“Every government that responded to the survey either manages, retains direct control, or is contemplating formalizing its relationship with its ccTLD, (country-code-top-level domain),”. This was one of the main findings of a new study jointly carried out by Mr. Michael Geist, who is currently Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
The study casts doubt on the perception that governments are not already active participants on Internet governance issues. “Governments commonly view their national domain names as critical public resources that must be subject to government oversight,” Mr. Geist pointed out.
The study surveyed all 189 ITU member states on the role of national governments within their domestic ccTLD. Those who responded to the survey were 56 countries representing every global region as well as a broad cross-section of developed and developing countries.
When asked about governmental involvement with their ccTLD, 47 percent of responding governments said they retain ultimate control over their ccTLD by either running the domain as a public entity or enacting legislation granting themselves control over its administration. Meanwhile, 25 percent of the respondents to the survey revealed that they have already taken steps to assert ultimate authority over their national ccTLD.
In addition, 20 percent of respondents said they were considering formalizing their relationship with their ccTLD and expected that relationship to change in the future.
However, only 7 percent of governments indicated they had no role in their ccTLD and had no plans to alter the present situation.
On the other hand, the study uncovered striking differences among the governments concerning their commercial approaches from their national ccTLDs.
“The difference in approach often has a significant impact on both commercial and policy priorities,” Mr. Geist noted.
Responding governments with public ccTLDs consistently ranked the public interest and the protection of intellectual property rights as top priorities, while the number of domain names registrations was viewed as the least critical priority. As the ccTLDs move toward increasing commercialization, priorities begin to invert as the public interest and intellectual property protection diminish in importance, while the number of domain name registrations increase in priority.
Mr. Geist believes that this finding is supported by the fact that public ccTLDs are far more likely to include restrictions on domain name registrations limiting access to the domain to registrants who comply with national presence requirements.
Those domains, the study stated, appear willing to forego larger registration numbers in favor of protecting the public interest by including limitations on registrations designed to preserve the national character of a ccTLD.
“With governments actively participating in the Internet regulatory and policy process at home, they were bound to demand similar involvement internationally,” Mr. Geist concluded.