I participated in a public hearing in Brussels last week on the Future of Internet Governance. The hearing brought together representatives from Internet players such as ISOC, ICANN, IGF, CENTR etc. with business and civil society representatives to gather inputs on key questions posed by The Commission. These will inform its ‘official’ position on Internet Governance, which should be announced shortly.

Viviane Reding, EU-Commissioner for Information Society and Media, released her personal thoughts on the subject via a video message and press release earlier in the week. She called for a new governance model for the Internet that would include a fully privatised ICANN, as well as a “G12 for Internet Governance.” This confused people somewhat as they believed Viviane’s views and the EU Commission’s views were one and the same. This is clearly not the case and the timing of the statement in advance of the hearing was rather unfortunate (!).

Having said that, many agreed with Reding’s view that ICANN should be independent of the US Government, provided that ICANN accountability can be fully established. However, the notion of ICANN being answerable to an “Internet G12” was not popular. It just would not be suitable for a small group of only twelve selected Governments to set global Internet policies.

At the hearing itself, there was strong support for the continuation of the IGF and numerous interventions about ICANN, particularly in view of the status of the Joint Project Agreement. There were some suggestions that there should be a new Internet Governance model for a new era of the Internet, with some pushing for  an over-arching inter-governmental role. I cannot yet understand why new would necessarily be better.  Surely it would be easier to identify what the issues are and how they can be better addressed, rather than seek new structures.

It is widely recognised that the Internet is now fundamantal to global economies and therefore governments have a strong interest and a role to play going forward. But it is important to also recognise that the usual timescales for government and inter-government actions, the difficulty of developing effective legislation and the international nature of many of the issues, just do not fit easily with the nature of the Internet.

Therefore, no single universal regulatory or purely inter-governmental global oversight can ever align itself successfully with the diversity and sheer pace of change in this sector. The only model of global  Internet Governance that will achieve this is one that allows all concerned to work together, through multi-stakeholder participation and partnerships.

Participation is really key and more Governments and stakeholders need to be much more involved so that Internet Governance is truly representative of our worldwide and multi-stakeholder Internet community. If the people who attended the hearing are an indication, there are certainly lots of issues for all participants to talk about.

I joined Nominet in 1999. This was the year that: Nominet turnover was £1.6m (it’s now almost £20m), there were 883 Nominet members (there are now 2,825), there were 28 staff (there are now 120) and there were 236,000 registrations (there are now 7,500,000).

I remember being asked by Dr Willie Black and Keith Mitchell, two of the Nominet Founders, in my job interview whether I was up for a challenge and whether I was used to change. I believe I answered “Yes” to both questions. 1999 was certainly a challenging time to start. My first few months saw a group of members advocating the privatisation of Nominet, moving the company to new offices (I recall someone moving the nameservers in the back of his car) and my challenge of developing forecasting almost from scratch, to predict domain name growth, scaling costs and financials. This became known as ‘the spreadsheet from hell’ and we calculated that if the register grew in line with forecasts we would need an extra 140 staff just to process reply forms! There was also my very first ICANN meeting of many and the first ever meeting of the Nominet Policy Advisory Body.

The challenges have continued (mostly unabated) since then. Some of the more difficult ones have been the attack on our WHOIS in 2003 which resulted in the Australian Court Case and the more recent attempts to change the Nominet constitution.

However, the good times have far outweighed the difficult times in the last 10 years. There have been lots of awards, such as Best Companies to work for, Best in-house legal team and the award for our customer support, to name but a few. We’ve also made huge changes and improvements to our systems and services,  created the Nominet Trust, the Best Practice Challenge awards and have been able to play more of an active and leading role in Internet governance and development.

People sometimes ask what my/our motivations are for doing all this. Apart from loving the Internet and what we do, our motivations are set out in the Nominet vision and mission statements. The Nominet vision is of a world where the Internet is a trusted place, which everyone can be part of and has a positive impact on people’s lives and our mission is to make a positive difference to UK Internet users and to shape the development of the Internet. These two statements show the way ahead for the next 10 years. The one thing that is certain is that we’re in uncertain times. However, I’m sure that the next 10 years will be just as challenging and as full of change as the last 10 years.

