ISOC India Chennai Chapter

A conversation with Internet Inventors

2011-11-10T06:04:00.000+05:30

Conversation with Steve Crocker and Vinton Cerf, two of the Internet's founding fathers. Crocker established protocols necessary for the workings of the Internet, and Cerf, a computer scientist, was instrumental in the development of the first commercial email system.
The recorded video is at page http://wwwhatsup.com/c+c/cerf+crocker_smithsonian_11-9-2011.flvA better video may be available after some time.

APRICOT 2012 FELLOWSHIPS NOW OPEN

2011-10-10T18:01:00.002+05:30

apricot

The annual APRICOT conference is a unique and successful educational forum for Internet builders in the Asia-Pacific region, to learn from their peers and leaders in the Internet community.

Senior practitioners from the Asia Pacific and around the world contribute their time to APRICOT as presenters, teachers and trainers, to produce a non-commercial high quality conference.

Since 2000, APRICOT has incorporated a Fellowship Program to provide opportunities to developing country personnel to participate in APRICOT. The Program provides financial assistance to selected applicants to cover some of the expenses associated with attending the conference.

The APRICOT Fellowship Committee now cordially invites applications for fellowship funding to participate in APRICOT 2012 in New Delhi,India, from 21 February to 2 March 2012.

For more information about the Fellowship award package, Criteria, and application form, please visit our website:

http://www.apricot2012.net/fellowship

PLEASE NOTE: The deadline for applications is Monday, 24 October 2011.

Internet Society 2010 Annual Review

2011-09-14T10:06:00.000+05:30

Internet Society 2010 Annual Review..

Comments invited on Internet Society's Draft Paper on DNS Filtering Trends

2011-08-31T19:32:00.000+05:30

Efforts to address illegal online activities using DNS filtering techniques have been cropping up all over the globe. Attached is a DRAFT ISOC paper that outlines the issue and offers ISOC's concerns with this approach. This paper is aimed at a non-technical audience. This is a draft paper prepared by the Internet Society.

Internet Society's Draft Paper on DNS Filtering Trends

Comments Invited. Please post your comments here, or mail it to isocindiachennai aT gmail d0t c0m

..

Introduction to W3C Mobile Web and Application Best Practices

2011-07-16T17:45:00.000+05:30

This very popular course has been substantially revised for 2011 and now includes a lot of new material concerning Web applications. Delivered online over 8 weeks beginning Monday 5th September, the course will help Web designers and content producers who are already familiar with the desktop world to become familiar with the Web as delivered on mobile devices. It is based entirely on W3C standards, particularly the Mobile Web Best Practices and Mobile Web Application Best Practices.

Participants will:
• learn about and use the recommended versions of HTML and CSS to
use for mobile today;
• understand the constraints of working on mobile and how to overcome
them to deliver the best possible experience to the widest range of
users;
• practice client side and server side content adaptation techniques;
• learn about and use the exciting new APIs available on modern mobile
platforms.

The course will be lead by Phil Archer who was a member of the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group from the outset. Phil is an acknowledged contributor to many W3C Recommendations related to mobile and gained praise from participants in the earlier course for his enthusiasm and subject knowledge.

The full price for the Introduction to Mobile Web and Application Best Practices is €195 but a strictly limited number of places are available at the early bird rate of €145.

Full details of the course and how to register are available at http://www.w3.org/Mobile/training/MobiWeb109/

--

Magna Carta of the Internet: Consent of the Networked

2011-07-13T15:15:00.002+05:30

”Consent of the Networked,” will be published by Basic Books in January 2012. This is a book by Rebecca MacKinnon, an Internet scholar at the New America Foundation, who argues that private corporations are exerting excessive power over the Internet and should have that power checked. Just as the English barons crafted the original Magna Carta in 1215 to constrain the power of the unpopular King John, she says, Internet users should organize and push back against the companies.

The control that companies exert over the Internet in areas ranging from banking to freedom of speech has raised increasing levels of concern, especially in the wake of the controversial WikiLeaks release of State Department cables last year. Several companies constrained WikiLeaks, including Amazon, which kicked WikiLeaks off its servers after pressure from American lawmakers; PayPal, which suspended WikiLeaks’ account; and credit card companies, which refused to take donations for it.

Governments at this point rarely act directly to constrain the Internet; instead, their policies are mediated through privately owned and operated services, Ms. MacKinnon said. This is true of China, which maintains the famed Great Firewall that blocks sites like Twitter, YouTube and Facebook in favor of local services. But domestically, every year the Chinese government gives out “China Internet Self-Discipline Awards” to honor companies that voluntarily cooperate with its censorship policies. Baidu, which had been Google’s rival in China before the search giant redirected China users to its uncensored Hong Kong site in 2010, has been among the honorees.

One company that has drawn attention is Apple, whose market power allows its review process for iPhone applications to become a de facto censor in many countries. In China, the company has restricted access to Dalai Lama-related iPhone applications, and earlier this year it removed a Palestinian protest iPhone application called ThirdIntifada in response to the Israeli government’s complaints. Even in the United States, Apple banned an iPhone app from a political cartoonist in 2009 because it ridiculed public figures, a decision that was reversed after the cartoonist won a Pulitzer Prize.

Companies should start thinking of their users more as constituents who have a voice in the policy making, she said. Also, good corporate governance policies, like the ones that have become standard for clothing manufacturing companies, could become more widespread. Google, for example, regularly releases a transparency report, which lists how many requests for information it receives from each government. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have helped develop a code of conduct around Internet freedom through the Global Network Initiative. However, , limiting the impact of the code.

She says that at this moment, we have not figured out how to achieve, define and opearationalize the consent of the networked, buTwitter and Facebook have not joined int it is time to start.

(Excerpts and links from New York Times)

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for newcomers

2011-07-12T09:38:00.001+05:30

The short video below which describes the work of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to newcomers and novices. The Internet Society is the organisational home for the IETF and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).

..

Internet for the IT Sector: The impact of altered Core Interent Values in Business

2011-07-04T18:33:00.001+05:30

ISOC India Chennai organized a panel discussion on Core Internet Values at IIT Research Park, Chennai on June 26, 2011. This short duration event was webcast live by Joly MacFie of ISOC New York from New York together with Chandramohan at Chennai.

Sebastien Bachollet, Member, Board of Directors of ICANN chaired the session with Dr Olivier Crepin LeBlond, Chair of ICANN At Large, Dr Apparao, Vice President, Technology at Cognizant Technology Solutions and Sivasubramanian M were on the panel with active participation from all present in the room and on the Webcast.

The webcast is archived in two video streams. The second stream is embedded below:

Thank You Afilias, NamesBeyond and NIXI for sponsoring our Events during June 2011

2011-07-03T03:23:00.000+05:30

Afilias, NIXI, NamesBeyond sponsored our IPv6 Workshop, Seminar and a Discussion on Core Internet Values at Chennai during June 26-29. We thankfully acknowledge the support from our sponsors.

Both the events on June 26 were webcast live to external audience with help from Joly MacFie of ISOC New York. The Webcasts are archived at http://www.livestream.com/internetsocietychapters/folder?dirId=66211246-2197-4f71-a994-adebb20b91cb

IPv6 Seminar, June 26 10 am - 12 30 pm, IIT Research Park, Chennai

Dr Olivier Crepin LeBlond, Chair of ICANN At Large chaired the session with Sebastien Bachollet, Member, Board of Directors of ICANN, Srinivas Gudipudi of Tech Mahindra, Shankar Vridhagiri of Sify Technologies and Srinivas Chendi from APNIC by remote on the panel. The session was webcast for remote participation by Joly MacFie of ISOC New York together with Chandramohan of the Chennai Chapter.

Discussion on Internet for the IT Sector: the impact of altered Core Internet Values in Business, June 26 4.30 pm - 7 pm, IIT Research Park, Chennai

Dr G V Apparao, VP Technology at Cognizant Technology Solutions joined Olivier Crepin LeBlond and Sivasubramanian M as panelists in the Core Values session chaired by Sebastien Bachollet. This session was webcast with good remote participation from ISOC Chapters and At Large from around the world.

ISOC India Chennai APNIC IPv6 Workshop, June 27 - 29, IIT Research Park, Chennai

Nurul Roman Islam from APNIC trained 60 participants from all over India during this program. There is still a waiting list for participation and we hope to work with APNIC to organize more programs on IPv6.

Visit to Cognizant and Sify

We visited Cognizant and Sify.

Discussion on Online Safety for School Children, Good Shepherd Convent, Chennai, June 29, 1.30 - 3 00 pm

The program at the School was not originally scheduled, but was arranged at short notice by Sarto Rajendran of the Chennai Chapter. 450 Students participated. There were 21 questions on Online Safety, some of which were high-tech questions.

Applications open for ISOC Fellowships to OECD Technology Foresight Forum

2011-06-29T00:34:00.000+05:30

Fellowships to the OECD Technology Foresight Forum are part of the Internet Society's Next Generation Leaders (NGL) programme and are available to Internet Society members aged between 20 and 40 years.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Technology Foresight Forum is an annual event organized by the OECD’s Committee for Information, Computer, and Communications Policy (ICCP) to help identify how technical developments create opportunities for, and pose challenges to the Internet Economy. Foresight Forums are a collaborative effort of policymakers from member and non-member governments, business, civil society, and the Internet technical community.

About the OECD ICCP Technology Foresight Forum 2011
---------------------------------------------------
In 2011, the OECD Foresight Forum will focus on Evolving Mobile Wireless Platforms and Applications. Participants will explore and evaluate the tremendous potential that mobile networks, applications, and content have for future economic and social development. The Forum will be held in Paris on 26 October.

Fellows to the OECD may be given the opportunity to engage in various tasks at the Forum, including assisting the OECD Secretariat with preparatory work, reporting, and speaking. Details of these opportunities will be confirmed with the OECD Secretariat and successful applicants in advance of the Forum.

More details of the Fellowship to the OECD Technology Foresight Forum are available here:

https://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/oecd-fellowship/

How to apply
------------
To apply for an a Fellowship to the OECD Technology Foresight Forum, complete the online application form and upload a 2-3 page briefing paper:

https://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/oecd-fellowship/application.php

The deadline for applications is midnight UTC on 22 July 2011.

The Next Generation Leaders programme
-------------------------------------
More information about the Next Generation Leaders programme is available at:

http://InternetSociety.org/Leaders

The Internet Society’s Next Generation Leaders programme is supported by funding from Nominet Trust, is sponsored by AFNIC and SIDN, and is conducted under the patronage of the European Commission for Information Society and Media.

For more information, contact leaders@isoc.org.

To become a Next Generation Leader programme Corporate or Organizational partner, please email leader-sponsor@isoc.org.

...

Webcast Archive of the ISOC India Chennai IPv6 Event

2011-06-26T15:44:00.000+05:30

Embedded below is a video archive of our IPv6 Seminar this morning, webcast and recorded by Joly MacFie from New York together with Chandramohan, our Chapter Director at the venue in Chennai. This is a recording of the presentation by Shrinivas Gudipudi, Director - Business Development Manager of Tech Mahindra.

This IPv6 Seminar was Chaired by Dr Olvier Crepin LeBlond of ISOC England, now serving as Chair of ICANN At Large. The panel included Sebastien Bachollet of ISOC France now serving as Member, Board of Directors of ICANN At Large, Shrinivas Gudipudi, Director - Business Development at Tech Mahindra, Shankar Vridagiri, Manager, Global Network Operations at Sify and Shrinivas Chendi by remote participation from APNIC.

Following is the webcast archive of one of the sessions. Other records are accessed from page http://www.livestream.com/internetsocietychapters/folder?dirId=66211246-2197-4f71-a994-adebb20b91cb

Watch live streaming video from internetsocietychapters at livestream.com

There would be a session in the afternoon on "Internet for the IT Sector: The impact of altered core Interent Values in Business at the same venue, followed by a three day IPv6 workshop jointly organized by APNIC

..

Event Announcement: IPv6 Workshop, Seminar and the Panel Discussion on Core Internet Values

2011-06-23T09:19:00.002+05:30

RSVP: Registration for both the events is free, but seats are limited to 120 per session. Please respond to this invitation, at

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&pli=1&formkey=dGJqTXNTSV9BRXFTWGt2Y25yT1JPdWc6MA#gid=0

These events on June 26 would be followed by a workshop is organized jointly with APNIC, for Network professionals of IT companies and other organizations, for 3 days ( Monday - Wednesday, 27-29 June, 2011). Workshop seats are restricted to 36 and registrations are closed with full participation.

Trainer: Nurul Roman Islam from APNIC

If you have any difficulty please email isocindiachennai aT gmail d0t com or call 99524 03099

View Larger Map

About Isoc India Chennai

Isoc India Chennai is one of the 90 Internet Society Chapters around the world Isoc India Chennai is also an ICANN at-Large Structure http://isocindiachennai.in

About ISOC

The Internet Society (ISOC) is a non-profit, non-governmental membership organization focused exclusively on Internet issues. It was founded in 1991 by many of the original architects of the Internet. Through its many initiatives in support of education and training, Internet standards and protocols, and public policy, ISOC has played a critical role in ensuring that the Internet has developed in a stable and open manner in the best interest of the broad and global Internet community.

For example, ISOC is the organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) - the principal body engaged in the development of new Internet standard specifications. The IETF has driven the standards process for many aspects of the Internet, ranging from the protocols on which the World Wide Web and electronic mail are based to the protocols behind the next generation of mobile telecommunications.

The Internet Society has over 16,000 individual members in 160 countries around the world. These members have come together to form more than 80 local ISOC Chapters that organize local events and initiatives in response to national and regional Internet public policy issues.
Significant support for the society’s activities also comes from its 120 organization members including corporations, non-profit, trade and professional organizations, foundations, educational institutions and government agencies. These members share a commitment to the health of the Internet and their contributions directly benefit ISOC’s standards, education and public policy initiatives. The society also administers the .ORG domain.

About ICANN At-Large

"At-Large" is the name for the community of individual Internet users who participate in the policy development work of ICANN. Currently, more than 100 groups representing the views of individual Internet users are active throughout the world. You can learn more about the community and its activities on this website, as well as how to join and participate in building the future of the worldwide Domain Name System (DNS) and other unique identifiers which every single user of the Internet relies on every time they go online.

About APNIC

APNIC is an open, membership-based, not-for-profit organization providing Internet addressing services to the Asia Pacific. The region served by APNIC covers the entire Asia Pacific, comprising 56 economies throughout Asia and Oceania. APNIC employs staff from throughout the region to assist in understanding and responding to the needs of a diverse community.

..

ICANN Approves Historic Change to Internet's Domain Name System Board Votes to Launch New Generic Top-Level Domains

2011-06-21T06:29:00.000+05:30

Singapore | ICANN's Board of Directors has approved a plan to usher in one of the biggest changes ever to the Internet's Domain Name System. The Board vote was 13 approving, 1 opposed, and 2 abstaining.

During a special meeting, the Board approved a plan to dramatically increase the number of Internet domain name endings -- called generic top-level domains (gTLDs) -- from the current 22, which includes such familiar domains as .com, .org and .net.

"ICANN has opened the Internet's naming system to unleash the global human imagination. Today's decision respects the rights of groups to create new Top Level Domains in any language or script. We hope this allows the domain name system to better serve all of mankind," said Rod Beckstrom, President and Chief Executive Officer of ICANN.

New gTLDs will change the way people find information on the Internet and how businesses plan and structure their online presence. Internet address names will be able to end with almost any word in any language, offering organizations around the world the opportunity to market their brand, products, community or cause in new and innovative ways.

"Today's decision will usher in a new Internet age," said Peter Dengate Thrush, Chairman of ICANN's Board of Directors. "We have provided a platform for the next generation of creativity and inspiration."

The decision to proceed with the gTLD program follows many years of discussion, debate and deliberation with the Internet community, business groups and governments. The Applicant Guidebook, a rulebook explaining how to apply for a new gTLD, went through seven significant revisions to incorporate more than 1,000 comments from the public. Strong efforts were made to address the concerns of all interested parties, and to ensure that the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet are not compromised.

