OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 70-80

INTERNET GOVERNANCE

Pedro Veiga

Full Professor at the Faculdade de Ciências (Universidade de Lisboa) and President of Fundação

para a Computação Científica Nacional (FCCN). He was the President of the College of Computing

of the Engineering Council and Manager of Programa Operacional Sociedade da Informação and a

member of the Mission Team for the Sociedade da Informação

Marta Dias

Jurist in charge of the area Comunicação&Imagem at Fundação para a Computação Científica

Nacional (FCCN). She has a postgraduate diploma in Administrative and Juridical Sciences. She

has worked at the administrative, financial, and legal departments of the Inspecção-Geral da

Educação and of the Direcção-Geral das Autarquias Locais

Abstract

It has now become quite obvious that the Internet has brought significant changes

to our society and a break on how we lived before its emergence. It is still too

early to assess the impact on society of the new services at our disposal, such as

the capacity to communicate faster and cheaper on a global scale, access

information and, perhaps more importantly, to produce and disseminate

information in a way that is accessible to all.

It is clear that the advent of the Information Society implies changes in our society

that constitute a point of no return. However, contrary to what happened when we

entered the Industrial Age about three centuries ago, when the changing process

was slow and led by older individuals, these days the entrance into the Information

Society is taking place rapidly and the decisive players are younger people.

The global nature of the Internet, the possibility of producing and distributing any

type of content in digital form at almost zero cost, as well as the vast number of

people who use the web, have highlighted the need for new forms of intervention

in a sector where there are many types of players. It is in this context that the

problem of Internet Governance becomes a very current issue, inasmuch as one

feels the need to guarantee a diversity of rights and duties, which may appear

difficult to reconcile.

This paper presents a brief overview of the main players and initiatives which, in

the field of Internet governance, have tried to contribute to turning this network

into a factor for social development and democraticity on a global scale.

Keywords

Governance; Internet; Security; Information Society; Privacy

How to cite this article

Veiga, Pedro; Dias, Marta (2010) "Internet Governance". JANUS.NET e-journal of

International Relations, N.º 1, Autumn 2010. Consulted [online] on date of last visit,

observare.ual.pt/janus.net/en_vol1_n1_art6

Article received in July 2010 and accepted for publication in September 2010

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 70-80

Internet Governance

Pedro Veiga e Marta Dias

INTERNET GOVERNANCE

Pedro Veiga e Marta Dias

1. Introduction

Internet governance can be defined as the development and application, by

governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared

principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the

evolution and use of the Internet1.

When referring to Internet governance, one cannot ignore the vital role played by a

group of organisations2, on a national and world scale, which deal with the issues and

problems that stem from it.

Of particular mention are the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

(ICANN), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the International Telecommunication

Union (ITU), the Internet Society (ISOC), the European Commission, and, at national

level, the entities responsible for the management of the country code top-level domain

(ccTLD)3.

However, it is not possible to understand Internet governance, or the principle on which

the Internet should be governed, without first explaining how it came about and

developed up to the present, and what is so good about it, which, in our opinion,

outweighs its less positive aspects.

Then, we shall attempt to explain that Internet governance is not underpinned by

mandatory and imposing actions and policies. Quite the opposite, from the very

beginning it has resorted to a participatory model where all players have a say. The

balance point is, thus, the compromise that is paramount to the safety and privacy of

each individual, and, equally, to a free, open Internet.

1 Original definition given by the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, in:

http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.pdf

2 UMIC – Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento, IP (Agency for the Knowledge Society) ensures,

through its President, Portugal’s representation at GAC – Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN –

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, at IGF – Internet Government Forum of The

United Nations, as well as , in the European Union, HLIG – High Level Group on Internet Governance.

3 In Portugal, ccTLD.pt is managed by FCCN, within the context of IANA - Internet Assigned Numbers

Authority (RFC 1032/3/4 e 159).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 70-80

Internet Governance

Pedro Veiga e Marta Dias

2. The technical invention of the Internet

The ideas leading to the origin of the Internet resulted from an applied research

project, which began in the 1960s and aimed to connect several computers in the USA

armed forces, to ensure the network had high tolerance to flaws. This requirement was

brought about by the Cold War political environment and it had the purpose of

guaranteeing that, even in case of potential war destroying many of this network’s

means of communication and computers, the remaining systems would continue to

communicate and support military logistic operations, albeit with some limitation of its

functions.

