European Commission: Difference between revisions

Line 60:

In 2009, with [[ICANN]]’s original U.S. led contract ending in September, the EC appealed for international involvement in carrying out [[ICANN]]'s responsibilities. At that time, ICANN was more of a private firm that ultimately answered to the US Government's [[DOC|Department of Commerice]]. The EC explained that the management of the Internet, which had become a vital part of the global economy and tool for worldwide communications, should not be assigned to a single country.<ref name="link4">[http://ec.europa.eu/news/science/090825_en.htm ec.europa.eu]</ref>

In a paper titled "Internet Governance: Next Steps," the EU proposed that ICANN be handled by private bodies without any government intervention in its day-to-day activities, instead being governed according to the principles agreed upon by public authorities. The EC also called for international talks on Internet governance, realizing that the next billion ~~internet~~ users would come mainly from the developing world.<ref name="link4">[http://ec.europa.eu/news/science/090825_en.htm ec.europa.eu]</ref>

In a paper titled "Internet Governance: Next Steps," the EU proposed that ICANN be handled by private bodies without any government intervention in its day-to-day activities, instead being governed according to the principles agreed upon by public authorities. The EC also called for international talks on Internet governance, realizing that the next billion Internet users would come mainly from the developing world.<ref name="link4">[http://ec.europa.eu/news/science/090825_en.htm ec.europa.eu]</ref>

On September 30th, 2009, US government declared that ICANN would be governed by international parties. From then onwards, ICANN has been subject to independent review panels appointed by ICANN's [[Governmental Advisory Committee]] (GAC) and not solely to the review of [[DOC|US Department of Commerce]] (DOC). [[Viviane Reding]], the EU's Commissioner for Information Society and Media, welcomed the US administration’s decision, and said that "Internet users around the world can now anticipate ICANN’s decision as more independent and accountable."<ref>[http://www.eurunion.org/eu/2009-News-Rrleases/EUROPEAN-COMMISSION-WELCOMES-UNITED-STATES-MOVE-TO-MORE-INDEPENDENT-ACCOUNTABLE-INTERNATIONAL-INTERNET-GOVERNANCE.html eurunion.org]</ref>

Line 69:

The papers themselves largely propose subordinating ICANN as an entitled policy-making body. Many see the publication of the papers as a response to the aforementioned dismissal of [[GAC]] recommendations by the ICANN board at [[ICANN 41]].<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/who_wrote_those_icann_papers_anyway_european_commission/ Whore Wrote these ICANN Papers Anyway European Commission, circleid.com]</ref> The papers take issue with a range of ICANN decisions and policies; from how they staff the organization, to the new [[gTLD]] program, to their handling of [[ccTLD]]s; as a whole they have been taken as a full assault on the organization's independent legitimacy, and its multi-stakeholder model.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html Blog.InternetGovernance.org]</ref>

====Paper 1====

== References ==

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 In 2009, with [[ICANN]]’s original U.S. led contract ending in September, the EC appealed for international involvement in carrying out [[ICANN]]'s responsibilities. At that time, ICANN was more of a private firm that ultimately answered to the US Government's [[DOC|Department of Commerice]]. The EC explained that the management of the Internet, which had become a vital part of the global economy and tool for worldwide communications, should not be assigned to a single country.<ref name="link4">[http://ec.europa.eu/news/science/090825_en.htm ec.europa.eu]</ref>
-In a paper titled "Internet Governance: Next Steps," the EU proposed that ICANN be handled by private bodies without any government intervention in its day-to-day activities, instead being governed according to the principles agreed upon by public authorities. The EC also called for international talks on Internet governance, realizing that the next billion internet users would come mainly from the developing world.<ref name="link4">[http://ec.europa.eu/news/science/090825_en.htm ec.europa.eu]</ref>
+In a paper titled "Internet Governance: Next Steps," the EU proposed that ICANN be handled by private bodies without any government intervention in its day-to-day activities, instead being governed according to the principles agreed upon by public authorities. The EC also called for international talks on Internet governance, realizing that the next billion Internet users would come mainly from the developing world.<ref name="link4">[http://ec.europa.eu/news/science/090825_en.htm ec.europa.eu]</ref>
 On September 30th, 2009, US government declared that ICANN would be governed by international parties. From then onwards, ICANN has been subject to independent review panels appointed by ICANN's [[Governmental Advisory Committee]] (GAC) and not solely to the review of [[DOC|US Department of Commerce]] (DOC). [[Viviane Reding]], the EU's Commissioner for Information Society and Media, welcomed the US administration’s decision, and said that "Internet users around the world can now anticipate ICANN’s decision as more independent and accountable."<ref>[http://www.eurunion.org/eu/2009-News-Rrleases/EUROPEAN-COMMISSION-WELCOMES-UNITED-STATES-MOVE-TO-MORE-INDEPENDENT-ACCOUNTABLE-INTERNATIONAL-INTERNET-GOVERNANCE.html eurunion.org]</ref>
@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 The papers themselves largely propose subordinating ICANN as an entitled policy-making body. Many see the publication of the papers as a response to the aforementioned dismissal of [[GAC]] recommendations by the ICANN board at [[ICANN 41]].<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/who_wrote_those_icann_papers_anyway_european_commission/ Whore Wrote these ICANN Papers Anyway European Commission, circleid.com]</ref> The papers take issue with a range of ICANN decisions and policies; from how they staff the organization, to the new [[gTLD]] program, to their handling of [[ccTLD]]s; as a whole they have been taken as a full assault on the organization's independent legitimacy, and its multi-stakeholder model.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html Blog.InternetGovernance.org]</ref>
 ====Paper 1====
 == References ==