ICANN will soon begin a global campaign to tell the world about this dramatic change in Internet names and to raise awareness of the opportunities afforded by new gTLDs. Applications for new gTLDs will be accepted from 12 January 2012 to 12 April 2012.

from the ICANN Web

Internet Looks to Singapore and ICANN 41 for Fate of New gTLDs

2011-06-19T15:13:00.000+05:30

Posted in the ICANN blog by SCOTT PINZON on JUNE 18, 2011

Monday, 20 June, might go down in history books as the day the Internet changed dramatically – or, it could simply represent another delay in a five-year process.

That’s the day ICANN’s Board of Directors votes on whether to finalize the Applicant Guidebook, a 348-page document that explains how any established institution (such as a government, business, or non-profit organization) can apply to operate a generic top-level domain (gTLD) of its own choosing. If the Board approves the Guidebook as final, the clock starts ticking on a process that could lead to hundreds of new gTLDs by 2013. Internet users accustomed to familiar TLDs such as .com, .org, and .net could have use of .eco, .music, .berlin, .sports, .canon, .royal, and many, many more such domain name extensions.

World press is already following the issue of new gTLDs with great interest, generating coverage from Reuters, Associated Press, National Public Radio,ABC News, ZDNet Asia, and other outlets.

But the future of top-level domains is not the only substantive topic ICANN tackles this week.

Hot Topics at ICANN 41

ICANN’s vibrant volunteer community will consider many other important issues between 19 – 24 June. A partial list includes:

Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs enable people who use languages based on scripts other than ASCII (letters A – Z) to offer users domain names in non-ASCII characters. (Example languages include Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic, and many others.) But some issues still need much more work. For example, if you type in Arabic, a character that looks the same from one keyboard to another may produce different technical code when typed, depending on whether your keyboard was made in Iran or Pakistan. When the character is used in a URL, the differing code can take you to a site you didn’t intend to visit. These “variants,” and associated issues, are being dealt with so that all users from all regions can reliably visit the sites they want. The discussion continues on Monday.

Inter-Registrar Transfers. Transfer-related issues are the number one area of complaint according to data from ICANN Compliance. Should there be a process or special provisions for the urgent return of a hijacked domain name? The GNSO Council votes on the issue Wednesday.

New gTLD Applicants from Developing Countries. If the Board approves the process for creating new gTLDs, developing countries may have a need for a new gTLD, but lack the financial means to apply for and operate it. A working group comprised of members from ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees has been considering how such groups might be funded if they apply for a TLD. The group offers a report onThursday.

These are just a few examples of dozens of topics that the ICANN community will attempt to move forward during a week containing more than 120 panels, presentations, workshops and other sessions. If you’re not in Singapore, you can participate remotely for most sessions. For details, see the Remote Participation Page and the full meeting schedule.

IETF Fellowship for the IETF Meetings at Taipei and France

2011-06-16T08:05:00.000+05:30

The Internet Society has announced that it is inviting applications for
its latest Internet Society Fellowships to the IETF, part of its Next
Generation Leaders (NGL) programme (www.InternetSociety.org/Leaders).
The Fellowship programme allows engineers from developing countries to
attend an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting.

As you know, the IETF is the Internet's premier standards-making body,
responsible for the development of protocols used in IP-based networks.
IETF participants represent an international community of network
designers, operators, vendors, and researchers involved in the technical
operation of the Internet and the continuing evolution of Internet
architecture.

Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive application process.
The Internet Society is currently accepting fellowship applications for
the next two IETF meetings:

* IETF 82, 13 - 18 Nov 2011, Taipei, TW
* IETF 83, 25 - 30 March, Paris, FR

http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/fellowship/index.php

Fellowship applications for both IETF meetings are due by 15 July 2011.

I encourage you to pass on information about this program to individuals
involved in your network that have a keen interest in the Internet
standardisation activities of the IETF.

The Internet Society Fellowships to the IETF are sponsored by Afilias,
Google, Microsoft, and Intel.

The Internet Society’s Next Generation Leaders programme is sponsored by
Nominet Trust, the Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en
Coopération (AFNIC), SIDN, and the European Commission.

IPv4 to IPv6: Largest Transition in Internet's History

2011-06-09T10:44:00.001+05:30

( ISOC India Chennai is organizing an IPv6 workshop and Extended Seminar during June 26 - 29, Event information is at page http://www.isocindiachennai.in/p/isoc-india-chennai-ipv6-workshop-and.html )

Top websites serving billions of users demonstrate progress towards largest transition in Internet's history

RESTON, VIRGINIA and GENEVA, SWITZERLAND - 9 June 2011 - Top websites and Internet service providers around the world, including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Akamai, and Limelight Networks, joined together with more than 1000 other participating websites in World IPv6 Day for a successful global-scale trial of the new Internet Protocol, IPv6. By providing a coordinated 24-hour "test flight", the event helped demonstrate that major websites around the world are well-positioned for the move to a global IPv6-enabled Internet, enabling its continued exponential growth.

World IPv6 Day

During World IPv6 Day organized by the Internet Society, nearly 400 participating organizations enabled IPv6 on their main services for 24 hours on 8 June. With IPv4 addresses running out this year, the industry must act quickly to accelerate full IPv6 adoption or risk increased costs and limited functionality online for Internet users everywhere. World IPv6 Day participants came together to help motivate organizations across the industry--Internet service providers, hardware manufacturers, operating system vendors and other web companies--to prepare their services for the transition.

A key goal of World IPv6 Day was to expose potential issues with real-world IPv6 use under controlled conditions. Given the diversity of technology that powers the Internet, the global nature of the trial was crucial to identify unforeseen problems. The vast majority of users were able to access services as usual, but in rare cases, users experienced impaired access to participating websites during the trial.

For more information about World IPv6 Day, links to useful information for users, and a summary of data from the event, visit:

http://www.worldipv6day.org

..

ISOC England publishes IPv6 Matrix Test results for IPv6 Day

2011-06-08T07:32:00.000+05:30

(From a message by Dr Olivier Crepin LeBlond of ISOC England)

LONDON - 8 June 2011

In preparation for the World IPv6 Day on 8th June 2011, the English Chapter of the Internet Society has released the latest figures from its IPv6 Matrix Project, showing the level of IPv6 connectivity amongst the world's 1 million busiest Web sites. A summary of those results can be found in its latest report, freely downloadable from:

http://www.ipv6matrix.org/reports

IPv6 reachable content needs to be available in order for IPv6 traffic to pick-up on the Internet. The IPv6 Matrix Project consists of a crawler testing connectivity to the world's busiest Web sites. Those are responsible for more than 95% of the Internet's traffic. The report shows that only a very small minority of Web sites are currently accessible using IPv6.

Although figures worldwide show an increase in percentage of "dual stack" (IPv4 and IPv6) connectivity, this is so low that it can be compared to the Internet's early days, before the mid nineties rush triggered by the invention of Web Browsing. It is hoped that a significant rise in IPv6 connectivity will be observed after the World IPv6 Day, meaning that experimental connectivity on the day was found to be stable enough for corporations to keep their Web site running IPv6. The current results, finalised at the end of April 2011, were compared with September 2010 results. A sharp rise was found in countries where a main Web Hosting provider has upgraded to a dual stack infrastructure, but in most cases, the rise amounted to nothing more than a glitch in absolute values.

In general, Europe leads the way, with Asia following, then the American continent, and finally Africa. Considering the advanced stage of exhaustion in the current IPv4 addressing scheme, the figures for IPv6 are very poor.

The IPv6 Matrix Project ( http://www.ipv6matrix.org ) is an ISOC England managed project, supported by the Internet Society and other sponsors, collecting vital IPv6 network data since July 2010. To-date more than 70Gb of real networking data has been stored by this unique project for future analysis. The aim of the project is to track the overall natural spread of a new technology on the Internet, showing early and late adopters of technology worldwide. It also aims to trigger a wake-up call to countries noticing the advanced network infrastructure of their neighbours.

For all enquiries, contact: contact@isoc-e.org

World IPv6 Day IPv6Matrix Results Presentation

View more presentations from Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

Call for applications: Online courses in Internet governance and ICT policy

2011-05-21T17:39:00.002+05:30

Diplo is pleased to announce a new call for applications for the following courses:

Cyber-Security
Online Privacy and Data Protection
Intellectual Property Rights
Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources
ICT Policy and Strategic Planning

Topics: The five courses offer in-depth (advanced) understanding on a wide range of topics. The first four courses are being offered under the Advanced Phase of our Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP), whereas the ICT Policy and Strategic Planning course is being offered for the first time in parallel with the Advanced Phase. A full list of topics for each course is available here.

Dates: The courses will take place from 13 June to 12 August 2011 and will be conducted entirely online.

Structure: Each course lasts for 8 weeks: an introductory week, followed by 6 weeks of intensive learning and knowledge sharing among participants. The courses take place in a web-based virtual classroom with Web 2.0 interaction tools (hypertext discussion tool, forums, message boards, real-time discussions, etc), allowing participants to complete most course activities whenever convenient within a given weekly schedule. The courses are based on studying and discussing textual materials under the guidance of experienced certified tutors and with the support of experts from various institutions. The courses conclude in week 8 with a narrative exam given to assess the level of understanding of issues covered. More on Course Structure...

Benefits: The rich blend of lecture texts, expert tutors, and online collaboration among class participants offers the best opportunity to acquire in-depth knowledge and training in Internet governance issues and ICT policy. Successful students will be awarded a DiploFoundation certificate for the respective course, and will be invited to join Diplo’s global Internet governance community with over 1,000 members. More on Benefits...

Requirements: The course is flexible, yet intensive. We ask prospective participants to make sure they are able to dedicate at least eight hours per week throughout the learning phase. Participants are also required to have reading and writing skills in English sufficient to follow university-level materials and discussion, have basic awareness and interest in issues related to the Information Society, ICT and Internet governance, and have regular access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient). More on Requirements...

Who can benefit? Are you involved in ICT policy, Information Society and Internet governance? Previous participants have included:

• officials in government ministries and departments, regulatory authorities or institutions dealing with Information Society, Internet and ICT-related policy issues (e.g. telecommunications, education, foreign affairs, justice);

• postgraduate students, academics and researchers in the IG field (e.g. in telecommunications, electrical engineering, law, economics, development studies);

• civil society activists in the IG and Information Society fields;

• journalists covering IG issues; and

• individuals in Internet-business fields (e.g. ISPs, software developers).

Fees and Scholarships: The enrolment fee for each course is €500 (payment must be made before participants are granted access to the classroom). The following scholarships are available:

A number of full and partial scholarships are available for applicants from developing countries (and non-members of OECD). Scholarships for applicants from ACP countries (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific) are financed through Diplo’s Capacity Development Programme for ACP countries, financed by the EU @CP-ICT Programme, 9th European Development Fund. Scholarships for applicants from non-ACP countries are provided by VeriSign.
In addition, 75 full scholarships to take part in the ICT Policy and Strategic Planning course are available for applicants from ACP countries. The course is part of the two-year Capacity Development Programme for ACP countries.

To Apply: Please complete the application form for the appropriate course, at www.diplomacy.edu/registration. Applicants who require scholarships should check the appropriate box in the online application form. The deadline for applications is 24 May 2011, midnight GMT.

more details at

http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/igcbp/display.asp?Topic=2011_call_Advanced

Nominations open for Jonathan B Postel Service Award

2011-05-11T15:31:00.000+05:30

Each year, the Internet Society awards the Jonathan B. Postel Service Award. This annual award is presented to an individual or an organization that has made outstanding contributions in service to the data communications community. The award includes a presentation crystal and a prize of US$20,000.

Nominations are now open and will be accepted through 31 May 2011. Information on award nomination procedures.

The Jonathan B. Postel Service Award was established by the Internet Society to honor a person who has made outstanding contributions in service to the data communications community. The award is focused on sustained and substantial technical contributions, service to the community, and leadership. With respect to leadership, the committee places particular emphasis on candidates who have supported and enabled others in addition to their own specific actions.

The award is named for Dr. Jonathan B. Postel to recognize and commemorate the extraordinary stewardship exercised by Jon over the course of a thirty year career in networking. He served as the editor of the RFC series of notes from its inception in 1969 until 1998. He also served as the ARPANET "numbers Czar" and Internet Assigned Numbers Authority over the same period of time. He was a founding member of the Internet Architecture (nee Activities) Board and the first individual member of the Internet Society, where he also served as a Trustee.

More about Jon Postel
..

IGF 2011 Ambassadors Programme calls for Applications

2011-05-02T22:18:00.002+05:30

The Internet Society is pleased to announce a call for applications to participate in the Internet Society (ISOC) Ambassador programme to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting in Nairobi, Kenya in September 2011.

As part of the Internet Society’s Next Generation Leaders programme, the IGF Ambassador programme is designed to involve members in ISOC’s global engagement activities while providing valuable expertise and know-how to the IGF meeting in Nairobi. The Internet Society supports participation of first time Ambassadors as well as returning Ambassadors from Internet Governance Forums in Rio (2007), Hyderabad (2008), Sharm El Sheik (2009), and Vilnius (2010).

"Since the Internet Society started the IGF Ambassadors programme in Rio in 2007,” notes Toral Cowieson, Internet Society Senior Director of Internet Leadership Programmes, “the issues have become more complex and the stakes higher. ISOC is committed to fostering rising and future decision-makers at the intersection of policy, technology, and business and our renewal of this programme recognizes that these multi-disciplinary leaders are at the core of the discussion of an open and robust Internet."

The IGF 2011 meeting will take place Tuesday 27 through Friday 30 September 2011. Interested individuals should be available to arrive no later than Saturday 24 September.

The deadline for applications is Friday, 27 May 2011.

The Next Generation Leaders programme, under the patronage of the European Commission for Information Society and Media, blends course work and practical experience to help prepare young professionals (aged from 20 to 40) from around the world to become the next generation of Internet technology, policy, and business leaders.

Further details on the Internet Society’s IGF 2011 Ambassador program are available here.

For more information, see:

• Next Generation Leaders programme

• Internet Governance Forum

The Internet Society’s Next Generation Leaders programme is sponsored by Nominet Trust and AFNIC.

For more information on how to become a Next Generation Leader programme partner, visit http://www.isoc.org/leaders

..

Call for Applications from the 5th International Summer School of Internet Governance

2011-04-11T15:54:00.000+05:30

For the Internet Governance Leaders of Tomorrow: Learning in a Multi Stakeholder Environment

Do you want to understand the multilayer, multi player mechanisms of Internet Governance? Do you want to know what the political, economic, social and legal implications of Internet Governance are? Do you want to learn what is behind cryptic acronyms like ICANN, RIR, DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, iDN, IPv6, ISP, IETF, W3C, IAB, WHOIS, GAC, IGF, WGIG and WSIS? Do want to get more detailed information about technical Internet standards, protocols, codes, domain names, IP addresses, registries and registrars? Are you interested to look deeper into the opportunities and risks of the emerging global Internet Economy? Do you want to become an Internet Governance leader of tomorrow?

The 2011 European Summer School on Internet Governance (Euro-SSIG) offers a unique multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well known experts working directly in the technical community, the market or in policy. It offers unique opportunities for learning in a multi stakeholder environment, which includes also intense and individual interactive communication with faculty members and fellows from all over the world. The Faculty is chaired by Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus .

Applications will be accepted both from students and individuals working in the private sector, in government or in civil society groups from all over the world. Application criteria are a basic academic degree or relevant practical experiences. The full course fee is 1000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It includes, next to the lecture programme:

six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy,
breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee ,
one evening reception in the “Meissen Porcelain Manufactory”,
gala dinner in the historic wine-restaurant “Vincenz Richter”,
boat trip on the river Elbe
free WiFi access and
all teaching material.

There is a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% VAT). We can offer students from developing countries an opportunity to apply for the Global Fellowship Programme (GFP-SSIG).
If you are interested in the Summer School on Internet Governance (SSIG), please send applications until May 15, 2011 by using the electronic form on the website.

..

