You are here :
-
Public Consultations
-
Reference
-
Statistics
-
Publications
-
Blog
- Brands answer the call to the 2nd ‘Cercle des .marque’ event
- Analysis of the .RE
- About the attack on French ISPs’ DNS resolvers
- Using Afnic open data : example with the term COVID
- Hosting a domain name with compound characters
- Eligibility of a holder located in the United Kingdom post Brexit
- Can compound characters be used in a domain name?
- Functioning of Afnic during lockdown
- Which Top Level Domains have an IP address?
- Lala Andriamampianina, may you rest in peace
- Resolutions for 2020: Afnic goes elliptic
- 6 tips to prevent your website from being hacked
- In search of low-cost nTLDs
- Exploring the city through the .paris community
- .org - an alternative perspective
- Looking back on the success of the first meeting of the Cercle des .marque
- Key success factors for Internet extensions: an evaluation grid
- [Video] Conclusions on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) France 2019
- A brief example of using Afnic Open Data
- Food for thought on the "new TLD" business models
- 30 years of success and danger: the Web, URLs and the future
- [Success stories] Strengthen your infrastructure to suit your ambitions
- February 1, 2019: is the DNS going to shake?
- [Success stories] They chose to have their own TLD
- [Success stories] .museum, how a historic Internet suffix was revived
- The main steps in effectively launching your .brand
- 6 secrets on how to improve the renewal of domain names
- [Video] Back to IGF 2018 in Paris
- A .BRAND to enhance customer experience
- Afnic commits to DNS security at the international level
- Replacement of the KSK of the root zone: Are you ready?
- How the SNCF implemented its new digital strategy with oui.sncf
- Franco-Dutch research project on automatic classification of domain name abuse
- The auditive memorization of domain names
- What are the possible actions against domain name abuses?
- Identity theft by domain name: what Afnic does
- Cybersquatting, Spam, Phishing… the different types of domain name abuses
- [Video] Review of the French Internet Governance Forum 2018
- Custom Internet extensions: the opportunities for brands
- How to avoid inadmissibility in the SYRELI procedure
- Which English terms are most used in .FR domain names?
- Domain name security, the example of cryptocurrencies
- What are the terms most used in .fr domain names?
- Personality test: Are you ready for GDPR?
- Do GeoTLDs like .alsace have an effect on local SEO?
- The 11 vital locations to display your domain name!
- What means of action for a Right-holder ineligible under the Naming Policy?
- Domain name litigation: the recognition of an AOC rights in the SYRELI procedure
- Why choose a domain name under a geoTLD?
- Afnic, a community first and foremost!
- The defense of personality rights in the SYRELI procedure
- When will the next round of the new gTLDs take place?
- A million good reasons for coming to the Afnic Forum...
- Yeti DNS-over-TLS public resolver
- 2016, the beginning of a new cycle for Afnic
- .fr has just passed the 3 million domain names milestone
- My experience inside the Afnic Legal Department
- Future of ICANN Privatization? Internationalization? Supervision?
- Excellence at Afnic - Our coming-out
- Speech at the transmittal of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan
- Exclusive offer: 100% money back on your domain name*!
- 8 tips for choosing the right domain name
- IPv6 and DNSSEC are respectively 20 and 19 years old. Same fight and challenges?
- L.45-2 paragraph 1 of the CPCE: When a domain name disrupts the French law
- How to avoid getting your domain name stolen by email?
- Accountability and IANA transition: behind the scenes
- Stop selling domain names!
- abc.xyz : erratum.xyz
- A comprehensive approach to French regional branding
- abc.xyz : Meanwhile, back in France…
- abc.xyz: Why not alphabet.com? (The conspiracy theory version)
- abc.xyz : The controversial success of .xyz
- Corporate Communications, Constant Crisis
- abc.xyz : Why not alphabet.com ?
- alphabet.xyz : How Alphabet got its domain name
- abc.xyz : Don't worry, we're still getting used to the name too!