Given the poor communication capacity of telecommunication networks at the time, the

technology to be developed was expected to work well at low speed connections

(compared to now) and use a variety of means of telecommunication, land circuits, and

satellite connections.

These objectives were the decisive factors in conceiving this technology, which became

the core solution for connecting the main information systems, as well as the

communication technology that stands at the basis of the information society at the

beginning of the 21st century.

Nevertheless, it was, undoubtedly, the invention of the World Wide Web that gave the

Internet the capacity to present information in such a way that it contributed to its

expansion to the masses.

It enabled global access to information, which became increasingly presented in digital

format, and forced a change in the way individuals and economic agents interact

among themselves and with public administration.

3. The year of 1995 and the Internet for the public at large

The year of 1995 marked the beginning of the Internet for the general public. This

growth did not take place in a uniform manner in all countries. It first started in the

USA and the North of Europe and, subsequently, extended to other world regions.

Right from the outset, there was a perception that the Internet could be very important

as a tool for development, which went hand in hand with concerns regarding “who

controls the Internet?” There were two types of resources, in particular, that became

the focus of concern: domain names and IP addresses (numbers) used by Internet

computers.

With regard to domain names (i.e. http://www.parlamento.pt or http://www.cnn.com),

a peculiar situation arose. Whereas domains ending in two letters were the

responsibility of each country, corresponding to countries’ ISO codes, global domains

(.com, .org, .net, .edu) were managed and commercialised, in a monopoly system

granted by contract, to an American company, NSI – Network Solutions International.

The way domains and other technical aspects of the Internet were managed posed

several problems, of which the better known were: i) the need for global and generic

domains, called gTLDs (Generic Top-Level Domains); ii) cybersquatting, which was the

abusive appropriation of domains and the huge difficulty in managing this type of abuse

on a global scale; iii) lack of competitiveness in the commercialisation of existing gTLDs

on a world scale; iv) the fact the Internet was dominated by the English language, a

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 70-80

Internet Governance

Pedro Veiga e Marta Dias

technical reminiscence of the 7 bits ASCII code, which did not allow the representation

of all the characters in the Portuguese language, but was even much more serious in

the case of non-Latin languages; v) the stable system of Internet protocol addresses

distribution (IP and other protocol addresses); vi) the technical stability and the safety

of the resolution of names and domains support infrastructure.

The European Union was aware of the economic and social importance of the Internet,

and started contacts and negotiations with the USA government, which, during the

Clinton administration, triggered off a series of political moves aiming to create a new

era in the way the Internet was managed. The initial concerns, predominantly of a

technical nature, were followed by a series of measures we shall now analyse.

4. The setting up of the ICANN

The ICANN4 (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) was set up

following a few failed attempts to create procedures appropriate to the expansion of the

Internet, supported by mechanisms ensuring its geographic and cultural diversity,

democraticity, technical stability, and independence from economic interests.

On 25 November 1998, the Department of Commerce of the USA, on behalf of the

American Government, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the

recently founded ICANN. Basically, this MoU had a fundamental objective: to carry out

the transfer of the management of the Domain Names System (DNS) to the private

sector, that is, a not-for profit corporation, thus freeing it from alleged ties to the USA

government.

After a series of addenda to this MoU, the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) was only

signed in 2006. In practice, it reaffirmed ICANN‘s responsibilities regarding a set of

goals established in the beginning, the most important being the effort to establish

competition in the services registering domain names for gTLDS (Generic Top Level

Domain System), including the implementation of new TLDs (Top Level Domains), the

development of a policy to resolve dispute and conflict in the registration of TLDs

(Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy), the establishment of formal

agreements with entities responsible for the management of distinct TLDs, the

implementation of a financial strategy capable of ensuring the sustainability of the

actual organization and, particularly, the technical management of the DNS, where

ICANN operated together with IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority).

On 5 June 2008, Viviane Reding, then European Commissioner for the Information

Society and the Media, contended that: “The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names

and Numbers is reaching an historical milestone in its development. Will it become a

fully independent and responsible organisation for the Internet’s world community? This

is what the European expects and this is what we shall defend. I invite the United

States to work with the European Union to attain this goal”.

Eleven years after the process started, the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) was

signed on 30 September 2009, a date considered historical in Internet governance.