There has been a bit of an awards theme to my diary the last couple of weeks……

Firstly, I was delighted to hear that Nominet has retained both our Investors in People accreditation and our Best Companies to work for star, which means that we keep our entry in the guide to great places to work in the UK. Both awards recognise the professionalism of our managers and people and the time and investment that we make to ensure that we are able to recruit, train and retain great people - so that we can continue to deliver great services. Whilst it’s nice to have some more trophies for the cabinet, the real reward is knowing that we benchmark very well against other organisations. These awards also raise our profile, make it easier for us to attract good staff, ensure that our training investment is aligned with our strategic plans and also that communication with our people remains a priority – all things that are particularly important in these challenging times.

Last week, we launched our third annual Best Practice Challenge.  We’re hoping to recognise those in the UK who have embraced the challenge of making the Internet a more secure, open, accessible or diverse experience for us all. The award winners will be showcased at this year’s Internet Governance Forum and have the chance to share their work to a wide audience, both within the UK and internationally, as well as receiving great recognition and a real sense of pride.

This week, I went to the Institute of Credit Management awards dinner. I’ve been an ICM member for many years, so I was delighted to be asked to judge their awards this year. Little did I realise how difficult a job that would be, but the reward was seeing the actual winners, who were so obviously thrilled to be recognised. I particularly liked the Unsung Hero award, which was a very popular and hard-fought category. It strikes me that many more industries have unsung heroes who could do with a little bit more recognition.

Finally, a plug for the First Women Awards, which were also launched last week. These seek to recognise UK women who have broken new ground in business life – genuine trailblazers and pioneers/glass ceiling breakers. As a previous winner, I’m honoured to be judging the awards this year and we’re looking for nominees in the following categories: manufacturing, tourism & leisure, finance, science & technology, media, retail & consumer, property, public sector, business services. These awards celebrate all that is good about the roles women have in business and the positive attributes they bring. I’d recommend entering - with the reward of a real opportunity to make a lasting and positive difference to other women in business, another thing that is so important in these challenging times.

I’m always cynical when a management blog is silent on the current challenges facing a company, particularly when they are covered in the media.

We’ve had snow storms this week in the UK, so there is much talk about storms. It strikes me that some might view the current issues at Nominet as a storm in a teacup – a small event that has been exaggerated out of all proportion. Not unsurprisingly, I don’t agree. I think that the storm has already had a significant effect on Nominet and it could well have far reaching implications for both Nominet and our Registrars. I do hope (but I’m not sure) that all involved would agree that our current governance model and all that it entails needs to change in some way in order to reflect the role that we have and the environment that we operate in. The independent governance review is due soon, so we’re waiting to see how much change is recommended.

However, I believe that this is just a part of the bigger picture of the national and international Internet Governance debate, which is set to come to a head this year. If anything, Nominet represents one minor development in this area, which, I believe, is heading towards a perfect storm – a (far from perfect) combination of events, which will ultimately change the Internet landscape.

Let me attempt to explain…..as briefly as I can:

Firstly, I see the need for change being signalled in the regulatory climate in the UK. It is well known that the UK Government has been very supportive of self-regulation in our industry. However, I do hear statements about the representation of end-user interests and the protection of end-users much more frequently than ever before. As an industry, we often respond to these statements by saying “better user education and information is the answer”. Whilst that may well help, we are going to have to accept this may not be the only answer, or one that will fully deliver. So, its currently up to the UK internet industry to figure-out how we are going to ensure that end-users are at the heart of our self-regulatory regime, otherwise regulation or legislation is inevitable. For example, the recent Digital Britain report signals possible legislation compelling ISPs to notify infringers of third party rights, and keep anonymised data, which seems to indicate a view that self-regulation has failed on this point. If self-regulation is perceived to falter in the UK, which has championed an industry lead, we can expect that more interventionist governments (both within and outside the European Union) will capitalise on this, and may use it as an excuse for heavy regulation.

Secondly, I see change being signalled at the European level, with the EU review of the regulatory framework potentially giving member states the power to regulate the Internet, particularly around quality of service to end-users.

