Oxford, you are quite right. ICAO should do something about it, but they won’t unless someone tells them. The relevant parts of ICAO document No 4444, PANS-ATM “Procedures for Air Traffic Management” are reproduced below:
12.3.4.18 MISSED APPROACH
a) GO AROUND;
*b) GOING AROUND.
* Denotes pilot transmission.
This is from the “visual” section.
Now from the IFR section:
12.4.2.5.8 MISSED APPROACH
a) CONTINUE VISUALLY OR GO AROUND [missed approach
instructions];
b) GO AROUND IMMEDIATELY [missed approach instructions]
(reason);
c) ARE YOU GOING AROUND?;
d) IF GOING AROUND (appropriate instructions);
*e) GOING AROUND.
* Denotes pilot transmission.
Note the pilot transmissions by the "*".
NZ does not use this second phrase, instead pilots will say: "commencing missed approach, climbing to (missed approach altitude). Strictly speaking, the "commencing missed approach" bit is non-standard, but the altitude climbing to MUST be reported when going around if you intend to carry out the published missed approach procedure. This saves the guesswork and additional RTF time ascertaining intentions. Any separation minima applied by a tower controller (apart from runway separation) can only be in a vertical sense so that is why the altitude must be reported. At that time TWR can scream "NEGATIVE! Maintain xxxx" or whatever. Of course TWR can issue clearances to aircraft in the vicinity, but they in themselves aren't "separations" as no minima apply, apart from what I've already mentioned here. If I've forgotten something, I'm sure someone will remind me.
In any case if ICAO use this (or at least a DIFFERENT) phraseology then there wouldn't be confusion, you guys wouldn't have wasted time trying to define a "visual contact" approach, whatever the hell that is, and there would be no need to "negotiate a deal with ATC," as someone else here suggested. Of course that never happens in the real world ...