Several principles were agreed: the management of the Internet shall be carry out by a

not-forprofit private organisation, in a bottom-up manner, and the multi-stakeholder

4 http://www.icann.org/

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 70-80

Internet Governance

Pedro Veiga e Marta Dias

structure will be open, transparent, and independent. This set of prerogatives was

explicitly and unquestionably conferred to ICANN.

Nowadays, ICANN stands as an institution turned to the future and able to take on the

challenges formalised by the AoC. It represents public and private organisations,

governments and governmental agencies, companies, the Internet technical

community, Internet services suppliers, registrars, registries, registrants, and the civil

society itself.

ICANN, thus, relies on a governance model that is networked, global, and open, and

aims to balance the various interests involved in the management of the several

technical aspects connected to Internet management.

ICANN is based on the group of entities that form it, of which the most important are:

the Board and its president, several supporting organizations (SO), and a CEO

responsible for its operational structure. The members of the Board are elected

according to geographical regions for one, two, or three-year mandates, with the aim of

ensuring widespread representation and diversity. The geographic regions are: Africa,

North America, Latin America and Caribbean, Asia, and Europe.

Although it is acknowledged that many Internet-related issues are of public interest,

ICANN deals with the role of governments in a particular and innovative manner, with

all the controversy associated to it. There is an advisory body called Government

Advisory Committee (GAC) that prepared the guidelines and opinions that are taken

into consideration by the Board in its decision-making process. These reports are

written by own initiative or at the request of the of ICANN's president. The role of GAC

was amply strengthened in the AoC in terms of decision-making processes of a political

and strategic nature, and also in the actual technical coordination of DNS.

There are several supporting organisations: ccNSO (Country Code Name Supporting

Organisation), GNSO (Global Names Supporting Organisation), ASO (Address

Supporting Organisation) and At-Large. At-Large is the name given to those who aim to

represent Internet individual users worldwide and wish to contribute to ICANN’s political

orientations.

ICANN’s agenda, the result of contributions by its several supporting organizations, is

currently focused on Internet safety and stability – DNSSEC and eCrime -, on the

launching of new gTLDs; on IDNs for ccTLDs and gTLDs; on the transition from IPv4 to

IPv6, and on issues regarding the WHOIS system.

ICANN has been acting on several fronts but has pursued a set of stronger measures,

of which the following stand out: internationalisation of the management and technical

operations of the Internet, representation equity of all geographic areas, and the safety

and stability of the Internet’s core infrastructure.

5. Global challenges

The years between 1995 and 2000 confirmed the importance of the Internet as a tool

for development. There was also a perception that, besides the global technical aspects

that ICANN had started to address, there were many others that needed to be debated,

in a world that was becoming increasingly global.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 70-80

Internet Governance

Pedro Veiga e Marta Dias

WSIS – World Summit on the Information Society - is a United Nations initiative

organised around two conferences that took place in 2003 (Geneva), and in 2005

(Tunis). The conferences aimed to overcome the digital divide between rich and poor

countries and discuss how the information society can be a core tool for development,

improved life standards, and sustained development.

The Declaration of the Principles of Geneva and the Action Plan (ITU website) were the

first documents that identified the major guidelines the world community saw as being

of relevance. The documents approved in Tunis – The Tunis Compromise – and,

particularly, the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, defined a series of

objectives and ways to attain them. It is not possible, in the present paper, to describe

the diversity and scope of the identified objectives, given the cultural nature and

diversity of the communities involved. Some of them ended up as statements of good

will, rather than concrete measures that can be followed up on a global scale.

However, we would like to stress that there is a general awareness that we have

entered the age of the Information Society, and that this fact brings huge

opportunities, particularly for developing countries. It also brings to the foreground a

series of older challenges that need to be overcome, especially those related to

communication infrastructures and the training of individuals to fight the digital divide.

Particular emphasis is being given to the effort that needs to be made to include

traditionally excluded groups whenever there are paradigm breaks, such as women, the

elderly, migrants, the disabled, particularly because there is a perception that these

groups may benefit the most from the Information Society.

Among the Key Principles of the Tunis Agenda, the following stand out: investment in a

multi-stakeholder model for the development of the Information Society;

acknowledgement of the major role played by the private sector in making

infrastructures available and of the role of the media in a knowledge-based society;

raising awareness of the need for increased cooperation between public and private

bodies to address the fact that safety issues are global and critical to ensure users trust

the use of the Internet and information technologies.