Thirdly, I see change being signalled by the US Government in its approach to Internet governance, particularly with the recent change in administration. There is also an end-user needs theme here and in the context of the new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD)  process, the US Department of Commerce recommends that ICANN should give greater consideration to consumer interests before creating new gTLDs and renewing registry agreements. I do have a lot of empathy with ICANN - like in Nominet, it must feel as though you just can’t please anyone at times. But with so many concerns being raised about the new gTLD process, I’d be surprised if the US is able to agree to the transition of ICANN to the private sector when the Joint Project Agreement expires later this year. Although there remains much support for removing the ‘oversight’ of ICANN from one single government, there is little consensus on what oversight should replace that of the US. I predict that some governments will therefore push even more strongly for inter-governmental oversight of ICANN.

Finally, we are coming to a crucial stage in the life of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The review of the forum has already begun and is due to report in early 2010. We view this five-year experiment in global multi-stakeholder dialogue as being very successful. The UK IGF and the Nominet Best Practice challenge have helped to ensure that the UK has great involvement in the IGF and that there are real life contributions to inform the policy debate. Whilst some would have liked the IGF to be a negotiating and decision making process, it has worked well as a space for the development of policy dialogue and the sharing of best practices. What seems to have escaped many is that this form of engagement is an innovative experiment for the UN, in that it seeks to engage all regions and all participants in policy dialogue. If that experiment is not seen to be working, there will be suggestions for alternative replacements.

I do think that there is an urgent need for greater awareness of the international issues facing the industry if we’re to avoid the storms, together with a more widespread commitment to developing both understanding and innovative solutions.

Where can we start? Well, we will all need to accept greater responsibility for finding solutions going forwards. This will require much better participation and engagement from all involved. There also remains a huge need for better dialogue, better participation, better understanding and better solutions in the interests of end-users. All too often I hear people talking to each other, but not actually listening. I also see vested interest battle-lines being drawn, without the acknowledgement that real progress will need real compromise and new ways of moving forward. This would be a good basis on which to start preventing new storms, whether they are small or large, from developing.

Owners of .tel domains will be able to populate them with their contact details, such as their phone numbers, email addresses or GPS data and store this information directly into the Domain Name System.  The data is then displayed in a standard way for anyone visiting the .tel address, no matter what browser or device they are using.

Owners of .tel domains will be able to manage their contact details via a simple dashboard and include as much or as little information as they want to.

The “sunrise” phase for trademark owners to get domains related to their brands begins today, followed by a “landrush” phase open to anyone starting on 3 February 2009. The final general availability phase starts on 24 March 2009 when the domain will be open to all comers.

There will be a number of factors that have an impact on the success of .tel, most importantly how businesses react to this new top level domain (TLD).  Businesses will need to be aware of the potential uses of .tel and how it can work for them.  They should have a clear and robust domain name strategy in place, so that when new TLDs such as these (and there may be potentially many more coming with the new ICANN process for allocating TLDs opening up next year) come onto the market they are ready for them.

As can be seen from data within our recent domain name industry report the challenge for new top level domains is to serve a particular market need, increasing their usage over time and thus sustaining long-term popularity.  For instance, our report revealed that 81% of UK SMEs choose .uk as their primary web address and consumers choose to visit a .uk site because it shows a business is local and trusted. It will be interesting to track the success of .tel.

Here at Nominet, we are saddened by the tragic events in Mumbai over the past week and offer our sympathies to the families of the victims and the wounded.

The IGF meeting is going ahead as scheduled and we wish all those taking part well.

Engaging UK stakeholders

Nominet, working with other partners, has been at the heart of preparing the UK for the Internet Governance Forum.  We see it as crucial to engage constructively with the IGF process, both in contributing to the discussions with ideas and in identifying examples of how to get the best out of the Internet.  With other UK stakeholders we are identifying “messages from the UK” and best practice case studies, using a partnership approach to making the Internet a better place, and keeping UK stakeholders engaged in the IGF process.

This approach has developed over the life of the IGF, and led us to launch the UK IGF in March this year.  This is an open partnership that provides a light and flexible framework for British stakeholders to work together to make the IGF a success.