- IANA transition crosses a major milestone in Buenos Aires
- A day in the life of the Icann empowered community
- IANA transition : the machine is moving, but the deadline is approaching
- Corporate Social Responsibility and the DNA of ccTLDs
- China Changing in Leaps and Bounds
- Towards a less intrusive DNS
- ICANN: what does accountability stand for?
- ICANN Singapore. A debate at the other end of the world
- ICANN Reform, or opening Pandora's box
- Internet Governance Forum: What is to be done?
- Slam spam!
- Icann : freeze !
- Scams and identity theft, the experience of a SYRELI reporter
- French Regional Reform Does Not Mean the End of GeoTLDs
- Lessons Learnt from NETmundial
- Suggestions for a successful IANA transition
- Wind of change at Afnic!
- Back to the future of the Afnic Legal Service
- The US Backs ICANN for Internet Governance
- Should the registrars streamline their gTLD strategy?
- The IANA elephant in the room
- 2014 : change of course for the naming system
- Why do regions want a place online?
- What can Afnic do?
- Internet governance: let’s get to work!
-
FAQ
-
Glossary
-
Certificates
Internet governance: let’s get to work!
4 November 2013
Sébastien Bachollet, Member of the ICANN Excutive Board, goes over the 8th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), that took place in Bali:
At the 8th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which just ended in Bali (Indonesia), a number of meetings, both on and off the agenda, focused on the roles of the various parties involved in Internet governance by multiple stakeholders.
Three major events added spice to the forum, given its purpose is to deal with the development of Internet governance:
- the revelations by Edward Snowden on the role played by the NSA
- the reactions of the President of Brazil to these revelations, and finally,
- the publication of the Montevideo Statement calling for a multi-stakeholder coalition to be set up for Internet governance.
The first of the above events poses a more acute but fundamental question about the place of the U.S. government in the manner in which the Internet is managed and governed. It also makes the search for one (or more) alternatives [1] a more urgent issue.
The 10 organizations (or the I* organizations, namely the 5 Regional Internet registries (RIR) – AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, RIPE NCC – as well as the Internet Architecture Board, ICANN, IETF, Internet Society Worldwide and W3C) which manage on a day-to-day basis the technical issues involved in the operation of the Internet, issued a joint statement during the meeting of their leaders in Montevideo [2] in early October. In one of the points raised, "They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multi-stakeholder Internet cooperation." »
The President of Brazil appealed to the General Assembly of the United Nations to set up a multilateral solution (i.e. only at the level of governments and/or their international intergovernmental organizations).
Further to the Montevideo Statement, the ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had a meeting with President Dilma Rousseff in Brasilia, which resulted in a Brazilian proposal to hold a "summit" to take stock of the all the issues affecting the governance of the Internet with representatives of all the stakeholders from as many countries of the world as possible, early in May 2014 [3].
The objective of this "summit" is not to find solutions to each of the problems affecting the Internet, but to set up an open, multi-stakeholder framework allowing each of them to seek solutions. In other words, to develop a new model for Internet governance.
The role of the U.S. in Internet governance, the Montevideo Statement and the draft Summit in Brazil were therefore the center of many discussions in Bali.
During the IGF in Bali, the I* group organized various information and exchange meetings which were extended to include other Internet stakeholders. Participants from the private sector, civil society, government bodies and ccTLDs (including Afnic, which I represented in these discussions) were able to interact with I* leaders.
The aim is to set up a "coalition" of the main leaders and stakeholders in the Internet to find answers, so that genuinely multi-stakeholder solutions to each and all of the issues involved in the governance of the Internet can be implemented. The "coalition" will also be used to prepare for the meeting in Brazil, which should be co-hosted by several countries, launch an information campaign, as well as engage and encourage the participation all the stakeholders all around the world...
During these meetings, various speakers emphasized the following points that I have attempted to summarize as follows.
Since the WCIT [4] and the events in recent weeks, the "coalition of the willing", whose stated goal was to protect the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, with the U.S. government as a major player, has been weakened and has no alternative to offer.
