal control by other
governments could lead to problems.
Some of these concerns have now been echoed by Mr. Stuart
Lynn, President of ICANN. In February
2002, Mr. Lynn, published an extensive report and detailed proposal entitled “President's Report: ICANN – The Case for
Reform”[25] in which he stated: "the original
concept of a purely private sector body, based on consensus and consent, has
been shown to be impractical" and "experience has shown that the
influence, authority, and close cooperation of governments is essential to
accomplish ICANN's mission ". Mr.
Lynn goes on to state that ICANN's current mechanisms for consulting
governments are not adequate.
According to Mr. Lynn:
- ICANN
as currently constituted is not able to fulfill its mission, largely
because of inadequate government support and inadequate funding;
- much
greater, and more formal, involvement by governments is required if ICANN
is to fulfill its mission;
- ICANN's
budget should be in the order of USD 25 million per year, and
governments should provide part of that budget.
According to Mr. Lynn, there
has been a revenue shortfall of about USD 0.5 million each year, which has
been covered by not hiring up to authorized levels, leading to understaffing. Furthermore, according to Mr. Lynn, ICANN
currently has inadequate backup for key individuals. As a result, Mr. Lynn states that funding should be increased by
a factor of 3 to 5.
Among other specific problems
identified by Mr. Lynn, we highlight:
- ICANN
has been too slow to address and resolve issues;
- ICANN
lacks clear, stable, and accepted processes and procedures for guiding its
work;
- ICANN
has not yet created the industry-government partnership it needs to
fulfill its mission.
Guided by ITU PP-98 Resolution 102 "Management of Internet domain
names and addresses" and Resolution 101 "Internet Protocol (IP)-based
networks", ITU already cooperates with ICANN in several ways. ITU is a founding member of ICANN's Protocol
Support Organization (PSO)[26], a technical advisory body. ITU is a member of ICANN's Government
Advisory Council (GAC)[27]. An
expert proposed by ITU-T sits on the ICANN Board, and the Director of TSB is a
member of an ICANN independent review panel nominating committee.
There is a lingering negative perception of ITU-T's
past. But the situation today is
very different from what it was three years ago. Working methods have been streamlined, decision-making is faster,
and online tools are used intensively.
Membership has increased, in particular among Sector Members.
ITU-T has a proven track record of efficiently and
effectively performing, for non-IP-based network technologies, functions which
are similar to ICANN's
key functions[28],
which are "administrative and policy management of the Internet's naming
and address allocation systems", and of performing those functions in
accordance with the desired core values, which are "openness and broad participation."
Among many tasks, the ITU-T performs world-wide
administration, and acts as the forum for policy management, of a number of
naming and address allocation systems that are essential for the good
functioning of critical infrastructures, including the physical-layer
infrastructure of the Internet itself.
We can cite such well-known examples as the E.164 numbering resource and
the E.212 mobile numbering resource.
It is widely acknowledged that the ITU-T performs its tasks to the
general satisfaction of industry, governments, and the public at large, using
processes that are open, transparent, and ensure accountability to all
stakeholders.
Governments are well used to the ITU-T processes and procedures and
know how to work within them. Governments
of 189 countries, industrialized as well as developing, participate in the ITU‑T's
work. The presence in ITU-T of
developing country governments broadens participation to people in those
countries who would not otherwise have
been represented.
Furthermore,
ITU-T is an effective public-private partnership, rooted in the public sector
but with the active backing and participation of industry players.
Currently ITU-T has over 450 industry members. In the ITU‑T, industry and governments work together, to achieve
common goals for the public benefit. ITU
is unique in this partnership between governments and industry for information
and communication technologies (ICT).
ITU-T can assist ICANN to ensure
world-wide representation of both the public and the private sectors directly
and indirectly related to Internet names, numbers, and addresses by:
1. Working
with ICANN to take care of issues of concern to governments, in particular to
ensure that the sovereign rights and national interests of all Member States
are served, including private sector interests as appropriate.