This multi-stakeholder model relies on the collaboration, involvement, and sharing of

responsibility among governments, the private sector in its distinct forms, the civil

society where NGOs play a decisive role, and citizens.

Some of the numerous examples stipulated in the Tunis Agenda as factors in

development include access to information and knowledge, enabling people to benefit

from the information society, creation of safe and trustworthy environments, protection

of intellectual property rights, the need to invest in research and development, the

possibility of using ICT in new sectors such as health, even at a distance, maintaining

the Internet’s multicultural facet and using it to preserve cultural heritage.

After 2005, the Tunis Agenda has been followed up on a yearly basis by annual

meetings of the Internet Governance Forum - IGF5. So far meetings have taken place in

Athens (2006), Rio de Janeiro (2007), Hyderabad (2008), Sharm-el-Sheik (2009), and

Vilnius (2010). Although IGF’s mandate comes to an end this year, it may continue its

agenda up to 2015, a decision the UN will make at the end of the year. However, the

work and reflections already carried out in, for instance, cybercrime, privacy, freedom

5 http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 70-80

Internet Governance

Pedro Veiga e Marta Dias

of speech, and the most critical resources in the Internet must be underlined. Another

vital issue for many regions in the globe is access to the Information Society. Either

due to cost or lack of infrastructures, there are still millions of individuals worldwide

who are deprived from access to it. Accordingly, one of the areas where a lot of effort

has been made, but which is also one of the most difficult to resolve, is that involving

access to communication structures, which is closely connected to the next steps:

access to equipments (computers or similar) and digital world literacy.

On a European level, increased attention is being paid to the problems regarding

Internet governance. Europe is probably the region in the world where we find more

structured thoughts on the topic. EuroDIG6 (European Dialogue on Internet

Governance), which is a forum for debating these issues, was created to discuss the

current and future challenges the Internet is bringing into the agenda of the European

society.

6. Legal issues of the global network

Awareness of the power and growth of the Internet led to the alleged need for its

governance. When talking about governance, the law is the first ruling instrument,

followed by crime police bodies and, in the last instance, the courts. On this issue,

there are two opposing views. One that defends that Internet governance is a safety

imperative, and that safety can only be guaranteed if there is regulation and sanctions’

control. The other position defends that governance is anti-natural and that, in its

most radical stance, it represents a tool for Internet censorship.

Among us, the prevailing view is for minimum governance combining individual

freedom with the necessary privacy, safety, and respect for rights, liberties, and

guarantees of each individual and people in general.

The protection of personal data, the defence of intellectual property and associated

rights, the fight against cybercrime, the protection of minors, who are considered to be

particularly vulnerable in their daily use of Web resources, particularly social networks,

the rights of consumers in general, the potential constraints in commercial access to

Internet services and corresponding regulation by the competent authorities in each

country, constitute a few of the touchstones when referring about the legal aspects of

the Internet.

Within the Internet, the borders become blurred or simply disappear, and international

law not always has the answers to the issues that arise. In addition, at a national level,

there is either no specific law or, when it exists; there may be doubts as to its

enforcement.

With regard to protection of personal data7, the National Committee for Data

Protection, as the national entity for control of personal information, has launched

several awareness-raising campaigns to draw people’s attention to the dangers of

circulation of personal data on the Internet. The applicable legal system restrains the

6 http://www.eurodig.org

7 Law no 67/98 of 26 October – the Law for the Protection of Personal Data defines personal data as

follows: any type of information, regardless of its nature and form it is presented, including sound and

image, pertaining to an identified or identifiable person («data holder»); anyone who can be directly or

indirectly identified, namely through reference to an identification number or one or more specific aspects

of his physical, physiological, psychic, economic, cultural or social features is considered to be identifiable;

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 70-80

Internet Governance

Pedro Veiga e Marta Dias

possibility of data processing to two specific situations: those resulting from the law,

and those stemming from the express free and informed consent of each individual.

Apart from these two situations, we have a muddy field that deserves and awaits legal

regulation. This is where vagueness arises, when, for instance, the applicable legal

system is that of a country where simply there may not be a law regulating personal

data protection. This is the case in the USA, for example, where the accountability

model prevails, in detriment of personal data protection, which we have in countries

like Portugal or Germany.

In 1991, the Computer Crime Law (LCI) was approved as per Law no. 109/91 of 17

August. This law followed the Recommendation 89/9 of the European Council and

adopted the non-compulsory list of crimes listed in the Recommendation, such as:

computer fraud; damage regarding data or computer programmes; computer

sabotage; illegal access; illegal interception and reproduction of protected programmes.

