In this video, Schneier frames the IoT as: “a global decentralized robot called the Internet.” In our view, this robot is run mainly by Internet governance. Internet security and governance issues will be the same in the Internet of things but the governance and security issues will have much higher, physical effects. Although Schneier mentions the global, decentralized and distributed nature of the Internet (which has shaped its governance) yet he puts forward an old idea that doesn’t seem to fit the Internet governance structure: a regulatory agency for IoTs. After watching this video, we could ask: to what extent things will be subject to Internet governance, which includes security governance, in the future;how will Internet governance evolve in response to the influx of things connected to the Internet; will we need new Internet governance structures to maintain Internet security in things?
The impact of ICANN’s U.S. jurisdiction has been a subject of intense debate. Some say it doesn’t matter, some say it does. The time to provide evidence of domain name related problems caused by ICANN’s jurisdiction has arrived. If your domain names were confiscated because you live in a country sanctioned by the U.S., or you had trouble applying for new gTLDs, or you faced other domain name related issues because of ICANN’s jurisdiction, now is the time to come forward and tell your stories to an ICANN working group on jurisdiction. You can review and respond to the questions asked by the group at this link https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire. The deadline for submissions is 17 April 2017.
This is a great opportunity to fix the jurisdictional problems through an ICANN process. And it is the most realistic and achievable way. If you do not want to disclose your name you can contact IGP at firstname.lastname@example.org with your story and we will relay your message to the jurisdiction group for consideration. But please provide as much verifiable public information as possible.
Remember: if you do not report your issues, ICANN and the community will not be able to solve them.
IGP led two thought-provoking discussions of the relationship between cybersecurity and Internet governance in Brussels last week. An event at the Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS) opened with Milton Mueller’s thoughts on “Cybersecurity as an Internet governance problem,” followed by Jan Neutze’s talk on Microsoft’s call for a Digital Geneva Convention. At RightsCon, a conference attended by 1,300 human rights advocates and analysts from civil society,
government and business, IGP’s Milton Mueller and Karl Grindal held a debate with Sandro Gaycken of the ESMT Digital Society Institute and European Commission Director Megan Richards. With Australia’s Cyber-Ambassador Tobias Feakin as moderator, the debate considered the proposition: “Cybersecurity governance mechanisms that are transnational, rooted in nonstate actors and relatively open should be favored over solutions based on national states and intergovernmental organizations.” Some highlights of these discussions are set out below.