Embrace mutli-stakeholder model of Governance NOW: Vint Cerf at the ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting

2011-04-07T00:03:00.000+05:30

Vint Served for eight years on the ICANN board, the last seven of them as chair, Vint helped navigate ICANN through those early years and the growing pains that come along with that stage. Since leaving the board, of course, he has continued to live up to his living legend status in the Internet world through his work at Google and through his work with the Jet Propulsion Labs on the interplanetary Internet. And as always, his ideas and enthusiasm are helping connect to the future, unimagined for so many of us but always imagined by Vint.

VINT CERF: Good morning, everyone. It is a real pleasure to come back and see so many faces -- familiar faces. And I hope to meet some new ones as well. It feels like a long time since I stepped down as chairman only three years ago.

Peter, I appreciate very much your undertaking the task of leading this organization further into the future.

I'd like to respond momentarily to something -- two things that Ira mentioned. First of all, Jon Postel's responsibility as the IANA actually started much, much earlier. He was first the numbers czar starting in 1969 when the ARPANET was underway and Steve Crocker issued the first request for comment. Jon undertook to keep track of a lot of the protocol parameters and the allocations of address space back then. And then as time went on, as the Internet TCP/IP protocols were used, he expanded that role. So he had been doing a function like this for a good fraction of his career.

The other observation, I appreciate very much your comments, but I have to tell you that -- remind you anyway that Esther Dyson was the first chairman of ICANN and undertook that role because nobody else would. She was an impressive act to follow as I assumed the role in 2000. And second, Mike Roberts, of course, acted as the first CEO.

I did have the pleasure of participating in the inaugural meeting of the board at which Esther was elected and Mike Roberts was confirmed as CEO. I was not a member of the board at that time. I was simply a visitor.

Finally, I wanted to make an observation -- a generic observation about why the Internet and all the institutions surrounding it have managed to function as -- despite all the sturm und drang. That's because they are very loosely coupled. This whole system is designed around relatively loose coupling and standardization.

If it were not for that, I think it would be easily too brittle to survive. So this loose coupling of organizations and networks and protocols and everything else really has given it a longevity that it couldn't otherwise have.

I, too, represent the dinosaur period in history, so I'm the second talking dinosaur. No insult intended, Ira. But I do want to mention a few things about the history, not only of ICANN but of Internet in general and the United States' role in it.

The project began with support from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in 1973 and, in fact, preceding that, it was the ARPANET Project starting in 1968. But as time went on, responsibility for this system devolved from DARPA to the Defense Communications Agency which is now called DISA and then to the National Science Foundation and then ultimately to the Department of Commerce. And in those transitions, the United States government reduced its position, its authority, its decision-making activity with regard to Internet. This is a continuous, essentially, relegation or delegation of responsibility away from the government and into the private sector.

You can see some of this evidenced in the relationships between the Department of Commerce and ICANN which began with a procurement contract for the IANA function and Memorandum of Understanding. The procurement contract still exists. The Memorandum of Understanding has been replaced by an Affirmation of Commitments that evolved out of the interactions of ICANN, the Department of Commerce and ICANN's general operation.

So this creation of ICANN that Ira played such a key role in has continued on a track towards privatization of the Internet's infrastructure and the public-private policy development which is part of the ICANN process today.

So I don't want to spend a great deal of time this morning -- I know we have a lot to do, but I wanted to offer a few thoughts that come to mind about the immediate future.

There exists, as you know, a procurement contract and I believe that that concept of procuring service from ICANN really ought to change to become a cooperative agreement because I believe that format expresses more correctly the relationship between ICANN and the Department of Commerce. I still think that such an agreement is useful and, therefore, would not resist it, but I believe that a procurement contract is an overly rigid structure through which to express the relationship between the Department of Commerce and ICANN.

The second thing I want to remind you of is RFC 2860 which is dated June 2000. It was authored by the Internet Architecture Board, the Internet Engineering Task Force, or leaders thereof, and ICANN. That RFC memorializes an MOU that was signed in March -- March 1st, 2000, 11 years ago, between the IETF and ICANN. And it was ratified by the ICANN board on March 10th of the year 2000.

And it concerns the delegation of responsibility for recording and memorializing Internet protocol parameters and documenting what those parameters are. The responsibility for what those parameters are evolve out of the IETF standardization process. The Internet Architecture Board delegated the responsibility for managing that process to -- initially to IANA and then subsequently to ICANN. And that memorandum establishes that relationship.

Those responsibilities for managing the parameter space are distinct from the allocation of Internet addresses which has been assigned to ICANN specifically and thence from ICANN to the Regional Internet Registries and the Number Resource Organization. That's distinct from the Internet parameters.

And, finally, the general global allocation policies for Internet addresses is a bottom-up process developed by the RIRs and confirmed by the ICANN board.

One thing about the technical standards of the Internet is a guiding philosophy from the IETF will serve as well. If you are going to do something, pick one way to do it, not several ways to do it. This philosophy has contributed to the interoperability that has been the hallmark of the Internet design from the earliest stages and I think it is a very wise philosophy to follow.

We can see occasions where parties might decide for a variety of reasons that two standards might be a good idea. Generally speaking, that leads to the possibility that parties will pick the opposite standard and not be able to interwork. So I would strongly urge that you think about that as you put policies together.

I want to echo something that Ira said, which I believe is very important to the health of ICANN, and that's to strive to increase transparency of and to explain the rationale for policy decisions arising out of the ICANN process, particularly out of any board deliberations.

I think there was an attempt to initiate that during board votes where board members were permitted to speak to the rationale behind their decisions, but I think that process could be refined substantially.

This kind of transparency helps, as Ira points out, in cases where there is disagreement with a conclusion, at least one can follow the logic leading to a particular conclusion.

I think that the Governmental Advisory Committee could usefully enhance its public policy input to the policy development process. It's already established a long history of discussion and contribution to policy making in the ICANN process. But I would like to encourage increased amount of attention to raising policy issues not only before the board but also before other parts of the ICANN organization. So I'm very happy to see, at least during my tenure, that the Government Advisory Committee has been meeting -- had been meeting and I hope continues to meet with other parts of the ICANN structure, the other supporting organizations, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee and so on in order to both raise public policy issues before those supporting organizations and also to hear from them what kinds of issues are arising that might have public policy aspects to them.

There are a very broad range of policy issues that are not solely within the purview of ICANN and its multistakeholder framework. Law enforcement, international commercial frameworks, intellectual property protection, freedom of expression, access to Internet services, freedom from harm, all of these policy matters lie at least beyond, perhaps overlapping with, but beyond the purview of ICANN. It is very important, I think, not to imagine that ICANN alone can deal with all the policy issues that the existence of the Internet poses and that ICANN is a part of a universe of policy-making necessity but that there are other organizations that have a role to play. So somehow ICANN has to fit itself into that policy ecosystem in a way which is constructive.

And here I believe that collaboration is key among the very many stakeholders to assure that the Internet operation continues to foster innovation and protect the legitimate rights and interests of countries, corporations and individuals.

Sovereignty of nations notwithstanding, achieving these goals requires cooperation among all who partake of the growing ubiquity of the Internet. Let me emphasize that cooperation and collaboration is absolutely essential among all of the stakeholders in order to achieve successful policy outcomes.

If ever there were a time when the multistakeholder model needs to be embraced, it's now, with so much at stake to allow the Internet to expand in its scale and functionality. This notion has to be preserved in future incarnations of the Internet Governance Forum or further exploration of the notion of a global information society.

There are pressures to move away from a multistakeholder structure in the IGF, for example, and to adopt a more intergovernmental multilateral model. I strongly urge against this because there are too many valuable points of view that must be incorporated into any consideration of policy for Internet growth.

Ultimately, the challenge for ICANN and other organizations dealing with Internet policy is to preserve multistakeholder values and the single interoperational Internet within the context of the traditional notion of national autonomy.

I believe that collaboration and cooperation among governments and between national and international institutions are fundamental to achieving these goals. The Internet has been a grand collaboration and it is up to us to preserve this value for all Internaughts present and future. Thank you very much.

..

Future of the Internet as foreseen in the Past : Ira Magziner at the ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting

2011-04-05T16:55:00.002+05:30

Ira Magaziner has had a long and illustrious career, often called cerebral. Ira is a valedictorian at Brown University. He attended Balliol College at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. He has honorary doctorate degrees from Brown University, University of Rhode Island, New England Institute of Technology, and the University of Maryland.

He's now chairman of the William J. Clinton Foundation's international development activities and initiatives. He was senior advisor to the president for policy development in the Clinton White House, where he shaped many important programs for this country and that affect the world. He helped drive the policy processes that led to ICANN's establishment, together with participants from the global Internet community.

He developed a reputation for digging into the nitty-gritty of technology while considering the big-picture impacts on society. He became an advocate for the Internet industry in the global marketplace and for ICANN.

The following is the transcript of his speech at the Welcome Ceremony of the ICANN Silicon Valley meeting in which he talks about Internet 15 years ago and the threats to the future of the Internet then. This speech covers part of the early history of ICANN.

IRA MAGAZINER > Thank you very much for inviting me. It's the first time I've been to an ICANN event since forming it. I figured that by now it was safe and I wouldn't have -- [ Laughter ] -- too many things thrown at me but I'm not sure. I'm here today to talk about ancient times, when dinosaurs ruled the earth.

It was a time before Facebook, before Twitter, before WiFi, and even before Google.

It was a time when you could download a movie through your 56K dial- up connection if you had a few days, when your large heavy cell phone did not speak Internet, and when two-thirds of the people in the world could not make a telephone call because they didn't have a landline coming to where they lived.

It was a time when there were more people on the Minitel in France than on the Internet in the whole world. Okay?

And when all the people on the Internet in Korea could fit into one small hotel room. I know because I met with them.

[ Laughter ]

And there were only a couple.

It was also a time when adults still knew more about information technology than their 10-year-old children.

[ Laughter ]

Which has not been the case since then.

[ Laughter ]

So these ancient times that I'm talking about weren't millions or thousands or hundreds of years ago. They were 15 years ago, in 1996. 15 years ago.

US President Bill Clinton

In early 1995, then-President Clinton had asked me to head a cabinet level group in the U.S. government to help decide what steps he could take if he were reelected in 1996 to improve the U.S. economy. And at our initial meeting, we listed 10 different things to look at that we thought could be important. By the beginning of 1996 we had actually decided on a different list.

Basically, what we had decided was that there were three technologies that had been developed recently that could offer the potential for huge economic growth: The Internet, the sequencing of the human genome, and advances in renewable energy. And of those three, we thought that the Internet could move the fastest and so by then we had decided to focus on the Internet and trying to create a global environment where the Internet could take off and be a true economic force.

The landscape we confronted was fraught with opportunity but also with tremendous uncertainty.

Many entrepreneurs and companies wanted to invest huge sums to build the Internet economy, but they were worried by the lack of a predictable environment.

At that time, some of you may remember there were proposals in the EU and Canada to tax every bit of transmission on the Internet, and they were being taken seriously. There were proposals to put tariffs in the World Trade Organization on commerce done by the Internet.

Many governments, including the U.S. government, we're looking to censor the Internet. Regulators in the EU and in the U.S. wanted to have government set technical standards for the Internet, regulate the use of digital signatures, restrict the new field of Internet telephony, set rigid guidelines who could and couldn't deliver Internet services, and regulate prices for every Internet activity, much as was done with telephony.

There were no agreed-upon ways to protect intellectual property. That was the landscape we confronted.

Many foreign governments did not want to adopt the Internet because they viewed it as under U.S. government control and there were a large number of lawsuits, which I'll talk about in a minute, working their way through different courts around the world that would have broken up the Internet and put jurisdictional restrictions on it that would have prevented interoperability across countries or even states, and many of the judges who were sitting in judgment on these lawsuits had no clue what the Internet was.

The security of the Internet was very uncertain. Some of the root servers were in university basements where anyone could walk in and pull the plug. I know because I visited some of these sites unannounced and just walked alone into rooms where they were housed.

We realized that the Internet had enormous potential to unlock human freedom, economically, politically, and socially, because its very designed empowered individuals by allowing them to implement their ideas directly, without having to go through established hierarchies and bureaucracies. The potential seemed limitless. But we also realized that the future of the Internet was very precarious. Balanced on a knife's edge between two extremes that could delay its advent or even destroy it.

On the one side, if the Internet was too anarchic with no guidelines, it could degenerate into a constant state of unpredictable, wild west shootouts, scaring away the decent folk who wanted to invest and help build it.

On the other hand, if the normal forces of bureaucracy took over with a mass of government regulations and slow intergovernmental bodies governing the Internet, the creativity of the Internet could be stifled.

We had to find a way to allow the Internet to operate in a constant state of creative chaos, but with some ground rules that would give those investing huge sums in it some degree of predictability.

There needed to be enough cooperation and rules so that the Internet would be secure, stable, and resilient, but this had to be done in such a way as to allow as much freedom as possible, for the users of the Internet to create standards, content, modes of access, and economic activity without government interference.

So we established a policy framework to try to accomplish these goals in 1996 and '97. We passed an Internet tax freedom act that allowed Internet commerce to develop free of taxes. We kept the Federal Communications Commission in the United States and the ITU globally away from regulating the Internet and the Internet telephony. We got government in the World Trade Organization not to put any tariffs on electronic commerce. We struck down attempts to impose censorship on the Internet.

Instead, empowering parents and other consumers with controls they could exercise to block content they did not want to see. We allowed marketplace solutions on privacy to emerge. We allowed the Internet users to set standards. We established a global agreement to protect intellectual property. But in not too restrictive a way.

Finally, we recognized that there had to be some coordination of the Internet in order to ensure its security, stability, and resiliency.

The question we faced was how to do this in a way that could operate with Internet speed, be representative of the wishes of the Internet community and its various constituencies, be acceptable to governments, and allow for the rapid growth of the Internet that we hoped would happen.

After a two-year process of consultation with stakeholders of all sort all over the world, we formed ICANN.

Now, for those of you who were not around then, let me talk about what preceded ICANN.

At the time, IANA as it was called was housed in a small office at the University of Southern California, and run by a wonderful man named Jon Postel under a contract the university had with the U.S. defense department which had been involved in starting the Internet.

Jon Postel with his Internet Chart

I'm not sure this is true. There's some of you who may remember. But legend has it that at a meeting of the Internet Society when the Internet had less than a thousand members, someone suggested that they needed a person to keep track of everyone's address and Jon raised his hand. Jon, for those of you who remember him, had a long scruffy beard, wore sandals and hippie clothing and was a rebel and a free spirit at heart.

Because of his appearance, it took me hours of pleading to get him through security at the White House when I invited him to have lunch.

[ Laughter ]

And I remember when I had the honor of speaking at his funeral, I thought that day when he was at the White House having lunch with me with all these self-important cabinet secretaries sitting around that a hundred years from now, nobody would remember any of those cabinet secretaries, but they would remember Jon Postel as one of the inventors of the Internet.

[ Applause ]

It was Jon that decided what top-level prefixes were for countries and who in each country should have the responsibility for administering the Internet. And he did all this from his small office where the piles of paper and books lying around reflected both his brilliance and also the creativity chaos of the Internet. To get from the door to the one visitor's chair in his office required agility and extraordinary balance just to navigate around the rubble on the floor.

I often thought when I visited his office about how some of the big corporate Titans that were about to invest billions in the Internet would have felt if they knew that all the routing for the Internet was taking place in that office.

The root server was run by a company called Network Solutions in Virginia, which under a contract with the Commerce Department had a virtual monopoly on assigning domain names. They received the addresses from Jon and entered them. But at the time, Jon and the leadership of Network Solutions did not really like each other, so their rapport was a bit tenuous. I remember when the idea for ICANN first arose, and it came after a particularly difficult week where the following occurred.

The head of DARPA, the defense advanced research products agency which had the contract for the IANA called me, saying that no longer would it let the contract for IANA when it expired. They wanted out.