2. Participating
as appropriate in policy councils, the Technical Advisory Committee, and the
Government Advisory Committee, if such bodies are created in a reformed ICANN;
3. Working
with ICANN to identify areas where certain functions could be performed in
cooperation, for example:
3.1. ccTLD
management;
3.2. management
of the ".arpa" domain;
3.3. management
of the ".int" domain;
3.4. governmental
input in developing and administering global address policies for IP address
and AS number allocation;
4. Working
with ICANN to define an internationally agreed restatement and description of
the boundaries for ICANN’s policy-making activities, if any, while respecting
the sovereign rights of governments. For example, consideration could be given
to developing an ITU-T Recommendation with this goal.
5. The
Director of TSB would be willing to discuss these matters further with ICANN
management, and in particular to explore options for new measures and arrangements.
The benefits of increased cooperation between ICANN and
ITU-T would be that ICANN could rely on ITU-T for government support, at no
additional cost to ICANN, or to ITU, as well as to governments, for what
concerns the cost of additional government support for ICANN. Some of the cost increases proposed by Mr.
Lynn are not related to increased government support and those cost increases,
if approved, would have to be funded by other methods.
It would appear that the ITU-T can bring to ICANN, at no
additional cost to governments, the increased government participation that
ICANN's management has called for as necessary. In addition, ITU-T can increase private sector participation in
ICANN's work, through its Sector Members who include all major operators and
manufacturers of IP-based technologies.
Furthermore, ITU-T's stable, well-known, and proven processes and
procedures can be used to speed up ICANN's work (which, according to Mr. Lynn,
has been unacceptably slow to date, due to ineffective processes and
procedures).
A cooperation between ITU-T and ICANN would allow all the different
communities around the world that use, provide, operate, and design the
Internet to address efficiently and effectively, in a constructive and
productive manner, the various issues which have to date proven difficult to
resolve within ICANN's existing structure.
In short, it would appear appropriate if
ITU-T could explore new ways, in addition to the current arrangements and
cooperation with ICANN, for the benefit of ICANN, to tackle new challenges in
cooperation with ICANN.
It is not proposed that ITU-T should take over ICANN's
functions. Furthermore, it is not
proposed that ITU should become involved in all of ICANN's activities.
To conclude, we propose to enter into discussions with ICANN
to explore the best ways for ITU to help ICANN to overcome its current
difficulties.
_________________
|
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION
UNION
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL
|
Document C03/27(Rev.1)-E
|
|
|
|
|
29 April 2003
|
|
Original: English
|
|
GENEVA —
2003 SESSION — (5 - 16 MAY)
|
|
|
|
PLENARY MEETING
|
|
Report by the
Secretary General
|
|
1 Subject:
|
RESOLUTION
102(Rev. Marrakesh, 2002): MANAGEMENT OF INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES AND ADDRESSES &
RESOLUTION 133 (PLEN/5) (Marrakesh, 2002): ROLE OF ADMINISTRATIONS OF MEMBER
STATES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONALIZED (MULTILINGUAL) DOMAIN NAMES
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Purpose
To
report on ITU activities related to management of Internet domain names and
addresses.
|
|
Ref. doc.
|
|
3 Background
Resolution
102 (Rev. Marrakesh, 2002): Management of Internet domain names and addresses.
Activities reported previously to Council in documents C99/51, C00/27,
C00/27B, C01/EP/8, and
C02/46.
Resolution 133 (PLEN/5) (Marrakesh,
2002): Role of administrations of Member States in the management of
internationalized (multilingual) domain names.
|
|
Res. 102
(Rev. PP-02)
Res. 133 (PLEN/5)
(PP-02)
C99/51
C00/27
C00/27A
C00/27B
C01/EP/8
C02/46
|
|
4 Recommendation
The Council is invited to
endorse the activities described in this report and to take any appropriate
measures.
|
|
|
|
5 Implications
The discussed activities are
undertaken using existing resources.
|
|
|
Yoshio UTSUMI
Secretary General
Management of
Internet domain names and addresses and role of Administrations of Member States in the management
of internationalized (multilingual) domain names
1. Introduction
1.1 Resolution 102 (Rev. Marrakesh, 2002)
on Management of Internet domain names and addresses was revised in Marrakesh at the 2002
Plenipotentiary. Originally adopted at the 1998 Plenipotentiary,
previous activities have been reported to Council in documents C99/51, C00/27,
C00/27B, C01/EP/8 and C02/46. Resolution
133 (PLEN/5) (Marrakesh, 2002) on the Role of
administrations of Member States in the management of internationalized (multilingual)
domain names is a new resolution adopted in 2002. ITU activities related to both
resolutions since the 2002
Plenipotentiary, as well as emerging developments in this area, are
discussed below.