So much so that today there is a real risk that Internet governance could fall under the (sole) control of intergovernmental organizations, leaving no room for civil society or the private sector.
Various topics related to Internet governance have no framework with which they can be dealt, at least no framework accepted by one and all. A number of these issues were addressed, such as spam, the defense of children and young people against online pornography, the use of collected data, to name but a few.
It is time to work on an alternative, both to the current form of multi-stakeholder governance that gives too much weight to a single state (the U.S.) and a purely UN solution which would exclude the non-governmental stakeholders who form the foundations for the operation of the Internet.
The next 18 to 24 months will be crucial for the defense of a truly multi-stakeholder model, and end the battle for influence currently being waged by and between States on the control of critical Internet resources.
So far, the I* organizations have set up meetings of their leaders to discuss the hot topics of the day and then the actions that might be undertaken by each member organization. It is high time that this circle be enlarged so that we can collectively and publicly take action in favor of open Internet based on a multi-stakeholder, distributed framework.
Finding one such framework that is acceptable and accepted by the greatest number, so that solutions can be found to the problems facing the Internet today, should be the goal of the meeting to be held in Brazil. The discussions should address the issues involved in the institutionalization of framework(s) that operate effectively and efficiently, as well as the decision-making process (from voting to consensus)...
The proposed solutions (blueprints) must be made before March 1, 2014. An independent high-level committee may be set up by the "coalition" to prepare a draft and/or review all of the proposals.
Many of these topics are being discussed as part of the creation of that "coalition", and will be central to the meeting in Brazil.
The French internet community will have its say, and Afnic, from my point of view, will have an important role in the organization of French debates on the development of the global governance of the Internet. A French forum on Internet governance is about to be set up, which will also address these issues.
In Bali, I could see that the positions of the various stakeholders involved in Internet Governance had quickly moved, after a period of virtual "cold war" dating back to the last World Summit on the Information Society at the United Nations. The combination of current events and the international calendar (ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, UN discussions on the organization of a new World Summit, etc.) mean there is an urgent need for in-depth analysis and consensus as wide as possible about how to set up a new form of Internet governance, that is inclusive and open to all of the stakeholders involved. If we fail to achieve that consensus, we shall be giving in to sterile confrontations between states, control by private lobbies, and bureaucratic calculations of international organizations. If we do not immediately and firmly commit to undertake discussions on the future of the Internet, we shall be letting others decide for us. French users and Internet stakeholders deserve better. Let’s get to work!
[1] We do not address here the issue of the role of the U.S. Department of Commerce in the management of the Internet root, which deserves an article by itself.
[4] The WCIT, organized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), was supposed adopt the international telecommunications treaty, and resulted in a clash between a coalition of countries led by the U.S., on the one hand, and most of the emerging and developing countries on the other. See in this respect Afnic's position at the time: https://www.afnic.fr/fr/l-afnic-en-bref/actualites/actualites-generales/6422/show/rti-l-afnic-en-appelle-a-une-clarification-du-role-de-l-uit-sur-internet.html
Commentaires :
Comments list (1454)
Sébastien Bachollet
![]() | Représentant des utilisateurs au conseil d’administration de l’Afnic (2013–2016) |
Participe aux réunions et aux travaux de l’ICANN depuis 2001. Membre du groupe de travail en charge de la réforme de l’Icann. Membre du Directoire de l’Icann de 2010 à 2014, élu par At-Large/Alac. Membre de Alac de 2017 à 2010 et de 2015 à 2017 – Utilisateur européen.
Is this domain
available ?
News
- December 10, 2020 Three major projects on the roadmap of the Afnic International College
- November 23, 2020 Lucien Castex has been reappointed as a member of the Multistakeholder Advisory ...
- November 17, 2020 Marianne Georgelin joins Afnic's Executive Committee as Legal Director
- November 16, 2020 ‘Je passe au numérique’: the Afnic initiative for VSEs/SMEs
- November 12, 2020 The Afnic Foundation announces its 2020 winners promoting an inclusive Internet ...