The president of the university of southern California called saying that they could not take the lawsuits that were being directed against them and wanted out of their contract. Our legal counsel described over 50 lawsuits all over the world that could tear the Internet apart. A delegation from the International Telecommunication Union, after a dozen years of opposing the adoption of the Internet protocols, approached us demanding to take over the Internet. A delegation of U.S. Congressmen and senators insisted that the U.S. government had created the Internet and should never give up complete control of it. Several delegations of representatives from over 100 leading I.T. and media companies and 10 trade associations visited saying that Internet technical coordination and security had to be brought into a more predictable global environment before they would invest money in it.

And the EU delegation said that they would pursue their own relation of the Internet routing system unless the U.S. changed its policies. Representatives from the Internet Society that I had dinner with told us that the Internet Society controlled the Internet and they would resist any attempts by the U.S. government or any government to take control. And the U.S. government security task force on the Internet delivered a report to us saying that as currently organized, the Internet was in danger of disintegrating from the lawsuits and lack of agreed-upon coordination mechanism. And in addition to that, my kid caught a flu which I also caught, so it was a wonderful week.

[ Laughter ]

So we clearly had to do something. We clearly had to do something.

Now, the idea of ICANN might have been a result of that flu, but I hope not.

[ Laughter ]

But the idea of ICANN was unprecedented, but we felt it offered the best chance to allow for the Internet to flourish.

If we left the coordination of the Internet DNS to an intergovernmental body, we feared that it would get bogged down in bureaucracy and approvals would move at a glacial place. Personally I'm a believer that governments play an important role in societies, and I'm a supporter of the United Nations. I work closely with U.N. agencies in my current work, leading efforts at the Clinton Foundation on Global Health and Climate Change, but the slow and bureaucratic processes of government and multilateral government bodies are not the best way to coordinate a fast-moving, creative, chaotic medium like the Internet. They move too slowly. They're too risk-averse. They officially represent only governments and not other constituencies. And just in general, they're too cumbersome.

On the other hand, the Internet could not be coordinated by a normal private entity. There must be public accountability to Internet users and investors.

There also has to be accountability to governments.

The idea of setting up a private nonprofit organization that would be organized to be a grass-roots organization of technical experts accountable to Internet users and constituencies and be recognized by governments but not controlled by governments was risky. That had not been done before on a global scale. We knew it would be difficult and somewhat messy, but we thought that it offered the best chance of success.

It would have a government advisory group that could ensure that the views of collective governments were at the forefront, but they could not control it.

It would provide a strong focal point to take all of the inevitable lawsuits that would continue to come with any decisions made about the routing system for the Internet. It would be flexible enough to evolve as the Internet evolved. It would be at the same time strong but not too strong. It would have its own independent funding source for an assessment on domain name registrations but it would never get too big and its legitimacy would have to be renewed regularly by its ability to persuade the various constituency groups that it remained the best solution.

This was the idea that became ICANN.

We identified Vint Cerf as someone to lead it initially because he had credibility with all the constituencies. I'm not sure he's ever forgiven us to this day, but we thought it was the best shot that the Internet had.

[ Laughter ]

Now, not everything has gone as we had planned. ICANN has made some mistakes as an organization. It's far from perfect. But overall, we think the idea has worked. The political, policy, and technical controversies that threatened to stifle or even ruin the Internet in its infancy in the late 1990s did not ruin the Internet. The Internet is flourishing.

When, in the late 1990s I used to make speeches around the world touting the future of the Internet, I was widely mocked for predicting that by 2010, there would be 1 billion people using the Internet, and Internet commerce would exceed a few hundred billion dollars a year.

Experts and political leaders alike said I was wrong. It would be impossible to go from 16 million people -- which is where we were then -- to 1 billion people in just 15 years. They argued it would be politically and technically impossible for the Internet to expand that fast.

I was accused of being a big thinker and a dreamer.

Well, I was wrong, but not because of what the critics said. I was wrong because I did not think or dream big enough.

Today, there are almost 2 billion Internet users. There are over 3.7 billion IP addresses. And over 129 million domain names. And electronic commercial has grown to almost a trillion dollars per year.

The Internet has spawned a complete revolution politically, economically, and socially, and it has all worked pretty smoothly. The technical and diplomatic work of ICANN and IETF and other bodies have enabled this enormous growth to occur with hardly a glitch.

Once -- one has not read stories of legal or political battles or technical difficulties bringing the Internet to a halt or preventing it from growing. And I want to pause just to reflect on that. That is extraordinary. If you think about this enormous growth and the way it's spread around the world and all the commerce being done and so on, and even though inside of ICANN it must seem like you're having a controversy every week, the fact of the matter is the Internet has flourished. It has grown and flourished.

And I can tell you sitting where we were in the late 1990s, that was not at all a foregone conclusion. In fact, it seemed like a likely thing that could go bad and not happen.

Now, would things have worked as well if we would not have created ICANN and did the things we did? Maybe. You can always speculate. But the reality is for all its shortcomings, ICANN has not prevented this resolution; and by most accounts, it has played an important and positive role in helping to enable it.

So the reason for my history lesson today is to remind you all that the Internet almost broke down before it really took off in the late 1990s. And it almost broke down in legal, political and policy disputes that could have fragmented it, inhibit its use and, the very least, delayed it and made it more difficult to access.

While ICANN has its faults, I urge you to work actively to improve it rather than tearing it down or allowing it to be replaced with a more stifling bureaucratic alternative.

Now, I remember my last day at the White House. A good friend of mine said, The good news is that for the first time in six years you will be able to say what you really think. The bad news is that for the first time in six years nobody will care what you really think.

[ Laughter ]

But at the risk of having that be true and having not care what I think, let me just finish by offering a couple of suggestions. And I offer them in the spirit of the success that I believe ICANN has been and the greater success that it can be.

I think there are things that ICANN should do to work better and that the reaffirmation of principles issued in September of 2009 offers a good basis for making these improvements. And I think having talked this past few weeks to people at ICANN, people at the U.S. government and elsewhere, I think that people are aware that these improvements can be made and are working to do it. And I would just give support to that effort.

One is ICANN always needs to work hard to be more international and, in particular, to include more people in its leadership and management from developing countries around the world. The Internet has become much more widely distributed since we were involved 15 years ago and will become even more widely distributed still. And as somebody who now is working on AIDS in Africa and elsewhere and interacting a lot with governments in poorer countries, it's crucial that they become more and more a part of this structure as much as possible.

Number two, ICANN must take great pains to operate in an efficient manner. It is a public service organization with a technical mission that should be frugal, and it must always have humility in the way it works. Its leaders must avoid trying to build an empire. I think you will be best served by doing what you need to be doing, to be focused on but not build something that's too big an empire because a bigger empire becomes a bigger target.

Number three -- (applause) -- ICANN must be incorruptible and fully transparent in what it does seeking consensus and explaining its decisions fully. There are too many disparate interests on the Internet to avoid controversy, okay? You are going to have controversy. You are going to do things that are unpopular by definition. Not only is this a very diverse community, but it is a diverse community of people with strong personalities. That's something I learned very early on.

And so you are going to have lots of controversy, lots of people shouting at each other, lots of ideas, lots of ideas. And you are never going to be able to get full consensus. But you ought to try to get as much as consensus as possible all the time. And where you don't have consensus, you need full transparency and accountability in explaining your decisions because even that way if people disagree with you, they can understand the logic behind what you did. So consensus will not always be possible, but you must do the best to seek as much consensus as possible and then explain your decisions.

Fourth, ICANN should always look to empower Internet users. Do not make a rule that limits what people can do on the Internet unless it is absolutely necessary for the Internet to function in a predictable, safe and secure way.

And, finally, I will offer this to my successors in the U.S. government, that they should exercise their role in full consultation with other governments and in a light-handed manner.

Now, I think if those kinds of principles are followed -- and I do think there are people of goodwill at ICANN and in the U.S. government and elsewhere interested in following those principles, I think ICANN will continue to flourish and the Internet will flourish.

ICANN processes will always be a bit messy. Grassroots democracy is by its nature contentious. While ICANN can and must improve, we must all work within it to improve it rather than to try to tear it down or replace it. With all its faults, it has worked. The Internet has flourished.

The wonder of the Internet is that any individual in the world with any idea is free to introduce that idea to 2 billion people without having to ask permission. If he or she can gain a following, that individual can build a huge business, introduce new art, music or literature to the world, form a global social movement or improve the way the Internet itself works.

The Internet gives anybody in the world a chance to change the world. You as current stewards of Internet coordination and policy have a responsibility to ensure that parochial, commercial or political concerns and technical problems are sorted out so that the world remains safe for the Internet and so that the human freedom and empowerment the Internet brings can continue to flourish.

I wish for you to have the wisdom, tolerance and patience to do your job well. Thank you.

..

President Bill Clinton at the ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting

2011-04-05T03:07:00.001+05:30

At the Westin St.Francis which was the venue of the meeting as also the Hotel for most ICANN participants, the Security team of President Clinton was unobtrusive and caused the least changes in our activities during the day. There were no unusual security checks on arrival at the Hotel on Saturday, no sign of any restrictions on any of us for the next few days leading to the day of the visit by the President. The only requirement was that all of us had to assemble at the Ball room an hour before the speech on Wednesday evening at 6 pm. All the participants queued up along the hallway, everyone without any discrimination, the queue started at the door of the ball room, wound its way along the stairway up to the end of the corridor on the floor above, everyone was on the queue for about 20 minutes, then it took about 5 minutes to reach the door of the ball room. No instructions to leave behind the laptops or mobile phones, no metal detectors, no frisking, the only instruction was to walk through, on a single line. It was very polite on the part of the President's Security Team to have organized this event so well, so unobtrusively. We all went in with our laptops and laptop bags and mobile phones and took our seats with least interference.

The following from the ICANN Web: President Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, praised the success of ICANN's multi-stakeholder model by pointing out that when he took office in 1992, there were about 50 Internet web sites. When he left office eight years later, there were roughly 36 million.

"We've seen an enormous amount of success," said President Clinton. "All of you played a role in that and I am grateful. We have in its new incarnation, the international community, governments and the private sector working together to get information to people all over the globe and I think it's a good model."

The Clinton administration was instrumental in 1998 in helping to form the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a unique non-profit multi-stakeholder organization to coordinate the global Internet addressing system.

President Clinton stressed the link between job creation and information technology during his address Wednesday evening to about thirteen hundred people at ICANN's on-going Silicon Valley-San Francisco international public meeting.

(Audio of the full speech soon to be posted with possible help from Joly MacFie of ISOC NY)

..

Closing arguments leading to the approval of .xxx by the ICANN Board at the ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting

2011-04-03T13:46:00.000+05:30

ICANN 40 Silicon Valley Meetin

At the ICANN 40 San Francisco Board voted to approve the sTLD on 18 March 2011, after going through years of discussion on the propriety of allowing .XXX as a TLD, probably the longest and most contentious of the issues that ICANN has handled so far.

.xxx (known as "dot triple-X") is a sponsored top-level domain (sTLD) intended as a voluntary option for pornographic sites on the Internet. The registry is to be operated by ICM. The sponsoring organization, the International Foundation for Online Responsibility (IFFOR), is in formation.

The .xxx name is inspired by the former MPAA and BBFC "X" rating, now commonly applied to pornographic movies as "XXX".

ICANN Board approves .xxx

A gTLD (generic top-level domain) for sexually explicit material was proposed as one tool for dealing with the conflict between those who wish to provide and access such material through the Internet, and those who wish to prevent access to it, either by children and adolescents, or by employees at their workplaces.

Advocates of the idea argue that it will be easier for parents and employers to block the entire TLD, rather than using more complex and error-prone content-based filtering, without imposing any restrictions on those who wish to access it.

Critics of the idea argue that because there is no requirement for providers of explicit content to use the TLD, sexually explicit material will still be commonplace in other domains, making it ineffectual at restricting access, and simply creating a new "landrush" as registrants of .com domains hosting explicit material attempt to duplicate their registrations in the .xxx domain, competing with operators who hope to register desirable names unavailable in other TLDs. There is also concern that the existence of .xxx will lead to legislation making its use mandatory for sexually explicit material, leading to legal conflicts over the definition of "sexually explicit", free speech rights, and jurisdiction (from wikipedia)

Closing Arguments

Excerpts from the transcript of the Board Meeting on 18th March on XXX

Peter Dengate Thursh, Chair of the ICANN Board

PETER DENGATE THRUSH {Chair): The floor is now open. Would anybody like to speak in relation to this motion. George?

GEORGE SADOWSKY: This is going to be a longer intervention than usual, and I hope you'll bear with me. This is a really pivotal moment in the development of ICANN's policy and I really would like to address this rather fully.

The issues that are presented by this resolution have been some of the most contentious in ICANN's history, and when I joined the board I anticipated that I might have to address them during my tenure.

I've struggled for the past year in good faith to understand and analyze the issues presented based upon what I understand to be in the best interests of the organization.

As a result, I've decided to oppose the resolution. My position is based on five major considerations.

The first one is that my position in this vote is not about adult entertainment. My personal attitude toward adult entertainment is resolution.

Further, my vote is in no way a statement against Stuart Lawley or against ICM, the entity sponsoring dot xxx, because with the exception of implicitly claiming to have broad-based support of participants within the industry to which they belong, I believe they've behaved according to the processes established by ICANN.

Our issue today really has nothing to do with adult content, per se, and my vote is not against pornography on the Internet.

Now, as we know, the Internet is filled with pornographic sites. They're easy to create and locate, even without a common label at the top of the domain namespace.

Whether dot xxx is or is not approved, I anticipate that the amount of pornography on the Internet and its rate of growth will not change significantly.

Second, my position is informed by my perception of insufficient proof of worldwide community support.

ICM applied for dot xxx as a sponsored gTLD, and under the sTLD process, applicants were required to show -- and I quote from the RFP for the sTLD round of applications -- were required to show, quote, broad-based support from the community it is intended to represent.

To the best of my knowledge, and based on data provided to this board in various ways, I believe that the evidence indicates that such broad-based support was illusory. The process in which this board is now engaged was initiated when a previous ICANN board made what I believe was a fundamental error, agreeing to proceed to contract negotiations with ICM.

I now believe that the judgment of the IRP, the independent review panel, claiming that the board's 2005 decision determined that ICM met the sponsorship criteria should not have been accepted.

George Sadowsky

Third, this vote is not about freedom of speech. The Internet today is a global infrastructure that anyone can use to become a publisher. Today, there are millions of Web sites providing content to the world on a very wide range of subjects and areas, including adult content. The mandate of ICANN does not extend in any way to judgment of adult content or any other content, per se.

It's my opinion that whether dot xxx is or is not approved, the amount and the rates of growth of types of content on the Internet will not change significantly.

If dot xxx is not created, I maintain that individual users of the Internet will not be harmed.

Users who want adult content will be able to find it as easily as if dot xxx existed.

It's my belief that publishers of information on the Internet, including publishers of adult content, will be able to implement their rights of free expression as easily in the absence of dot xxx as in its presence.

Fourth, and extremely important, I believe that the future of the unified DNS could be at stake.

I submit that the approval of the application for dot xxx could encourage moves to break the cohesiveness and uniqueness of the DNS.

In my judgment, it would undoubtedly lead to filtering the domain, and quite possibly instigate the erosion, degradation, and eventual fragmentation of the unique DNS root.

Now, while we know that filtering already exists, I believe that the creation of dot xxx would mark the first instance of an action by this board that may directly encourage such filtering, posing a risk to the security and stability of the DNS.

In my judgment, the board should not be taking actions that encourage filtering or blocking of a domain at the top level.

Further, I believe that the filtering of so-called offensive material can provide a convenient excuse for political regimes interested in an intent on limiting civic rights and freedom of speech.

Further, I believe that such moves provide an incitement to fracture the root, a concern that we've recognized in preparation for the new gTLD program as a distinct threat to the security and stability of the DNS.

Interestingly, we've heard opinions of others that in this manner, the creation of dot xxx could quite possibly lead to a loss of free speech rights in countries with repressive regimes. We must avoid this at all costs.

The majority of opinions that I've heard from those at ICANN meetings have expressed support for the inclusion of dot xxx in the root. However, from the point of view of the average person in our larger world of 6 1/2 billion people -- I'm going to repeat that.