1.2 As
instructed, Resolution 133
(PLEN/5) (Marrakesh, 2002) has been formally brought to the attention of WIPO
by the Secretary-General, stressing the concerns and requests for assistance of
Member States with regard to internationalized (multilingual) domain names and
addresses. WIPO has replied and agreed to contribute its expertise to planned
related ITU activities on internationalized domain names as discussed below.
1.3 In the
ITU-T, at the 17-21 June 2002 meeting of the Telecommunications Standardization
Advisory Group (TSAG), it was recognized that SG2 is the lead Study Group on
numbering, addressing and naming issues and would deal with contributions
related to ITU Plenipotentiary Resolution 102 (Rev. Marrakesh, 2002). TSAG reinforced the message that SG2 is the
lead Study Group within ITU-T for numbering, naming, addressing requirements
and resource assignment including criteria and procedures for reservation and
assignment. See TSAG report TSAG-R22, Annex 3 (pages 22-23), available at:
1.4 In the
ITU-T, taking into account a suggestion made during the 26 November-6 December
2002 Study Group 2 (SG2) meeting, the Director of TSB invited, by SG2
Collective Letter 7 of 14 January 2003, Member States to submit the names and
e-mail addresses of persons who would be willing to join a discussion list
whose purpose would be to provide advice to the Director, at his request, with
respect to issues related to the management of Internet domain names and
addresses. The cited Collective Letter
can be accessed at:
The list of participants in the group as of 31 March 2003 is
contained in SG2 TD (GEN) 85, available at:
1.5 In the ITU-D, the BDT
has organized several workshops to discuss policy, operational and technical
issues related to the Internet, including the management of Internet names and
addresses. These include:
- IP
Networking and IPv6 for Engineers working in PTOs in the framework of the
Centre of Excellence (Mauritania, 19-23 May 2002);
- IP
Technologies and Applications for Arab region (Tunisia, 17-19 June 2002);
- IP Symposium focused on
IP-based Networks and VoIP (Switzerland, 18-22 November 2002);
- Internet
for Central America (Guatemala, 27-29 November 2002).
1.6 During 2003,
two IP symposia are planned for Africa and CEE/CIS States within the framework
of Resolution 102 (Rev. Marrakesh, 2002) and the Istanbul Action Plan, adopted
at the World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC02). These are
planned to be held in Kigali, Rwanda, in June 2003, and Moscow, Russia in
September 2003. The symposia will address technology policy issues for IP
addresses and DNS management, IP connectivity, Internet development strategies
and harmonization of policies.
2. ENUM
2.1 ENUM
continues to merit close attention by ITU Member States and its potential impact
on national policy, regulatory and/or legislative frameworks. ENUM takes
numbers from the international public telecommunication numbering plan (ITU-T
Recommendation E.164) and incorporates them into the Internet Domain Name
System (DNS) for the purpose of identifying and finding network resources; this
includes the possibility of assignment of E.164 resources to IP-based devices.
The development of a stable international framework for ENUM deployment will
require the assignment of authority over elements of the E.164 number space
when mapped into the DNS, as well as the assignment of ongoing management to
one or more responsible authorities in each ITU Member State. Work in ITU-T SG2
continues to progress based on the explicit assumption that the existing role and sovereignty
of Member States with respect to the allocation and management of their
country code numbering resources, including the potential provisioning of those
resources in the DNS, will be respected. A draft ITU-T Recommendation (provisionally
entitled E.A-ENUM) is under preparation and will be further discussed at the
next SG2 meeting in May 2003.
