[governance] Who controls the World Wide Web?

Mon May 28 00:36:05 EDT 2012

A post CSTD meeting article in the Hindu, yesterday...
regards,
Guru
ps - just for information, The Hindu has a circulation of 2.1 million, 
more than double of that of NYT ....    
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_circulation)

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article3459842.ece

Who controls the World Wide Web?
Deepa Kurup
BANGALORE, May 27, 2012

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Technological debate

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.

The DNS is a large database used by Internet applications to map or 
translate Web URLs (for instance, www.thehindu.com) 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.

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.

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.

Why not ICANN?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
-- 

Gurumurthy Kasinathan
Director, IT for Change
/In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
/www.ITforChange.Net  | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890

How ICTs can transform teacher education - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-kgSW_o9z8&feature=youtu.be

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120528/74be074b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: itfc_logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120528/74be074b/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t