From the point of view of the average person in our larger world of 6 1/2 billion people, it's my opinion that these conversations in ICANN meetings would most probably have been perceived as a meeting of a small exclusive club of affluent people coming from a small subset of the world's population, many of whom have, at best, a superficial understanding of other cultures and with insufficient regard of the potential effects of admitting dot xxx into the root, into societies with different and deeply held cultural and behavioral norms.

Fifth and centrally, ICANN has a duty to uphold the global public interest.

ICANN has agreed that its actions are to be in the global public interest, and I believe that if this resolution passes and dot xxx is put into the root, the action could be regarded as against the global public interest.

Compared to what I believe could be significant harms, there is, at best, a very limited global public interest case to be made for the inclusion of dot xxx in the root in terms of its possible effect on the level of child pornography on the Internet.

I believe that there is a stronger case that there could be significant harmful and possibly irreversible effects with regard to the uniqueness and cohesiveness of the global Internet if dot xxx is, in fact, included in the root.

It's my opinion that the duty of ICANN is not to be a passive agent in the process of monetizing character strings for others to exploit with little regard to the effects of such actions in the world.

If dot xxx were to be included in the root, I believe this would be in disregard of significant global sensitivities.

The community dialogue appears to regard character strings chiefly as opportunities for monetization and profit. This can be a legitimate business approach, but I believe that in the interest of the stability of the Internet, it is ICANN's duty to be aware of probable negative externalities in its consideration of such activities.

You know, if today's vote had an impact only in my own country, the United States, I wouldn't object to the establishment of this domain, but the application this board is invited to consider has more wide-ranging implications far beyond the United States or even beyond the so-called developed countries alone.

It has the potential to affect those 6 1/2 billion people and their considerable complexity of their various cultures.

Those cultures hold diverse views regarding many aspects of human conduct, including different approaches to philosophical concerns, human and civic rights, religious persuasions, freedom of speech and expression, political systems, aesthetic expression, and sexual preference.

We may have opinions, positive and negative, regarding other cultures and ethical systems, but unless in defense either of self or of core human rights, it's my opinion that we must proceed carefully when we consider the delegation of top-level domains, global-level domains, consisting of concepts and terms that may run counter to the sensibilities of significant segments of the world's population.

In retrospect, it's unfortunate that the criteria for approval of ICM's application -- that is, the sTLD process -- did not include a formal objection procedure to account for the diverse cultural concerns that could arise.

If dot xxx were approved, I believe that it would be a victory of compulsory adherence to process, rather than a serious discussion regarding our responsibility for the future of the DNS and the Internet.

It would be a victory of process over goals and of means over ends.

And if, in the future, there arise significant unanticipated negative consequences as a result of this decision, will our defense be limited to the excuse, "But I just followed the process"?

So in spite of some possibility of resulting in some useful change, I believe on balance that the proposed resolution currently before the board threatens the long-run integrity of the DNS and works against the global public interest. It should be defeated.

Thank you.

PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, George.

Does anybody else want to speak to the resolution?

Katim.

KATIM TOURAY: Thanks, Peter.

I would also like to say that I am going to be voting against this resolution.

And my reasons for the vote that I intend to make are very simple. In fact, it's only one.

It's been a very contentious process, a very litigious process, and of course a lot of emotion has been spent by both sides on the matter.

But for me, I think the deal killer has been my own evaluation and my assessment of the impact that I perceive this would have on ICANN's relationships with governments around the world.

It is my belief that the GAC is a very important and vital constituency of ICANN, and the GAC we are dealing with now is different from the GAC that ICANN was dealing with three years ago and, dare I say, five years ago.

There has been a fundamental shift in the central gravity, as it were, of the involvement of the GAC in ICANN. Many governments are now waking up to the reality of the need for them to get more involved in what ICANN is doing for the greater good of the global Internet community.

And so it is for this very reason that I think that for ICANN to, on this matter, put aside the advice of the GAC and its members would, I think, be unconstructive and, in the end, poisonous to the atmosphere that we need to build -- and a positive one at that --between ICANN and the GAC and the rest of the governments of -- and the governments of the world.

And I say this also because in my mind, the relationships between ICANN and the GAC and governments and GAC is probably the most single existential relationship that we have.

That is, I say "existential" in the sense that it is one relationship that could potentially have an existential threat on ICANN.

You and I know that there have been a lot of governments that have been pushing, in Internet Governance Forums around the world, for the transfer of some of the work that's been done by ICANN to other international bodies and to other international frameworks.

In other words, we are talking about a situation where there are many governments that would be very happy to see ICANN gone. And so for that very reason, not that I see this as a panic move or whatever, but I think in the interest of engagement and of constructive relationship with governments around the world, I think it would be unwise for us to pass this resolution. And it's for that very reason I intend to vote against it. Thank you.

PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Thank you, Katim. Bertrand? Thank you.

BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: As you can imagine, it is an extremely difficult decision to make. As a board member that arrives after an extremely long process that I have followed extensively, you can imagine that I've pondered the importance of the vote I'm making today. I will vote in favor of the resolution, and I will explain why.

I share a large number of the concerns expressed by both George and Katim. And I want to say as a first element that it is in full consideration of all the cultural sensitivities that are legitimate that must be taken into account, that are being taken into account.

This is not a discussion about a relationship between a small minority and the governments of this world so much. Even a small minority, we are exactly what has been described. We are privileged. We are here. We can make decisions. We can participate. Nothing prevents, however, a small minority to weigh the pros and cons of situations and try to define what is best globally.

The reason why I'm voting in favor today is that I have studied the consequences of voting no, and the consequences would not be earth-shattering. We can vote no. Nothing is compelling us to vote no. We are free. I mean, this is a decision.

If there is a no, things will evolve. And, by the way, the way the resolution is worded today, if we were to vote no, it would not even be the end because we actually could pass then another resolution to say we definitely vote no because if we vote no here, literally speaking, we have not decided against. We have decided not to put it positively in the root. So we can go on in this game forever, and this game can go on forever.

And so I wondered what is most important, what is most harmful for the model that we are following. Is it to have the game go on forever, or is it to solve the question today?

And solving the question today has to take into account another thing. If we are to vote no today and, for instance, decide not to vote to endorse, we may have a decision later on to formally decide not to do it. And we may even not have a majority there.

But what would happen in any case, even if we decided in this round, in this selection to not endorse ICM, there will be lawsuits. There will be a lot of nice processes. This is not the problem. But there will be a very legitimate application in the new gTLD program for .XXX. And as George said, it has nothing to do whether there is the content or no content on the Internet that relates to pornography. This is not a matter for the ICANN board to decide whether it is good or not to have pornography on the Internet.

If there is a vote no, there will be a legitimate application that will come in whenever the round comes in. And my evaluation of what is in the applicant guidebook and what should be in the applicant guidebook is that the result is that a perfectly non-sponsored, non-community TLD would be submitted because it is a burden to have community restrictions.

And I was asking myself this very simple question, what is better, having in a few years a completely non-controlled .XXX TLD? Because there will be no obligation to have something, and it would pass through the objections or the current mechanism that through this very torturous root has led to at least a significant amount of framing this.

So in conclusion, it is not an easy decision to make. And the reason why I decide in the end that the global public interest is satisfied is because it is not insulting to other cultures. It is a reflection of the reality and the diversity. And it is altogether better to have this framework than the worst framework that would necessarily happen later. Thank you.

PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Merci, Bertrand.

Erika?

ERIKA MANN: Thank you so much, Peter. It is, indeed, a difficult -- a difficult decision because it takes us into new areas. And whenever we move into new areas as human beings, we tend to be uncertain. And that's a natural -- it is a natural reaction because what we don't know in reality what is the perfect answers. But that's the way we as human beings explore new adventures. We don't know what is the perfect answer. So we always have to take risk. It is not something new which we experience here in the Internet world. And with this decision on XXX, I think it is something which will be with us forever.

So my consideration taking all points into my reflections, the technical questions, will it be conflictual with the way the DNS is structured, the political questions with regard to our global environment, the stability questions. And I went around as much as I could in this short time, since I remember looking into the documents, finding answers with the community. My answer is I will say yes. I want to take the risk because we will have to face this challenge anyhow. If we don't face it today, we will have to face it with the new round on new gTLDs. It is not going away. And nobody, and at least not in the near future, can say that's right, that's wrong.

So taking this all in consideration, I would say yes and I will take the risk and face the challenge. Thank you.

PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Erika.

Ray Plzak?

RAY PLZAK: Thank you, Peter. I won't attempt to speak any more eloquently than Bertrand or Erika already has on this matter. Yes, this is, indeed, a time of challenge. But I would point out the fact that, yes, we are following a process here; but I do not think we are slaves to this process.

I know that many of my fellow board members, in fact, all of my fellow board members, have agonized over this process. We have agonized over it for a long time. And so that we have chosen to move down the road that we are going doesn't mean we are slaves to what we're doing.

We have just spent three, four days this week and several days in Brussels discussing nothing but process. And so I think that this resolution, while it is challenging, it is a challenge to us as an organization. It is also a chance for us to step forward, so I will be voting yes on this.

PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Ray.

Kuo-Wei?

KUO-WEI WU: I share what George said. It is a very painful decision. No matter what a single member decides, I think we all do our best for this ICANN mechanism, also for this whole community.

And I fully believe every single member, no matter he vote for yes or no, I think we actually look in the best interest for this whole community and this mechanism. And my vote would be saying no.

PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Kuo.

Steve Crocker?

STEVE CROCKER: Thank you, Peter. As you all have heard, each and every one of us has labored hard to think through the issues here. I want to make it clear that this has weighed heavily on us as individuals, heavily on us as board members.

We have listened to all segments of the community, and we have specifically listened very, very carefully to the GAC with great respect and with great attention.

So the decision that we're making here is not casual and it is not in any way intended to give less weight than you would hope that we would give.

So that's the -- that's the main thing that I want to say here, not to be defensive or proactive about which way the decision goes but to be very, very strong in stating that we have been very interested, very attentive and given great weight, as I said, to -- both to the letter and to the feelings and the meanings that are conveyed behind the words that have come to us from the GAC. Thank you.

PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Steve.

Rita?

RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thank you, Peter. There's an expression in the U.S. "caught between a rock and hard place." And for those that are not familiar with it, it connotes being caught between two very difficult choices. And I have never felt this so poignantly as with this XXX decision.

I was a member of the board in 2007 when I and we voted against XXX. We were instructed notwithstanding activities of a prior board in 2005 to review the application to see whether, among other things, it met the sponsorship criteria. At that time, I did not feel that it did so I voted against.

Subsequently, an independent review panel reported that my vote was improperly considered. As a board member, I did not have the ability to assess the sponsorship criteria because the prior board had made that decision, maybe in a confusing way but it made that decision in 2005.

It is now 2011, six years later, and we still have not made our final decision. The reason I think the situation is between a rock and a hard place is because this is the clear lose-lose for our board. If we vote in favor, we are seen to ignore comments of community participants including the GAC. If we vote against, we do not honor the findings of an independent process that we have set up to review our decisions.

In my view, we all learned that the criteria set up as part of the prior sTLD round could have been improved in many important areas. In reviewing some of the elements of the IRP process as with many of ICANN processes, there also is room for improvement.

And as we've seen this week, the consultation process with the GAC is still in its quite nascent stages and needs urgent attention.

But the bottom line for me is on balance, I feel a responsibility to respect our processes. However flawed they may be -- and I hope they are included in the ATRT process for improvements -- they exist. You all read them, you use them, and you rely on them.

In that instance, I do not feel that I can now again for a second time vote against this TLD. To me, that would mean that I place my status as a board member above everything and everyone else here, and I don't think that is even marginally appropriate or true.

This is not a debate about pornography or free speech or respect for religious, cultural or governmental differences. The time for that is long past. This is a debate about respect for process.

So I hope, to channel President Clinton as many have done this week, regardless of our individual, personal views on this issue, we can all join together and stumble forward with this TLD.

I want to express apologies to the GAC members who do not support this TLD. Blocking occurs today, and this vote may exacerbate that which would be very unfortunate.

I want to apologize to community members who took the time to come to the mic yesterday and many times over these long years to oppose this TLD. The good news for you is XXX will not quash free speech, nor will it affect any other TLD so your sites in dot com and others can continue to flourish, or do whatever the appropriate word would be there that they do.

[ LAUGHTER ]

Thank you for that laugh. That was supposed to be a joke.

And, finally, to the dot xxx registry, good luck, boys and girls. You can be sure all eyes will be watching. I hope that you uphold your contractual commitments and will be prudent, cautious and responsible in this bold new space. Thanks very much.

PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Rita.

Suzanne?

SUZANNE WOOLF: Sure, thank you, Peter.

I just want to note briefly that one of the reasons why this has been such a difficult set of decisions is that sometimes it is possible to give unambiguous technical advice, as much as we would like the world to work that way; and this has been one of those times. It seemed worth noting on the issue of prohibition of access or blocking that what appears in the rationale after much discussion and soul searching. I'll just point that out from the document.

The issue of governments or any other entity blocking or filtering access to a specific TLD is not unique to the issue of the dot xxx sTLD. What we agree is blocking of TLDs is generally undesirable. If some blocking of the XXX sTLD does occur, there is no evidence the result will be different than the blocking that already occurs. Thank you.

PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Suzanne.

Does anyone else wish to speak? If not, I think it is time to put this resolution. So all those in favor of this resolution which will have the effect of instructing the CEO to sign the contract with ICM for the XXX top-level domain please raise your hands.

All those opposed please raise your hands. Three.

Any abstentions? One, two, three, four.

And I declare the resolution carried.

.

EU Data Retention Directive rejected as Unconstitutional by Czechs

2011-03-31T23:56:00.000+05:30

The following is a reproduction of the article published by the Open Rights Group as reported by NNSquad

Data retention has been rejected as unconstitutional in the Czech republic. The EU Directive, pushed forward by the UK, creates an obligation to store everyone's traffic data, such as who you email or call on your phone, for possible use in criminal investigations.

This rejection follows a similar rejection in Romania, limitations in Germany and failure to implement in Sweden. There is an ongoing challenge by Digital Rights Ireland.

Data rentention cancelled in Czech republic
Constitutional Court: Spying on Communication Declared Unconstitutional
An ongoing campaign by the civic rights organisation Iuridicum Remedium (IuRe) aimed against public spying on everyday communication resulted in a considerable success. In its today´s session, the Constitutional Court announced its decision to repeal legislation according to which records of e-mails, phone calls, SMS as well as websites accesses of every citizen should be retained for a time period of six months as a matter of precaution.
“The Constitutional Court accepted all points of our complaint and we do consider this a great success. Now the time has come to open discussion on new ways of implementing the Data Retention Directive into our legal system in order to meet the highest standards with respect to privacy protection. Of course, only assuming that the Directive will not be repealed as a whole,” explains IuRe legal expert Jan Vobořil.
Constitutional Court agreed with IuRe privacy protection activists and a group of 51 MPs headed by Marek Benda who in March 2010 submitted a proposal elaborated by IuRe calling for repeal of relevant sections of the Electronic Communications Act and implementing legislation imposing obligation on mobile operators and internet providers to retain data on communication for police use. “I do welcome this decision of the Constitutional Court to accept the proposal of Civic Democratic Party (ODS) MPs to repeal such obligation imposed on operators. This is another confirmation proving the merits of our ongoing efforts to protect personal integrity. Not even the European anti-terrorism campaign can lead to unrivalled privacy infringement,” urged MP Marek Benda, MP. Apart from Civic Democrats (ODS), the complaint filed with the Constitutional Court also enjoyed support of Green Party (Strana zelených) MPs.
The Court declared the respective section of the Electronic Communications Act and its implementing legislation unconstitutional and repealed it as of today. According to the Court statement, ambiguous definition of data retention rules results in a situation where such “measures as to request and use retained data are being overused by authorities engaged in criminal proceedings for purposes related to investigation of common, i.e. less serious crimes”.
“The Constitutional Court also regards e.g. certain provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the use of such data by authorities engaged in criminal proceeding as highly questionable and it called on MPs to consider its modification,” adds IuRe expert Petr Kučera.
According to the Court, it will be necessary to consider each individual case in which data have already been requested in order to be used in criminal proceedings one by one – with respect to the principle of proportionality regarding privacy rights infringement. “This decision also implies that electronic communication providers are no longer obliged by any law to retain such data for the use of entitled authorities – as was previously the case according to the repealed provisions; the respective databases should be deleted,” explains IuRe legal expert Jan Vobořil. “This Constitutional Court decision is of great importance not only with respect to the Czech Republic but to the European Union as a whole, since there is currently an evaluation process under way assessing the impact and constitutionality of the Data Retention Directive,” comments Vobořil.