2.2 Reports on
ENUM trial activities within Member States can be found at:
General information on ENUM, including a tutorial paper, can
be found at:
In addition, supplementary news and reference material related
to ENUM are maintained at:
2.3 Liaisons
have been exchanged between SG2 and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) on
technical and administrative issues related to the administration of the top
level registry for ENUM. See in
particular COM 2 LS 55 and COM 2 LS 56.
2.4 ITU Member
States are considering the appropriate infrastructure, responsibility,
delegation and authority for the ENUM “root zone”: the location in the DNS
where E.164 country code entries would be assigned. While considerable
discussion has taken place, no final decision has yet been made and this could
have an impact on the interim designation of the domain “e164.arpa” as well as
its administration.
2.5 The TSB and
Strategy and Policy Unit (SPU) are cooperating with the Asia Pacific
Telecommunity (APT) in the joint organization of a workshop on ENUM to be held
19 May 2003 in Brunei Darussalam, held in conjunction with the annual APT Forum
on Telecommunication Policy and Regulation.
3. Internationalized Domain Names
3.1 The
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has recently approved documents which,
taken together, provide a technical foundation for handling domain names with
Unicode characters (that is, domain names which contain non-ASCII
characters). These developments are
referred to as Internationalized Domain Names (IDN).
3.2 In
accordance with Resolution 133 (PLEN/5) (Marrakesh, 2002), the Director of TSB
brought the IETF documents and related work to the attention of ITU members by
ITU-T Circular Letter 139, available at:
3.3 As
Resolution 133 (PLEN/5) (Marrakesh, 2002) originated in the Asia Pacific
Telecommunity (APT) region, where non-Latin based language scripts are common,
ITU approached APT to explore cooperative activities for Member States to
consider the implications of IDN. As a result of those discussions, the TSB and
SPU are cooperating with the Asia Pacific Telecommunity (APT) to jointly
organize a workshop on IDN to be held 20 May 2003 in Brunei Darussalam, in
conjunction with the APT Forum on Telecommunication Policy and Regulation.
3.4 The
deployment of multilingual domain names raises a number of complex issues.
These include, inter alia, technical and interoperability issues,
administrative arrangements for multilingual domains and top level domains,
competition policy and market access, intellectual property and dispute
resolution, as well as the cultural and social issues inherently associated
with languages.
3.5 For more
information on IDN, please refer to the briefing paper available at:
and the presentations available at:
4. Country
Code Top Level Domains
4.1 In
accordance with Resolution 102 (Rev. Marrakesh, 2002) instructions to the
Director of BDT, and the Istanbul Action Plan adopted at the WTDC-02,
discussions related to management of Internet names and addresses were held at
the recent Forum on Telecommunication Regulation in Africa held in Ouagadougou,
Burkina Faso, from 19-21 November 2002. At the conclusion of this meeting,
African regulators recommended that ICANN cooperate fully with ITU in its
initiatives related to implementation of Resolution 102 (Rev. Marrakesh, 2002)
as well as recommending that regulators put into place a coordinated strategy
in coordination with ITU to defend their national interests vis-à-vis ICANN,
particularly with regard to national interests in ccTLDs. The recommendations
from the Forum are at:
· http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/Events/Seminars/2002/Burkina/index.html
4.2 In accordance with Resolution 102 (Rev.
Marrakesh, 2002), the Director of TSB organized a Workshop on Member States'
Experiences with ccTLDs on 3-4 March 2002, at ITU Headquarters. 140 participants, comprising a broad
cross-section from Member States, ccTLD operators, public interest groups, academic
institutions, and other interested parties, attended the meeting. Representatives from ICANN also attended the
Workshop. There were 64 written input
contributions. All contributions as
well as presentations made during the workshop are available at:
The Report of the
Workshop and a summary of the input contributions are also available at the
website cited above.
4.3 The meeting expressed its great
appreciation for ITU's initiative to organize the workshop and unanimously
agreed that this workshop was timely, useful, and resulted in an excellent and
productive exchange of information. No
attempts were made to reach consensus on contentious topics.
The following topics
were discussed during the meeting (not in order of significance):
- The role of users and user groups.
- The role of governments in representing
the public interest and in Internet policy-making.