We have recently launched a UK IGF web site and blog, which we hope will encourage the sharing of views and opinions of all stakeholders on the work of the UK IGF and emerging Internet Governance issues. It is also intended to be a mechanism to report updates from the UK IGF partners.

The challenge for the UK IGF is to create intelligent, collaborative solutions to problems of Internet governance and the outcomes of Nominet’s Best Practice Challenge clearly demonstrate to our international colleagues that we are making great strides in this area.

International participation

Other countries are seeing what we are doing and beginning to start running their own processes at the national level.  Each national process will of course be different, reflecting local priorities and concerns. We will be running a workshop in Hyderabad in collaboration with colleagues from Brazil, Finland and France to explore different national IGF approaches.

One key aspect of the UK’s engagement in the IGF is to work with parliamentarians.  This has been crucial in helping us develop our messages – in particular in helping understand the concerns and interests of the citizens.  Working with parliamentarians has helped us to focus our work on these key issues – like child Internet safety or fighting crime – and to engage with top decision makers from industry and civil society.  One British MP has been leading a multi-stakeholder dialogue using the IGF model to improve e-crime reduction in the UK.

The UK is proving that the Internet Governance Forum works, as a collaborative partnership between Government, business, civil society and academia, because it is not subject to Government legislation and is free from bureaucracy.

Digging deeper into the various domains registered revealed that there was a mixture of sites for and against each of the candidates, as well as their running mates.  Some of the domains were likely to have been registered or run by the campaigns themselves, in an effort to control the message.  Among the others, not run by the campaigns of either candidate there are a variety of sites including clear expressions of support or opposition; attempts at political satire; entrepreneurial sites selling items and inappropriate domains.

There’s lots more detail and various trend analysis available of web traffic over at Network World, which sheds a little more light on how the campaign went, much of which is of course redundant in the light of today’s result.  However, it does, of course, demonstrate the ever increasing usage of the Internet and the impact of web 2.0 in such campaigns. It also gives some pointers for brand managers (lets face it that’s what these campaigns are about) to a range of tools useful for analysing web site and domain name trends.

They are reporting latest research which indicates that over three quarters (77%) of UK adult internet users who have stumbled across images of children being sexually abused are unsure how to report them. In addition, 71% of those surveyed ranked the availability of online child sexual abuse images as their top concern about the internet.

We support the IWF and wish them continued success with their awareness raising.

I’ve started to notice advertisers occasionally doing something similar in the UK.  Here they tend to use the words “Search for” and then whatever the term is.

I guess that the advertisers are either very confident that their sites will come up as the number one on the list of responses, or they have an arrangement with the search companies to ensure it does.  There does seem to be some suggestion that this may be the case.

One of the key reasons for this practice in Japan, would appear to be that this gets around the issue of the requirement for URLs in Japan to contain both the local Japanese script characters and the latin characters .jp.  Maybe once IDNs are introduced at the root this trend will reverse?

It’s an interesting trend and we shall be monitoring whether this takes off in greater numbers here, and ultimately its impact on the domain name market.

He then went on to give an excellent presentation at the Oxford Internet Institute on the future of the internet, noting that there are now 1,464 million internet users, which represents just 21% global penetration. He warned that IPv4 addresses will run out in the summer of 2010, which means that there needs to be a real push on IPv6 before it becomes a matter of dire urgency. He forsees geo-location based services growing rapidly as the number of mobile users increases and users will want local information directly relevant to their location. He also predicted the growth of the ‘internet of things’, where devices will increasingly link to the internet to deliver added value to users. I can see my family using the digital photo frame which automatically downloads and shares your latest snaps with friends and relatives, but probably not the electronic scales that link to your fridge in order to recommend heathier menus!

Vint also touched on the idea of an ‘interplanetary internet’, which I had previously thought of as an internet for the star ships and planets of the future. However, the penny dropped today when I understood that the protocols and tools being tested that facilitate connectivity over vast distances and frequent disruptions are of course the very things that could allow the global internet to be much more mobile and versatile in the future.