Applications now open - Next Generation Leaders eLearning programme “Shaping the Internet – History and Futures”

2011-03-14T23:52:00.001+05:30

The Internet Society is pleased to call for applications from talented individuals seeking to join the new generation of Internet leaders, who will address the critical technology, policy, business, and education challenges that lie ahead.

Following the successful launch of the programme last year, in 2011 the Internet Society is offering concurrent classes in English and French. Both classes will start in the week of 16 May 2011.

The course, “Shaping the Internet – History and Futures”, is delivered by the DiploFoundation through their eLearning platform and learning methodology and features weekly online discussions of the course materials, moderated by a tutor and an expert facilitator.

The NGL programme is designed to advance the careers of individuals who have the potential to become local, regional, and international leaders within the Internet technology, policy, and governance communities. The curriculum empowers participants to share their particular expertise with colleagues while acquiring knowledge in areas outside of their specialties.

Places in the eLearning course are strictly limited, so all applications will be subject to a thorough selection process.

* The deadline for applications is 8 April 2011. *

The Programme
---------------

The programme offers 20-25 places in each class for professionals from diverse stakeholder backgrounds in the fields of Internet technology, governance, and policy. Both courses are open to individuals from around the world. The programme will be conducted entirely online.

The programme includes four thematic parts, which take place over six months during 2011 (May to October, with an exam in the first week of November):

- The History of the Internet
- Technical Background - Internet Standards and Technology
- Internet Governance and Policy
- Emerging issues – Studies in Internet Policies, Processes and Diplomacy

Learning activities take place in an online classroom and include analysis of course materials, interactive group discussions using a variety of communication tools, assignments, and exams. Successful participants will receive a certificate of completion of the programme.

Languages
-----------
Course materials and moderated online discussions for each course are in English and French, respectively.

Target Audience
----------------
The project is designed for Internet Society members from academia, the public sector, technology industries, and civil society who are committed to the ongoing expansion of an open, sustainable Internet.

Applications from the following categories of individuals from both developed and developing countries are encouraged:

- officials in governmental ministries and departments dealing
with ICT-related issues (for example, telecommunications,
culture, education, foreign affairs, justice)
- officials in regulatory authorities or institutions dealing
with Information Society, Internet, and ICT-related issues
- postgraduate students and researchers (for example,
telecommunications, electrical engineering, law, economics,
development studies, sociology)
- engineers in the Internet field
- civil society activists in the Internet field
- journalists covering Internet-related issues
- business people in the Internet field (for example, those
managing ISPs or involved in software development).

Timeline
---------
- 14 March: 2011 Call for Applications begins
- 8 April: 2011 Call for Applications ends
- 28 April: Selection Results released
- 16 May: Online classes commence

Requirements
-------------

Applicants are required to have:

- met the age requirement (20-40 years old)
- a basic awareness of, and interest in, Internet-related issues
- knowledge and experience of the multi-stakeholder approach in
international affairs
- a professional background and relevant work or academic experience
in the Internet field
- member status in ISOC
- fluency in English or French
- good writing skills, ability to summarize information, and focus on
details
- regular access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient)
- minimum of 8 hours commitment per week during each thematic part of
the online course (this is perhaps the single most important
requirement and should be evaluated seriously by any potential applicant)
- readiness to participate in online consultations (once a week at specified
times)

Deadline for Applications
--------------------------
The deadline for applications is 8 April 2011, by midnight UTC/GMT.

How to Apply
--------------
For more information about the full Next Generation Leaders programme, including details on how to apply to either eLearning course, please visit:

http://www.internetsociety.org/leaders

If you have any questions, please contact <leaders@internetsociety.org>.

The Next Generation Leaders programme is supported by Nominet Trust and operates under the patronage of the European Commission for Information Society and Media. Delivery of the eLearning programme in French is sponsored by AFNIC.

Parallel standards development poses threat to future Internet health

2011-03-01T06:08:00.000+05:30

Internet map from Wikimedia.org

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND and RESTON, VIRGINIA, USA – 28 February 2011 – the Internet Society, the world’s trusted independent source of Internet leadership and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the premier developer of Internet standards, announced plans for the continued development of the IETF’s Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) standard.

In the ongoing pursuit of a globally inter-operable solution, the IETF announced that it continues to gather transport requirements and work to extend IETF MPLS forwarding, Operations Administration and Maintenance (OAM), survivability, network management, and control plane protocols to meet those requirements through the IETF standards process.

This announcement comes on the heels of a decision taken at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) last Friday to move ahead with parallel technology development for OAM in MPLS transport networks. This step, over time, will affect the flow of Internet traffic, as separate standards will lead to products that are not able to interoperate.

Russ Housley, IETF Chair, commented; “The Internet we know today could not have come about without open, interoperable, global standards. I am surprised and disappointed by the action taken by the ITU. Collaboration on MPLS transport profile specifications have taken longer than expected, but the result is quality specifications, and many vendors are implementing them.”

“The Internet is an unprecedented success thanks to open, globally interoperable standards,” added Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society. “This action takes us away from the path of global interoperability. It will have a detrimental effect on the long term health of the Internet, and reduce the benefits to all of us as users. It is imperative that the IETF continues to move forward to develop the MPLS standard in the appropriate way, to ensure the continued health of the Internet as a source of innovation for the future.”

What is MPLS?

Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a networking standard, created by the IETF, that assigns labels to data packets, which can then operate across multiple different protocols. Forwarding or switching decisions for MPLS packets from one network node to another are made on the basis of the label (i.e., without requiring equipment to examine the packet’s content) facilitating easy to create end-to-end circuits. MPLS is commonly used to create Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), and it can be used to deliver different levels of quality of service (QoS) for different types of data. It is also gives service providers flexibility in routing; for example, to avoid broken links or failures.

What is the IETF’s role with respect to MPLS?

The IETF defined the MPLS specification, as part of the overall Internet technology specifications, which include the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6).

What is OAM?

OAM stands for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance; it is essentially the set of tools that assist an operator in managing and troubleshooting a network. This includes everything from ping and traceroute to SNMP, NetConf, and a variety of other management tools.

What has happened recently?

At a meeting that ran late into the evening on Friday 25th February 2011 in Geneva, one of the ITU’s technology focused study groups, the ITU-T Study Group 15, determined a Recommendation that defines operations, administration and management (OAM) for MPLS transport networks. The determined Recommendation is at odds with an IETF standard, in spite of an agreement put in place by the ITU and the IETF two years ago to avoid such an outcome.

Why does this action matter?

By deciding to initiate its own non-interoperable MPLS technology development, the ITU has created a situation where, in the future there will be two groups of MPLS products that will not work together. While the impact may not be immediate, ongoing evolution along this path will jeopardize the globally interconnected Internet.

Haven’t these international organizations worked together to develop MPLS standards and technologies?

Yes. Over the last few years, the ITU and the IETF have successfully collaborated on work in this field. Several years ago, both organizations created a joint working team (JWT) to examine the feasibility of developing a single, collaborative solution to MPLS transport requirements.

The JWT provided a report that stated not only that a single solution was possible but also confirmed that it was possible to extend the existing MPLS architecture to meet additional requirements. The JWT report went on to recommend that protocol development for this enhanced MPLS, to be known as MPLS-TP, should be undertaken by the IETF. Both organisations subsequently endorsed these findings and formally accepted the JWT report in December 2008.

Regarding the MPLS OAM, the agreement based on the JWT report also stated that both organizations are able to work in this field; but with the fundamental agreement that each would deliver mutually compatible technologies.

What is likely to happen with two non-interoperable standards are developed?

If both technologies are deployed, it is likely that there will be confusion; if only one is deployed, the existence of the alternative is irrelevant. In this instance, there are believed to be commercial products in development for both proposals, so confusion appears inevitable.

Is there a commercial reason for the ITU to create a separate standard? Was the organization responding to customer demand?

The organization is driven to respond to its membership’s demands, expressed through contributions. Certain members chose to develop this competing technology in the ITU, developing a second solution, instead of just one as recommended by the Joint Working Team (JWT).

What role does the IETF play in Internet standards development?

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is the world’s premier Internet standards developer. Its mission is to make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.

Why are global standards so important?

The Internet we know today could not have come about without open, interoperable, global standards. The availability of open standards means that anyone, anywhere in the world can design products, applications and technologies that enhance the Internet’s functionality.

What about multi-stakeholder collaboration in standards development?

The Internet Society believes that any interested parties, individuals or organizations should be able to contribute to standards development. In fact the IETF ensures that any interested person can participate in its work, know what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard on the issue. We believe that this collaborative approach leads to the development of an Internet that delivers the maximum value.

Did the IETF participate in the ITU-T SG15? Who made the decision?

The Internet Society is the organizational home for the IETF, and the IETF participates through the Internet Society’s ITU-T sector membership. In that role, the IETF/Internet Society spoke against this action. Ultimately, the decision was made by a vote. Only ITU member states (not Sector Members) were allowed to vote.

How has this sort of disconnect between the IETF and ITU been handled in the past?

This action is without precedent.

What will the IETF do?

The IETF will complete its work on a MPLS OAM specification. In the ongoing pursuit of a globally interoperable solution, the IETF continues to gather transport requirements and work to extend IETF MPLS forwarding, OAM, survivability, network management, and control plane protocols to meet those requirements through the IETF Standards Process.

..

Should Governments have an Internet Kill Swtich?

2011-02-21T05:39:00.001+05:30

Anti-government protesters use internet on a laptop in Tahrir Square, February. 7, 2011

Egypt shut down the Internet for five days starting from January 28 this year. (Libya tried the same yesterday) But the Internet shutdown in Egypt failed to stop the protests that forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign. But how did the Internet shut down happen?

Craig Labovitz is chief scientist at Arbor Networks says "From a technical standpoint, the popular imagination of the Internet is as a network that can survive nuclear wars, can't be stopped, is everything, everywhere. But the engineering realities are a lot more prosaic. In many countries there are a few natural bottlenecks, whether it be large data centers or right-of-ways."

WIRED says that the Egyptian government shut down most of its country’s internet not by phoning ISPs one at a time, but by simply throwing a switch in a crucial data center in Cairo.

The following slides are from a presentation by Dr Olivier Crepin LeBlond at a forum on Internet and Democracy in Ukraine.

During this talk Olivier emphasized "Clearly, the move of the Egyptian Government cost them nearly $100 Million, plus all of the loss of confidence in the country's outsourcing IT industry, and yet, the ruler was still overthrown, with or without Internet."

Internet freedom is certainly linked to progress. There is ample economic growth in countries with the most open Internet governance environments, the UK being one example.

Multi-stakeholder governance

View more presentations from Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond.

Global Internet Community Leader joins the Internet Society as VP for Public Policy

2011-01-19T23:06:00.000+05:30

Markus Kummer, former Executive Coordinator of the Internet Governance Forum is now Vice President, Public Policy at the Internet Society

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND and RESTON, VIRGINIA, USA - 19 November 2011 - An internationally recognized leader in a broad range of Internet policy issues will join the Internet Society as head of its public policy department. As the Internet Society's Vice President of Public Policy, Markus Kummer will advance key Internet Society policy positions on issues such as privacy, cybersecurity, and network neutrality. Most recently the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat supporting the United Nations' Internet Governance Forum, Kummer has extensive experience with Internet policy at the global, regional, and national levels.

"Markus' broad experience with and deep understanding of the key policy issues facing the Internet will help ensure the Internet Society has an even greater impact on issues critical to the Internet's continued evolution as an open platform for innovation and economic development," said Lynn St.Amour, the Internet Society's President and CEO.

Before joining the United Nations in 2004, Kummer held the position of eEnvoy for the Swiss Foreign Ministry in Berne. Mr. Kummer was a member of the Swiss delegation during the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) where he chaired several negotiating groups, including the group on Internet governance. He went on to serve as the Executive Coordinator of the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance from 2004 to 2005. Before his involvement with the WSIS, he served as a career diplomat in several functions in the Swiss Foreign Ministry and was posted in Lisbon, Vienna, Oslo, Geneva, and Ankara.

"In joining the Internet Society, I look forward to advancing the multistakeholder approach to policy that has been so central to the Internet's development and is even more critical to its future," said Markus Kummer, who will officially take up his position on 1 February 2011. "With its technical roots, the Internet Society is already established as a uniquely credible leader on policy issues, and a key contributor to policy discussions at the national, regional, and global levels."

The Internet Society is the world's trusted independent source of leadership on Internet issues. The Internet Society works with its tens of thousands of Members and nearly 100 Chapters around the world to promote the continued evolution and growth of the open global Internet.

..

A Walled Wide Web for Nervous Autocrats

2011-01-09T11:11:00.000+05:30

This is a Wall Street Journal Report by EVGENY MOROZOV

At the end of 2010, the "open-source" software movement, whose activists tend to be fringe academics and ponytailed computer geeks, found an unusual ally: the Russian government. Vladimir Putin signed a 20-page executive order requiring all public institutions in Russia to replace proprietary software, developed by companies like Microsoft and Adobe, with free open-source alternatives by 2015.

The move will save billions of dollars in licensing fees, but Mr. Putin's motives are not strictly economic. In all likelihood, his real fear is that Russia's growing dependence on proprietary software, especially programs sold by foreign vendors, has immense implications for the country's national security. Free open-source software, by its nature, is unlikely to feature secret back doors that lead directly to Langley, Va.

Picture from Wall Street Journal

Nor is Russia alone in its distrust of commercial software from abroad. Just two weeks after Mr. Putin's executive order, Iran's minister of information technology, citing security concerns, announced plans for a national open-source operating system. China has also expressed a growing interest. When state-owned China Mobile recently joined the Linux Foundation, the nonprofit entity behind the most famous open-source project, one of the company's executives announced—ominously to the ears of some—that the company was "looking forward to contributing to Linux on a global scale."

Information technology has been rightly celebrated for flattening traditional boundaries and borders, but there can be no doubt that its future will be shaped decisively by geopolitics. Over the past few years, policymakers around the world have had constant reminders of their growing dependence on—and vulnerability to—the new technology: the uncovering of the mysterious China-based GhostNet network, which spied on diplomatic missions around the globe; the purported crippling of Iran's nuclear capability by the Stuxnet virus; and, of course, the whole WikiLeaks affair. Governments are taking a closer look at who is providing their hardware, software and services—and they are increasingly deciding that it is dangerous not to develop independent national capabilities of their own.

Open-source software can allay some of these security concerns. Though such systems are more democratic than closed ones, they are also easier to manipulate, especially for governments with vast resources at their command. But open-source solutions can't deal with every perceived threat. As Google learned, the Chinese government continues to see Western search engines as a challenge to its carefully managed presentation of controversial subjects. Similarly, email can be read by the host government of the company offering the service, and the transmission of sensitive data can be intercepted via secret back doors and sent to WikiLeaks or its numerous local equivalents.

For these reasons, more governments are likely to start designating Internet services as a strategic industry, with foreign firms precluded from competing in politically sensitive niches. The Turkish government has emerged as the leading proponent of such "information independence," floating the idea of both a national search engine and a national email system. Authorities in Russia, China and Iran have debated similar proposals.

Judging by last year's standoff between the BlackBerry maker Research in Motion and the governments of India, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, questions of access also will play a growing role in shaping technology. If a government suspects that the U.S. National Security Agency has arranged to be able to retrieve private emails sent with BlackBerry's secure encryption technology, it starts to wonder why it doesn't have similar streams of intelligence data, from BlackBerry as well as from services like Gmail and Skype. At a minimum, more governments will demand that data servers base their operations in their own jurisdictions, inconveniencing global Internet companies that have based their business plans on the assumption that they could run their Indian operations from Iowa.

