[governance] Who controls the World Wide Web?

[Adam Peake]

Couple of old quotes from this list, from past civil society statements:

At 5:23 AM +0100 3/20/03, karen banks wrote:
>Root Zone file
>--------------
>We would like to underscore that unilateral control of the root zone file
>is a public policy issue. We agree with WGIG that no single government
>should have a pre-eminent role in global governance of the logical
>infrastructure of the Internet.


(following was draft)

At 5:23 AM +0100 3/20/03, karen banks wrote:
>
>3. More specifically, it indicates that the current framework regarding US
>unilateral control over the root zone file currently working under the
>contract with VeriSign, will be maintained for an indefinite time into the
>future. This directly contradicts the consensus of WGIG: "No single
>Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>Internet governance" (in para 48 of the WGIG report").
>


Time to think about this again.  Hope it can be a 
small part of enhanced cooperation we can agree 
on.  And also perhaps agree on what we mean by 
"ICANN", the article seems a but muddled, but if 
you get by that there are some good points.

Best,

Adam




>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 
>Œenhanced cooperation' to enable governments on 
>an equal footing to carry out their roles and 
>responsibilities pertaining to the Internet, and 
>promote a ³developmental agenda² 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 
>³regulate² social media or ³pre-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? ³By 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,² 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
>
>
>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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_circulation)
>
><http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article3459842.ece>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 
>Œenhanced cooperation' to enable governments on 
>an equal footing to carry out their roles and 
>responsibilities pertaining to the Internet, and 
>promote a ³developmental agenda² 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, 
><http://www.thehindu.com>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 
>³regulate² social media or ³pre-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? ³By 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,² 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
><http://www.itforchange.net/>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>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-kgSW_o9z8&feature=youtu.be
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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


-------------- 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