- Intellectual property issues and dispute
resolution.
- Self-regulatory models.
- Best practices for ccTLD operators.
- Public-private partnerships.
- The interaction of technical and
inter-operability issues with issues related to public policy.
- The boundary between national matters and
matters requiring international coordination.
- The legal status of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Memorandum of
Understanding it has with the US Department of Commerce, and the role of
the Department of Commerce with respect to changes in the root zone master
file.
- Transitioning to a multi-lateral model
from a model where one government has a special role.
- The concept that ownership of a domain
name should be separated from its actual registration in any particular
domain.
- The transition from ccTLDs operated by
pioneers (often based in universities) towards ccTLDs being operated by
both not-for-profit and for-profit organizations.
- The role of governments vis-à-vis ccTLD
operations and/or policies.
- Separation of the functions of the
Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA) from other functions carried out
by ICANN, and oversight and funding of the IANA functions.
- The role of international treaty
organizations, in particular with respect to issues related to gTLDs.
- The relationship between ICANN and its
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and the powers of GAC vis-à-vis
ICANN.
A wide range of
opinions was expressed on these topics.
The meeting expressed
its desire to see another workshop of this kind within one year.
4.4 Administrations of Member States may
wish to take note of the paper on Issues Concerning ccTLDs reproduced in SG2 TD
(WP1) 76, available at:
5. IP
addresses
5.1 Internet Protocol addresses (IP
addresses) are a key resource required for the operation of IP-based
networks. General information on IP addresses,
their allocation, and the evolution to a new generation of IP addresses (IPv6)
can be found at:
5.2 IP addresses are allocated by what are
called Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).
Each RIR assigns addresses to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) or other
organizations within a given geographical area without reference to country. Each of the RIRs is incorporated in a specific
country as a private, non-profit company or organization
5.3 Recent changes in the policies of
APNIC, the RIR for the Asia Pacific region were brought to the attention of ITU
members by TSAG TD (GEN) 128, Rev 1, available at:
5.4 Administrations of ITU Member States in
the Asia Pacific region may wish to consider initiating national consultations
and coordination in relation to the possible establishment of National Internet
Registries (NIRs). They may also wish
to consider whether they should be involved in the establishment, endorsement
and/or operations of their corresponding NIR, and if so, which agencies are
most appropriate to participate.
5.5 Administrations of all Member States
may wish to take note of the Regional Internet Registries Communiqué reproduced
in SG2 TD (WP1) 75, available at:
6. ICANN
6.1 ITU
representatives have continued to participate in the discussions concerning the
future functioning of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers), a non-profit corporation established under the laws of the State of
California, in the United States.29 ICANN operates under the framework of a Memorandum
of Understanding with the US Department of Commerce30 and
performs functions with respect to Internet domain names and addresses.
6.2 The ITU-T
continued its participation in the ICANN Protocol Supporting Organization
(PSO), which has recently been replaced by the Technical Liaison Group, of
which ITU-T is a member. Representatives of the SPU and TSB continued their
attendance at ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC) meetings. Subsequent to the adoption of Resolution 102
(Rev.Marrakesh 2002), there has been no related discussion at subsequent GAC
meetings.
6.3 One of the
key functions of ICANN, under a purchase order from the US Department of
Commerce31, is
the Internet Assigned Names Authority32 (IANA) function, which
maintains and publishes registers of key information (for example, allocation
of IP address blocks at the top level, contact information for ccTLD operators,
and protocol numbers).
6.4 At its
17-21 June 2002 meeting, the Telecommunications Standardization Advisory Group
(TSAG) took note of the need for a better process for ITU-T to request IANA
protocol number assignments and have them assigned in a timely fashion (item
10.5.4 of TSAG-R 16; see also TSAG TD (GEN) 12.
6.5 A letter
was written by the Study Group 2 Counsellor to IANA, and a response was
received and noted by TSAG at its 24-28 February 2003 meeting, see TSAG TD
(GEN) 122, Rev 1. In essence, the reply
states that IANA has made improvements in its processes and that the difficulties
reported to TSAG should not occur in the future. The cited document can be accessed at:
____________________