More from Wall Street Journal
.

What is IPv6 and who is in charge?

2010-12-16T10:51:00.000+05:30

What is IPv6 and who is Charge?

..

UN Needs to Ensure Open and Inclusive Internet Governance

2010-12-10T23:18:00.000+05:30

In an extraordinary meeting on 6 December the United Nation's Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) decided to create a Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) (http://www.intgovforum.org/) with a membership made up only of governments.

We believe this decision sets back the model of multistakeholder cooperation under which the IGF was established, and contradicts the instructions given to the CSTD for the establishment of the Working Group

The Internet Society has joined the International Chamber of Commerce - Business Action to Support the Information Society, the Internet Governance Caucus, and many other Internet, business, and civil society organizations in sending a letter to the CSTD, asking them to retract their previous decision and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group that ensures the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums.

Like the Internet, a multistakeholder approach has been at the core of the Internet Governance Forum's formation and success. We hope that Internet Society Chapters and Members, as well as other organizations, will join us in signing the letter.

You may read the full letter, and see the growing list of signatories, and indicated your own support here:

http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2710

Sincerely,

Jon McNerney
Chief Operating Officer
Internet Society
www.isoc.org

UN Needs to Ensure Open and Inclusive Internet Governance

.

Internet Society on the WikiLeaks Issue

2010-12-09T00:52:00.000+05:30

Recently, we have witnessed the effective disappearance from the Internet of a website made infamous through international press coverage and political intrigue.The Internet Society is founded upon key principles of free expression and non discrimination that are essential to preserve the openness and utility of the Internet. We believe that this incident dramatically illustrates that those principles are currently at risk.

Recognizing the content of the wikileaks.org website is the subject of concern to a variety of individuals and nations, we nevertheless believe it must be subject to the same laws and policies of availability as all Internet sites. Free expression should not be restricted by governmental or private controls over computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other essential components of the Internet.

Resilience and cooperation are built into the Internet as a design principle. The cooperation among several organizations has ensured that the impact on the Wikileaks organizational website has not prevented all access to Wikileaks material.

WikiLeaks web on the Internet on Dec 9, 2010

This further underscores that the removal of a domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely serving to undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation.

Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the wikileaks.org domain down legally, technical solutions should be sought to reestablish its proper presence, and appropriate actions taken to pursue and prosecute entities (if any) that acted maliciously to take it off the air.

..

Milton Mueller on Networks and States @ NYU

2010-12-08T16:35:00.000+05:30

ISOC-NY is organizing a Talk by Milton Mueller. This would be his first full exposition of his new book Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance at NYU on Tuesday December 14 2010. Prof. Mueller is a co-founder of ICANN’s NonCommercial User’s Constituency and a renowned cyberlibertarian. His 2002 book Ruling the Root has long been the definitive work on governance. He will talk on what has changed in the last 8 years. This event is open to the public and will be webcast live.

What: Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance
When: Tuesday December 14 2010 : 7-9pm
Where: Rm 317, Warren Weaver Hall NYU, 251 Mercer St NYC (& W. 4 St)
Who: Public welcome. No RSVP needed. Photo ID required.
Webcast: http://www.livestream.com/isocny
Hashtag: #isocny

Milton Mueller is a professor at the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University, where he teaches courses on information and communication policy and telecommunication management.He is also XS4All Professor at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands His research focuses on property rights, institutions and global governance in communication and information industries. Currently, he is doing research on the legal and regulatory responsibilities of Internet service providers, Internet Protocol addressing policy, the policy implications of Deep Packet Inspection technology and the security governance practices of network operators. Mueller was one of the founders of the Internet Governance Project, an alliance of scholars in action around global Internet policy issues. As co-founder of the Noncommercial Users Constituency, he has played a leading role in organizing and mobilizing public interest groups in ICANN. Mueller is on the Advisory Council of Public Interest Registry (.org).

Did China hijack 15% of World's Internet Traffic?

2010-11-16T11:40:00.000+05:30

The following report appeared in the American National Defense Industry Association's NationalDefenseMagazine and was quoted by Lauren Weinstein in his NNSquad list. I have emphasized parts of this report with coloured text and highlighter:

For 18 minutes in April, China’s state-controlled telecommunications company hijacked 15 percent of the world’s Internet traffic, including data from U.S. military, civilian organizations and those of other U.S. allies.

This massive redirection of data has received scant attention in the mainstream media because the mechanics of how the hijacking was carried out and the implications of the incident are difficult for those outside the cybersecurity community to grasp, said a top security expert at McAfee, the world’s largest dedicated Internet security company.

In short, the Chinese could have carried out eavesdropping on unprotected communications — including emails and instant messaging — manipulated data passing through their country or decrypted messages, Dmitri Alperovitch, vice president of threat research at McAfee said.

Nobody outside of China can say, at least publicly, what happened to the terrabytes of data after it entered China.

The incident may receive more attention when the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a congressional committee, releases its annual report on the bilateral relationship Nov. 17. A commission press release said the 2010 report will address “the increasingly sophisticated nature of malicious computer activity associated with China.”

Said Alperovitch: “This is one of the biggest — if not the biggest hijacks — we have ever seen.” And it could happen again, anywhere and anytime. It’s just the way the Internet works, he explained. “What happened to the traffic while it was in China? No one knows.”

The telephone giants of the world work on a system based on trust, he explained. Machine-to-machine interfaces send out messages to the Internet informing other service providers that they are the fastest and most efficient way for data packets to travel. For 18 minutes April 8, China Telecom Corp. told many ISPs of the world that its routes were the best paths to send traffic.

For example, a person sending information from Arlington, Va., to the White House in Washington, D.C. — only a few miles away — could have had his data routed through China. Since traffic moves around the world in milliseconds, the computer user would not have noticed the delay.

This happens accidentally a few times per year, Alperovitch said. What set this incident apart from other such mishaps was the fact that China Telecom could manage to absorb this large amount of data and send it back out again without anyone noticing a disruption in service. In previous incidents, the data would have reached a dead end, and users would not have been able to connect.

Also, the list of hijacked data just happened to include preselected destinations around the world that encompassed military, intelligence and many civilian networks in the United States and other allies such as Japan and Australia, he said. “Why would you keep that list?” Alperovitch asked.

The incident involved 15 percent of Internet traffic, he stressed. The amount of data included in all these packets is difficult to calculate. The data could have been stored so it could be examined later, he added. “Imagine the capability and capacity that is built into their networks. I’m not sure there was anyone else in the world who could have taken on that much traffic without breaking a sweat,” Alperovitch said.

McAfee has briefed U.S. government officials on the incident, but they were not alarmed. They said their Internet communications are encrypted. However, encryption also works on a basis of trust, McAfee experts pointed out. And that trust can be exploited.

Internet encryption depends on two keys. One key is private and not shared, and the other is public, and is embedded in most computer operating systems. Unknown to most computer users, Microsoft, Apple and other software makers embed the public certificates in their operating systems. They also trust that this system won’t be abused.

Among the certificates is one from the China Internet Information Center, an arm of the China’s Ministry of Information and Industry.

“If China telecom intercepts that [encrypted message] and they are sitting on the middle of that, they can send you their public key with their public certificate and you will not know any better,” he said. The holder of this certificate has the capability to decrypt encrypted communication links, whether it’s web traffic, emails or instant messaging, Alperovitch said. “It is a flaw in the way the Internet operates,” said Yoris Evers, director of worldwide public relations at McAfee.

No one outside of China can say whether any of these potentially nefarious events occurred, Alperovitch noted. “It did not make mainstream news because it is so esoteric and hard to understand,” he added. It is not defined as a cyberattack because no sites were hacked or shut down. “But it is pretty disconcerting.”

And the hijacking took advantage of the way the Internet operates. “It can happen again. They can do it tomorrow or they can do it in an hour. And the same problem will occur again.”

Read more about the increasingly sophisticated nature of cyberespionage and attacks in the January issue of National Defense Magazine.
..

Accepting Applications to ISOC Fellowship to IETF

2010-11-15T19:05:00.004+05:30

The Internet Society has announced that it is inviting applications for its latest Internet Society Fellowships to the IETF, part of its Next Generation Leaders (NGL) programme (www.InternetSociety.org/Leaders). The Fellowship programme allows engineers from developing countries to attend an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting.

IETF is the Internet's premier standards-making body, responsible for the development of protocols used in IP-based networks. IETF participants represent an international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers involved in the technical operation of the Internet and the continuing evolution of Internet architecture.

Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive application process. The Internet Society is currently accepting fellowship applications for the next two IETF meetings:

IETF 80, 27 March - 1 April, Prague, Czech Republic
IETF 81, 24 - 29 July, Quebec City, Canada

http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/fellowship/index.php

Fellowship applications for both IETF meetings are due by 17 December 2010.

I encourage you to pass on information about this program to individuals involved in your network that have a keen interest in the Internet standardisation activities of the IETF.

The Internet Society Fellowships to the IETF are sponsored by Afilias, Google, Microsoft, and Intel.

The Internet Society’s Next Generation Leaders programme is sponsored by Nominet Trust, the Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération (AFNIC), and the European Commission.

Read more about Fellowships

Applications for IETF 80 and 81 are now open

Watch the IETF Newcomers Tutorial(.rm)

..

Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the management of the Internet protocol address resources in the public interest

2010-11-13T15:53:00.001+05:30

(This resolution was adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 September 2010 at the Council of Europe's 1094th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Council of Europe in Session

1. Fundamental rights and Council of Europe standards and values apply to online information and communication environments, and in particular to the Internet, as much as they do to the offline world. This stems, inter alia, from Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention” – ETS No. 5) whereby member states undertake to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction” the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (without online/offline distinction).1

2. The right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression and access to information, guaranteed respectively by Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, are fundamental requirements in a democratic society and are highly relevant to online environments.

3. Access to Internet resources is indeed crucial for the exercise and full enjoyment of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and for access to information. The lack of users’ confidence in respect of their privacy may discourage full participation in online activities.

4. The Internet has public service value, understood as people’s significant reliance on the Internet as an essential tool for their everyday activities and the resulting legitimate expectation that Internet services be accessible and affordable, secure, reliable and ongoing. In co-operation with relevant stakeholders, Council of Europe member states should take all necessary measures to promote the public service value of the Internet. They should, inter alia, encourage the private sector to contribute to promoting the delivery of the public service value of the Internet to everyone and develop public policies to supplement the operation of market forces where these are insufficient.2

5. Internet protocol addresses are essential for the functioning of the Internet. Their technical architecture and allocation have a bearing on the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms. The identification features incorporated into the Internet protocol addresses of devices used to connect to the Internet allow for the profiling of users’ activities and communications. Traffic data generated as a result of the use of mobile devices and other objects connected by means of Internet protocols may be misused or subjected to unwarranted supervision.

6. To the extent that information on users’ activities and communications, as well as traffic data, amount to personal data,3 they should be treated and used in full compliance with the requirements of the right to respect for private life guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention and the related case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The principles enshrined in the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108) are also relevant in this connection.

7. Internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) addresses are a scarce resource, nearing exhaustion. This poses challenges in respect of the continuing expansion of the Internet and to its ongoing functioning. It would be desirable that unallocated or unused IPv4 addresses are managed in the public interest. The objective should be to offer to everyone stable and ongoing access to Internet resources.

8. This scarcity of addresses will be resolved by the new Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) which offers a far larger address space. In addition to its potential for triggering growth in Internet services and applications and improved built-in security, IPv6 offers an excellent opportunity to facilitate effective and equitable access for all persons to new communication services. It can also play an important part in improving access to education and knowledge. It is therefore important to support the least developed countries in building information technology infrastructures with a view to achieving an inclusive information society and bridging the digital divide.

9. However, IPv6 is not backwards compatible with IPv4. This issue should be addressed in an appropriate manner. It is important to prepare for the application of the technical parameters of IPv6 and to implement them in a timely and effective fashion in all sectors. All stakeholders, whether state authorities or non-state actors, should recognise the importance of interoperability requirements of the new protocol at both hardware and software level.

10. States can make a considerable contribution to the transition both in the context of their own responsibility for implementing IPv6 in the public sector and by fostering greater synergy among non-state actors in the adoption of IPv6 in their activities. States should, in particular, create an enabling environment for the private sector to play its growth-driving role and encourage the preparation for migration to and deployment of IPv6. This should build on existing positive institutional arrangements for Internet protocol address allocation.

11. The Committee of Ministers, therefore, declares that:

- Internet protocol address resources should be regarded as shared public resources and allocated and managed in the public interest by the entities entrusted with these tasks, taking into account the present and future needs of Internet users;

- timely and effective deployment of IPv6 in the public sector should be ensured and swift preparations for migration to and deployment of IPv6 in the private sector should be encouraged and promoted;

- as appropriate, identification features incorporated into Internet protocol addresses that are assigned to Internet users or devices connected to the Internet should be regarded and treated as personal data.

1 Resolution “Internet governance and critical Internet resources”, adopted at the 1st Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Media and New Communication Services (Reykjavik, Iceland, 28-29 May 2009).

2 Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)16 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet.

3 According to Article 2 of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108) “personal data” means any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual.

Link to the news release from the Council of Europe
..

Internet pioneer Vint Cerf warns over Internet address changes

2010-11-11T23:17:00.002+05:30

The internet could face years of instability as it moves to a new addressing system, one of the network's original architects has warned.

Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the internet, spoke as the UK was urged to begin using the new addressing system. With current addresses due to run out in 2012, nations and businesses must get on with switching, said Mr Cerf. During the switch internet links could become unreliable, making sites and services hard to reach, Mr Cerf said.

"This has to happen or the internet will stop growing or will not be growable," he said of the move to the addressing system. The net has grown to its current size using version 4 of its addressing scheme (IPv4), which allows for about 4.3 billion addresses. Estimates suggest that this pool of addresses will be exhausted by the end of January 2012.

Priority issue

A system with a far larger pool of addresses has been created, called IPv6, but progress towards using it has been sluggish. The business community needs to understand that this is an infrastructure they are relying on and it needs to change for them to continue to grow and to rely on it," Mr Cerf said. He criticised global businesses, saying they were "short-sighted" for not making the shift sooner.

"They cannot grow their business if they do not have an address space to grow it into," he added.

more at the BBC Technology News

( Lauren Weinstein posted a clarification from Vint Cerf in his NNSquad mailing list. Apparently, the author of the BBC article has missed something. Vint Cerf would like to emphasize that he was suggesting that the IPv6 portions of the Net would have challenges, NOT the entire Net would be unstable. In particular he said

" ... introducing IPv6 involved getting a lot of software configured properly so there is a lot of work to be done, especially at the edges of the net. Users with mal-configured routers/ firewalls could have problems. The v6 environment will take time to stabilize but v4 will still be running." )

..

What's at stake in the battle for net freedom:

2010-11-08T00:41:00.000+05:30

Tim Wu's The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires is as fascinating, wide-ranging, and, ultimately, inspiring book about communications policy and the information industries as you could hope to find. This is, of course, no surprise: Wu is one of America's great information policy scholars and communicators, probably best known for coining the term "Net Neutrality" (like many great Americans, Tim is, in fact, Canadian -- we attended the same elementary school in Toronto, where we enthusiastically traded Apple ][+ software and killed each others' D&D characters).

Wu's great strength is in the breadth of his scholarship and in his ability to use humor, clear language, and innovative arguments to connect diverse ideas. Thus in Master Switch, we have a brilliant explanation and history of what Wu calls "the Cycle," through which information industries rise, consolidate, monopolize, capture governments, force out competitors, and, eventually, fragment into something less grandiose, less perfect, but more vibrant, open, and innovative.

Wu connects the industrial and informational monopolies of AT&T, the film trust, the exhibitors monopoly, the radio monopoly, the fight over FM, the censorship of the Hays Code for film-makers, the liberation of the Hayes Code for operating modems, the dashed hopes for a diverse and vibrant cable TV landscape, and, ultimately, the invention of the Internet. On the way, he makes a convincing case that information industries are different -- the basis for every political revolution, every genocide, a "claim that can't be made of orange juice, heating oil, running shoes, or dozens of other industries."