The penalties for basic crimes ranged from imprisonment up to 3 years, except in the

case of qualified crimes, when sentences could be up to 10 years imprisonment (in the

case of informatics sabotage). The Computer Crime Law also foresaw the criminal

responsibility of companies practising this type of crime (as well as several accessory

crimes), with managers and the actual companies being considered responsible. The

national legal system went even further, and the Criminal Code established the legal

system regarding computer fraud where, contrary to what happens with the LCI,

companies are not considered to be accountable.

Meanwhile, on 23 November 2001, Portugal joined the Cybercrime Convention, whose

main goal was to standardise the national legal systems of member states of the

European Union with regard this type of crime, as well as to make international

cooperation and crime investigation easier.

On 15 September 2009, Law no. 109/2009, also known as Cybercrime Law, was

published. This new law set out the material and procedural penal dispositions, and

those on international cooperation on crime matters, regarding cybercrime and the

collection of evidence in electronic format. It transposed into the Portuguese legal

system the Council Framework Decision no. 2005/222/JHA on attacks on information

systems, adapting internal law to the Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of

Europe. The Computer Crime Law, which had been in force for a long time, was, thus,

revoked. On the same day the Cybercrime Law was published, the Convention on

Cybercrime was also approved and ratified (eight years later), as well as the Additional

Protocol to The Convention on Cybercrime Concerning the Criminalisation of Acts of a

Racist and Xenophobic Nature Committed Through Computer Systems, adopted in

Strasbourg on 28 January 2003. This law implemented what Portugal committed to do

as part of the Cybercrime convention. It is an instrument for international cooperation

as it allows over 40 countries to adopt a similar legal system regarding Cybercrime and

electronic collection of evidence on matters of attack against information systems.

This new law brings a new element, in that it sets out types of new crimes that aim to

deal with new Internet paradigms, such as the crime of phishing. Now, the mere

propagation of computer viruses is punished. Even in the absence of computer

damages, Courts may rule the handing over of objects, equipments or devices to the

State, if they were used for the practice of crimes listed. This is a law applicable to

computers crimes, crimes committed by electronic means, or illicit acts whose evidence

is kept electronically. To further stress the points made in this paper, this law

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 70-80

Internet Governance

Pedro Veiga e Marta Dias

underlines and formalises, explicitly and unequivocally, the role of international

cooperation. This is set out over six articles that establish the ways and means the

competent national authorities cooperate with their international counterparts. It

further contemplates the preservation and quick release of computer data for purposes

of criminal investigation, with rigorous deadlines for their safekeeping. On this matter,

cooperation extends beyond law enforcement officers and includes providers of

electronic communications services. Lastly, as part of the general law applicable,

whenever it does not oppose the Cybercrime Law, crimes, procedural measures, and

cooperation shall be ruled by dispositions set out in the Criminal Code, the Criminal

Procedural Code and Law no. 144/99, of 31 August. The fact that treatment of personal

data must be regulated by the dispositions contained in Law 67/98, of 26 October, is

further strengthened.

In short, to state that the legislative body has its back turned on the Internet, is to

ignore current legal legislation. However, the slow pace of law enforcement continues

to be a major challenge.

As it is not possible to mention extensively the entire legal framework in this paper, we

shall mention just a few dispositions of the Fundamental Law: the Portuguese

Constitution. Examples include Article 35, no. 6, which states: “access to public

computer networks is open to everyone (…)”. Article 37 establishes freedom of

expression and of information, and its wording states that everyone can freely express

his/her thoughts by any means without impediments or discrimination.

Given that, in general, legal norms may not prevail over the fundamental principles of

the democratic Rule of Law protected by the Constitution, the dichotomy

safety/freedom is easy to understand, as well as the need to balance out these values

when referring to Internet governance.

We have referred to the role of particular bodies regarding Internet governance,

stressing the importance of national registries in the management of each country’s

ccTLDs. We shall now briefly assess what has been done in Portugal on this matter.

Between 1991 and 1996, the registration of names under the domain .pt was based

exclusively on technical grounds. With the increase in the number of registrations, the

first rules on registration of .pt domains came about in 1996, still quite incipient and

adapted to the needs of the time, when the main concern was fighting cybersquatting.

