<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
A post CSTD meeting article in the Hindu, yesterday...<br>
regards,<br>
Guru<br>
ps - just for information, The Hindu has a circulation of 2.1
million, more than double of that of NYT ....
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_circulation">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_circulation</a>) <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article3459842.ece">http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article3459842.ece</a><br>
<br>
Who controls the World Wide Web?<br>
Deepa Kurup<br>
BANGALORE, May 27, 2012<br>
<br>
Earlier this week, at the United Nations Commission on Science and
Technology for Development, held in Geneva, India reiterated its
proposal to create a Committee on Internet-related Policies (CIRP).
This proposal, backed by many others in the global south, aims at
democratising the Internet and critical resources that are currently
controlled by the U.S., big businesses and powerful nations in
various other governance forums.<br>
<br>
The proposed CIRP will be a multilateral institution, where
governments will sit together and take decisions on internet
policies, treaties and standards. Not surprisingly, many have
interpreted this as a move towards greater governmental control of
the Web (read tighter censorship), even as others have lauded this
as a progressive step towards greater democratisation of the
internet. This techno-political debate is bitterly polarised, with
experts and stakeholders, often backed by powerful lobbies, arguing
for status quo with the U.S.-based non-profit ICANN (Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) calling the shots,
insisting that critical Internet resources cannot be controlled
efficiently by a bureaucratic body like the UN,or governments that
lack the expertise to keep pace with rapid technological challenges.<br>
<br>
Amidst speculation that India might roll back its earlier proposal,
in Geneva, Indian representatives went ahead and called for
‘enhanced cooperation' to enable governments on an equal footing to
carry out their roles and responsibilities pertaining to the
Internet, and promote a “developmental agenda” for the Web.<br>
<br>
The U.S., and corporate lobbies (most big Internet firms being
U.S.-based or operating out of other developed countries) have
argued for retaining the current structure, where ICANN (which
already has a governing council with government representatives)
retains control over Internet technologies. They argue that though
jurisdictionally under the U.S., the ICANN is more likely to retain
the democratic and free structure of the Internet. They argue that
governments, in general, are more likely to stifle free speech, and
by extension, that the US is more likely to uphold commitments to
free speech on the web.<br>
<br>
However, recent events such as the clamp-down on Wikileaks (where
web companies cut off payment pathways and services to the
whistleblower site, reportedly upon government request) and recently
proposed Bills such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect
IP Act (PIPA) — which manipulate the domain name system (DNS)
infrastructure to enforce Intellectual Property laws — make a
mockery of these claims.<br>
<br>
Technological debate<br>
<br>
There are two sides to this debate: one that purely deals with the
techno-political aspect of the control of the Internet, and the
other that deals with social and political policy debates. In purely
technological terms, this debate revolved around the DNS root name
servers or the Internet Domain Name System, which forms the backbone
of communication on the Web.<br>
<br>
The DNS is a large database used by Internet applications to map or
translate Web URLs (for instance, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.thehindu.com">www.thehindu.com</a>) to a unique IP
address. All the generic names and the IP addresses for all top
level domains (for the purpose of mapping) are stored in what is
called a root zone file. So when you type in a URL address in your
browser's address bar, a query is sent to the DNS (often through
your Internet service provider's servers, which often caches this
information so queries don't have to be sent every single time)
which translates it into the numeric IP address. While, as users,
this saves us the trouble of remembering numbers and codes, the
larger benefits of course have to do with the fact that you can
access any site from anywhere.<br>
<br>
Indeed, there is some obfuscation on what these servers, and by
extension technological control, are all about. At the core of the
DNS system are 13 root servers controlled by 12 separate
organisations and private entities, or operators. There are many
hundreds of root servers at over 130 physical locations in many
different countries, says an official ICANN blog that seeks to bust
myths on how the U.S. controls the Internet through 13 root servers.
Sometimes, one server is located in over 25 countries, it clarified.<br>
<br>
However, what really matters here is who controls the root zone
file. This file contains the domain names and IP addresses that
enable the querying-mapping process. The root zone file, and access
or authority to edit it, is what is crucial in this debate because
finally the architecture of the DNS system, and in essence the
Internet, is dependent on how this file is handled. So, a domain is
valid only if it is there on this file. As of now, this root zone
file is controlled by the ICANN.<br>
<br>
Why not ICANN?<br>
<br>
But why is it problematic that the authority to manipulate this file
lies with a body like the ICANN? ICANN continues to be a non-profit
registered in the U.S., one that is subject to decisions and laws
made by the U.S. government. For instance, under the pretext of
enforcing an IP regime, the U.S. can enforce alterations to the DNS
system, as was proposed in the SOPA legislation, which was retracted
after web companies and tech activists lobbied against it, earlier
this year.<br>
<br>
So what is the solution? It is not surprising that India's proposal
to the UN, for pure governmental control, is being perceived as
problematic, given recent announcements by Indian politicians
expressing the desire to “regulate” social media or “pre-screen what
appears on the Web. Indeed, governments across the world, have now
and then, sought to clamp down on the Internet.<br>
<br>
Tech commentators have also argued that under indirect US control,
ICANN has in recent years restricted its mandate to technical
domains, and may be a better alternative than a UN body. But then
where does the developing world's point of view fit in? “By and
large, it is legitimate to say that to have one powerful country
control the Internet is illegitimate. The UN bodies have a better
track record as far as democratic methods go, where countries can
sit together and vote. Which is why the BRICS (Brazil, Russia,
India, China and South Africa) countries are pushing for more equal
control of the Internet as it is a global resource,” says Senthil S,
member of the Free Software Movement of India. However, the UN will
have to ensure that it promotes a body without censorship so that
internet governance can be more democratic.<br>
<br>
Commenting on this debate, Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director
of Bangalore-based NGO, IT for Change, seeks to draw the line
between issues of technical governance or management and other
cultural, social and political aspects of Internet governance.<br>
<br>
While the Internet's technical governance — albiet being dominated
by big business - is indeed a very distributed and open system,
issues related to larger public policies concerning social,
economic, cultural and political matters are much more important and
are neglected in this debate, Mr. Singh said. He also commented on
how Internet monopoly companies are increasingly deciding policy
matters, and questioned why bodies such as the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Council of Europe
should make policies without consulting developing countries. <br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title></title>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Gurumurthy Kasinathan
Director, IT for Change
<i>In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
</i><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.itforchange.net/">www.ITforChange.Net</a> | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890
How ICTs can transform teacher education - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-kgSW_o9z8&feature=youtu.be">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-kgSW_o9z8&feature=youtu.be</a>
<img alt="" src="cid:part2.05070508.03050709@ITforChange.net" height="90" width="132">
</pre>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>