The Resolution of the Council of Ministers no. 69/97 of 5 May clarified, within the

Portuguese legal system, the spread, and the terms of the responsibility and role of

FCNN, and conferred to the Ministry of Science and Technology the competences “to

settle all potential divergences between FCNN and those requesting or benefiting from

all Portuguese specific domains or sub-domains.”

The DNS Advisory Council of .pt was subsequently created, as a consultative body

formed by renowned entities in the areas of the Internet, intellectual and industrial

property, and telecommunications, which are asked to propose and give opinions on

any changes to the applicable regulations. This model is an example of what nowadays

is regarded as the basis of “good” Internet governance, as it has a multi-stakeholder

composition where entities such as INPI – Instituto Nacional da Propriedade

Industrial/National Institute for Industrial Property, Associação Portuguesa para a

Defesa do Consumidor – DECO/Portuguese Association for the Protection of

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 70-80

Internet Governance

Pedro Veiga e Marta Dias

Consumers; ANACOM – Autoridade Nacional de Comunicações/National Authority for

Telecommunications, Direcção Geral do Consumidor/Consumers Directorate-General,

APREGI – Associação de Prestadores de Registos de Domínios e

Alojamento/Association of Domains and Accommodation Sites Providers/APREGI are

represented, as well as highly reputable bodies in the field of the Internet.

When the impact of the Internet and the legal and economic value of domain names

became fully acknowledged at the end of the 1990s, FCCN, as a .pt Registry, published

a new regulation with the purpose of facilitating and accommodating .pt registrations

according to their activity and target audience. As a result, the following classifiers

were created: .org.pt, .publ.pt, .gov.pt, .net.pt, .name.pt, .int.pt, .edu.pt, .com.pt (the

latter had no registration restrictions, which made access to domain name registration

easier, which in fact did happen, making it the first choice in name registration,

immediately after the registration .pt.

The rules on .pt domain name registration were reviewed again in 2003. The most

important change was the introduction of an arbitration system for the resolution of

conflict in domain names, the abolition of some prohibitions, and a reduction on the

price of submitting and maintaining domains. These measures fostered an increase in

the number of registrations under TLD.PT. A new alteration in 2006 consolidated a set

of principles: the pursuit of a policy that aims to prevent speculative and abusive

registration of .pt domain names, in conformity with best practice, including World

Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO recommendations, resorting to an extra-

judicial litigation solving policy – arbitration process; the possibility of registering

domains/sub-domains with special characters of the Portuguese alphabet; the correct

configuration and operation of the prime server of the zone DNS PT, and the priority

assumption of safety in that operation, with the implementation of DNSSEC

extensions. The new regulation for the registrations of .pt domains has been in force

since 1 July 2010, characterised by increased flexibility of the sub-domains .com.pt and

.org.pt, increased safety for .pt, and the formal adoption of the arbitration centre

ARBITRARE8 for resolution of conflicts in this field.

Final Notes

The dissemination of the digital society is one of flags of the Strategy Europe 2010,

launched in March by the European Commission, which, on 19 May 2010, published a

Digital Agenda with one hundred measures and a calendar for implementation up to

2015. The Agenda is divided in seven priority areas, including the creation of a single

digital market, increased interoperability, and reinforcement of trust in the Internet and

its safety, and much quicker access to the Internet for all citizens.

The growing role the Internet is playing in our society has led to increasing involvement

of governments in the distinct areas of this network. Whereas some governments

express their concern regarding the economic and social impact of the network, and

defend its use as a tool for development and democraticity, others attempt to control it

to impair its use for political purposes that oppose their own interests. It is within this

huge and diverse world that Internet governance moves about, aiming to follow

8 http://www.arbitrare.pt. ARBITRARE is an institutional arbitration centre with authority to solve conflicts

on industrial property, companies and pt. domains denominations and names.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 1, n.º 1 (Autumn 2010), pp. 70-80

Internet Governance

Pedro Veiga e Marta Dias

innovative approaches that ensure a growing use of the network amidst safety,

stability, and universal span.

List of Acronyms

ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

gTLD – Generic Top-Level Domain

ccTLD – Country Code Top-Level Domain

ITU – International Telecommunications Union

ISOC – Internet Society

IGF – Internet Governance Forum

EuroDIG – European Dialogue on Internet Governance

IPv4 - Internet Protocol Version 4

IPv6 – Internet Protocol Version 6