The uniqueness of communications as an industry means that regulation and markets fail more often around them, and that the failures are worse. In response to this, Wu builds the case for a set of principles around information industry ownership, concentration, and structure, and proposes that these be regulated largely by an "information morality" -- not by a single regulatory agency or a single statute book, but ultimately by an emergent consensus about the value of information freedom as a vital substrate for free speech and free societies.

Tim has done rather a lot to this end already, simply by coining the idea of "Net Neutrality" -- an elegant restatement of the End-to-End Principle, couched in terms that laypeople can understand.

In Master Switch, Tim gives us a glimpse into his vast and broad knowledge of communications policy and its history, the groundwork that gave rise to his ideas, and presents an inspiring path to a better world of better networks (even as he shows the risks of not taking such a path). He makes the convincing case that the Net is different, that its stakes are higher than any communications battle in memory, though the form of the battle is a familiar one.

Wu is that rare animal, an accomplished scholar who can write about complex ideas in ways that are accessible to all. And the ideas he's covering are as important as any in our ideological marketplace today.

In the video below, Tim Wu presents the theme of his book ‘The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires’ at Columbia Law School on Nov 3 2010.

Write up from boing boing and video from YouTube as posted by Joly MacFie of Isoc NY

..

The world's riskiest Top Level Domains and how criminals abuse them

2010-10-27T07:08:00.000+05:30

These Mapping the Mal Web reports are posted in the at-Large mailing list.

Mapping the Mal Web, McAfee’s 4^th annual study of the web’s riskiest domains

Click on the map to see where it’s safer to visit and where
it’s not.

Mapping the Mal Web: A Study of the World’s Most Dangerous Domains

What if there was a guide book that predicted which kinds of websites would steal your identity, take over your computer, or sentence you to spam? Interested? Then check out Mapping the Mal Web, McAfee’s 4^th annual study of the web’s riskiest domains. Risk is up this year, and McAfee not only tells you where, but we tell you what you can do to protect yourself.

For a whirlwind view of Mapping the Mal Web, read the key takeaways.

Get the Report

Get the Key Takeaways

The Web's Most Dangerous Search Terms

Click on the map to see the most dangerous search
terms in over a dozen countries.

Most Dangerous Search Terms

Not all websites are created equal, as this report from McAfee makes clear. The authors examine a growing phenomenon–the use of search engines as tools for ill-gotten profit–by analysing the risks incurred in searching for 2,600 of the world’s most popular words and phrases. If you’ve ever searched for lyrics, thought about downloading a celebrity screensaver, or been enticed by the offer of a free iPod, you owe it to yourself to read this report.

Get the Report

A lot more information at this McAfee page

Did The Stuxnet Worm Kill India’s INSAT-4B Satellite?

2010-10-09T12:13:00.001+05:30

On July 7, 2010, a power glitch in the solar panels of India’s INSAT-4B satellite resulted in 12 of its 24 transponders shutting down. As a result, an estimated 70% of India’s Direct-To-Home (DTH) companies’ customers were without service. India’s DTH operators include Sun TV and state-run Doordarshan and data services of Tata VSNL...

Once it became apparent that INSAT-4B was effectively dead, SunDirect ordered its servicemen to redirect customer satellite dishes to point to ASIASAT-5, a Chinese satellite owned and operated by Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co., Ltd (AsiaSat). AsiaSat’s two primary shareholders are General Electric and China International Trust and Investment Co. (CITIC), a state-owned company. China and India are competing with each other to see who will be the first to land another astronaut on the Moon. China has announced a date of 2025 while India is claiming 2020. More on this at Forbes.com

In "The Story Behind The Stuxnet Virus" Bruce Schneier writes:

The Stuxnet worm was designed and released by a government--the U.S. and Israel are the most common suspects--specifically to attack the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran... It combines computer attacks, nuclear power, spy agencies and a country that's a pariah to much of the world. The only problem with the story is that it's almost entirely speculation.

Stuxnet [infects Windows computers] but doesn't actually do anything on those infected Windows computers, because they're not the real target. What Stuxnet looks for is a particular model of Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) made by Siemens (the press often refers to these as SCADA systems, which is technically incorrect). These are small embedded industrial control systems that run all sorts of automated processes: on factory floors, in chemical plants, in oil refineries, at pipelines--and, yes, in nuclear power plants. These PLCs [the kind of Logic Controllers used by ISRO and IRAN's nuclear Agency] are often controlled by computers, and Stuxnet looks for Siemens SIMATIC WinCC/Step 7 controller software.

It's already infected more than 50,000 Windows computers, and Siemens has reported 14 infected control systems, many in Germany. (These numbers were certainly out of date as soon as I typed them.) We don't know of any physical damage Stuxnet has caused, although there are rumors that it was responsible for the failure of India's INSAT-4B satellite in July. We believe that it did infect the Bushehr plant.

More on The Story Behind The Stuxnet Virus http://doiop.com/stuxnet

..

Coffee on OneWebDay

2010-10-08T18:13:00.000+05:30

On Sep 22, Isoc India Chennai celebrated OneWebDay meeting at a Coffee Shop with about 70 invitees, each sharing their first experience of the Internet and their vision of the future.

One WebDay was founded by Susan Crawford and held on September 22 every year since 2006, is a global event aimed at giving all participants in this unprecedented turn in human evolution that is the Internet a chance not only to celebrate it, but also to raise awareness of the importance of maintaining the open-networking principles that have made it the success it is.

There were more than 70+ guests present for the event . It was a conversation on what everyone's first internet experience and their vision of the Internet in the future. There was a spectrum of great ideas discussed like capturing an individual’s health data right from one's bio break to browsing the internet at the speed of thought.

Some pictures from the event

The meeting was led by Syed Nazir Razik, with help from Aysha Shaukat. Syed and Aysha are Directors of Isoc India Chennai.

..

ICANN fellowships for its San Francisco Meeting

2010-10-07T10:48:00.002+05:30

Program ensures global representation at ICANN's International Public Meetings

5 October 2010

MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is launching the 12th round of applications for the Fellowship program, to facilitate participation in ICANN's 40th International Public Meeting to be held San Francisco, California on 13-18 March 2011.

Over the last 10 meetings, the Fellowship program has proven to be a successful method of capacity building for the ICANN community, making sure global voices are heard in the wide variety of public forums that it holds. As CEO Rod Beckstrom said when addressing the Russian Internet Governance Forum in Moscow last May, "The Internet is a work in progress. It feeds and grows off ideas, and new ideas greatly affect its direction. Its most influential contributors are those who can see the possibilities that others don't. And the most powerful are those whose ideas trigger the imagination of others." We see the Fellowship program playing a major role in bringing those great ideas and idea makers into the Internet community.

Per the program charter, applicants must be citizens of economically eligible countries (ICANN uses the World Bank classification) and priority in selection is given to applicants who are current residents of the region that a ICANN meeting is being held in, as well as those who are active or interested in participating in ICANN and its supporting organizations and advisory committees. In this case, as the United States is not an economically eligible country, applicants from all other ICANN regions will be equally weighted (as long as applicant meets program minimum requirements). The Fellowship program will assist in covering airfare, hotel and a stipend. Recipients will be expected to actively participate in and contribute to ICANN processes, in and after the ICANN meeting. As always, registration for an ICANN meeting is free for anyone wanting to attend.

Applications for the meeting in San Francisco will be accepted from now until 1200 PDT (UTC -7) on 12 November 2010. More information, as well as a link to the application for a fellowship, is available online at: http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/ or email fellowships@icann.org if you encounter a problem.

What Is ICANN?

To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't have one global Internet.

ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet's unique identifiers.

ICANN doesn't control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn't deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internet's naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet.
This message was sent by: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330, Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601

(Isoc India Chennai participates in ICANN as an atLarge Structure)

Transcript of Isoc Chennai IGF Vilnius Workshop on International Trade and Internet Governance

2010-10-06T09:43:00.003+05:30

Magna Carta of the Internet: "no free man shall be deprived of his liberty"

2010-10-05T20:36:00.000+05:30

Magna Carta

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the father of the world wide web, has taken a swipe at the UK's controversial Digital Economy Act calling its provisions "worrying" and adding that “disconnection from the Internet is a form of imprisonment”. Martyn Warwick of Telecom TV One reports.

Speaking in London at an event to mark the 350th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Society, Sir Tim, a long-time and passionate advocate of net neutrality and freedom of speech on the Internet said governments all over the world are intent on imposing controls on the web and censoring its content.

Referring directly to the provisions of Britain's Digital Economy Act, the "three strikes and you're out" legislation in France and the draconian proposals contained in the "amalgamated" Cybersecurity Bill about to be voted on in the US, he said, “Governments are granting themselves the right to turn off the internet."

Delving back into medieval history Sir Tim added that an Englishman's right to freedom as enshrined in Magna Carta are as relevant and important today as they were back in 1215 when the barons forced King John to sign the document - or else!

Tim Berners-Lee

The late Lord Denning, sometime Master of the Rolls and one of the UK's most famous and influential judges described the Magna Carta as "The greatest constitutional document of all times - the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot."

The Magna Carta eventually led to to the rule of constitutional law in England, severely curtailed the power of the king and established that the monarch is bound by the law in exactly the same way as is any other Englishman regardless of his rank.

The Magna Carta was also a strong influence on the the early settlers in New England and its provisions inspired many later documents, including the Consititution of the United States itself.

At the heart of the matter is the expectation (The Digital Economy Act is so contentious that some of its provisions are being challenged in a court case) that ISPs and content providers/owners will be able to cut off subscribers from the Internet simply by claiming that individuals have been breaking the law by downloading content. The accusers would simply accuse but not be required to bring forward any proof or testable evidence that a crime had been committed.
Sir Tim Berners Lee says, “It is constitutionally very serious to deprive someone from the web – it requires consideration in the law and Magna Carta says that no free man shall be deprived of liberty without due process. When you commit a crime you lose rights. If you think about the class of crime for which you’d be imprisoned, stealing a DVD for the first time would certainly not be one. Yet we’re talking about potentially disconnecting a whole family because a child has downloaded something. It seems to me to be unreasonable and impractical. The things which are being proposed at the moment are dangerously crossing the boundaries of people’s net rights.”

..

Internet Society calls on users to act to keep the Internet open and transparent at I Net London

2010-09-29T19:20:00.002+05:30

Porous Gardens

29 September 2010, LONDON – The Internet Society urged Internet users around the world to become active participants in the effort to guarantee that the Internet remains an open and transparent platform for communication and innovation.

Moats and Drawbridges

At its INET conference on the impact of the Internet revolution on business in London today, the Internet Society warned all users that they would ignore future Internet opportunities, threats and challenges at their peril. To illustrate the potential for a future Internet that is very different than the one we use today, Internet Society launched *four scenarios that highlight contrasting paths along which the Internet could develop based on economic, political and social forces emerging today.

Boutique Networks

Of the four Internet scenarios, the Internet Society advocates The Common Pool, in which the Internet continues to be built on open technologies and processes, fostering permission-less innovation, economic growth, and social development.

Common Pool

The conference has heard EU Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes endorse this approach with a resounding **message that fast, cheap, open Internet access is crucial for all business and other users. “The Internet is increasingly a cornerstone for business and communication around the world today. We often regard it as a utility, but we would be foolhardy to take its unique and invaluable characteristics for granted,” said Frederic Donck, director of the Internet Society’s European Regional Bureau.

The Internet Society said it is up to users to act now to ensure that the future development of the Internet takes a direction that is in the best interests of everyone.

“We all have to engage urgently as big decisions are currently being made on the future of the Internet that will have a direct impact on our business and social lives. Complacency over such vital issues as net neutrality, security, privacy and IPv6 is simply not an option,” Donck said.

Future Scenarios

To help achieve these goals, the Internet Society’s INET meeting in London, entitled: “Opportunities, threats and challenges to your business - ignore it at your peril” will walk participants through what they can do to ensure that the Internet’s future meets its potential. Sessions include a panel debate, chaired by leading futurologist James Bellini, on “What conditions need to be met for the future growth of the Internet?” Additional sessions will address specific issues that are critical to the continued growth of the Internet, including the next generation Internet protocol IPv6, Internet Security Issues and online identity and network confidence.

..

Transcript of Isoc Chennai IGF Vilnius Workshop on International Trade and Internet Governance

2010-09-19T13:01:00.000+05:30

Proposed and organized by Isoc India Chennai, this workshop was conducted at the IGF Vilnius by Sebastien Bachollet of Isoc France (who is a Honarary Director of Isoc India Chennai) and Olivier Crepin LeBlond of Isoc England as the Remote Coordinator.

A brief report and a Video Recording has already been posted in this blog with the title

IGF Vilnius Workshop on International Trade and Internet Governance by Isoc India Chennai The shortened hyperlink for the blogpost with the video recording is http://bit.ly/igf10tradev

Transcript of Isoc India Chennai IGF2010 Vilnius Workshop on International Trade and Intenet Governance

.

Transcript of the first meeting of Isoc Chennai Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values at IGF2010, Vilnius

2010-09-18T13:55:00.001+05:30

Transcript of the Isoc Chennai Dynamic Coaltion on Core Internet Values First Meeting at Igf10 Vilnius

The video recording of the session is embedded here at bit.ly/igf10core

..

Youth participation in Internet Governance: Invitation to Great Lakes

2010-09-17T13:48:00.002+05:30

Meeting during IGF: Remote Participants and all Students of Great Lakes at the Isoc Chennai presentation

Youth participation in Internet Governance: Invitation to Great Lakes

Some of the slides related to the early history of the Internet were drawn from Dr Steve Crocker's speech at Isoc India Chennai in 2008.

IGF Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values: first meeting at Vilnius

2010-09-17T12:37:00.005+05:30

Isoc India Chennai is organizing this Dynamic Coalition to continue the deliberations of Workshop No 319 of IGF Sharm el Sheik in 2009 "Workshop on Fundamentals: Core Internet Values".

The Dynamic Coalition is being formed with Elon School of Communications, OneWebDay and Ian Peter Associates as co-supporters. The first meeting was held at Vilnius at Room 9 on 16 September at 4.30 pm.

We thank Alejandro Pisanty, Member of the Board of Trustees of ISOC who Chaired this meeting and Sebastien Bachollet as Director of Isoc Chennai and Priyanthi Daluwatte, also from our Chapter, for organizing the meeting.

..

IGF Remote Participation Hub at Great Lakes.

2010-09-16T22:37:00.002+05:30

Over a hundred students of Great Lakes Institute of Management took turns to attend various sessions of the 2010 Vilnius IGF as remote participants. They are business students on a military regiment for their studies, not 9 to 5, it is more like 6 am to 4 am. Each one found time to skip a class or two with the concession that their class attendance would be marked for this alternate participation, but they would lose class participation marks !

Isoc Chennai Great Lakes IGF Hub 2010 List of Participants

A wonderful school, really. Great Lakes is founded by Uncle Bala, who shuttles between Kellog School of Managment and Great Lakes Institute of Management, never forgetting his weekly letter to his nephews and nieces. The school provided an excellent setting for the Remote participation hub of the Internet Governance Forum

IGF Vilnius Workshop on International Trade and Internet Governance by Isoc India Chennai

2010-09-16T10:31:00.001+05:30

Proposed and organized by Isoc India Chennai, this workshop was conducted at the IGF Vilnius by Sebastien Bachollet of Isoc France (who is a Honarary Director of Isoc India Chennai) and Olivier Crepin LeBlond of Isoc England as the Remote Coordinator.

International Trade and Internet Governance

Internet has enormously expanded the consumer's choice of goods. Conversely the Internet has made it possible for small and large businesses from any part of the world to showcase their products to the whole world; Internet technologies have empowered even very small businesses to reach targetted customers from any part of the world.

Today it is possible for someone in New York to choose his porcelein from a Manufacturer's store from Meissen, Germany or from a store in Shangai, China, or from a cottage unit in England. But has it become easier for the consumer to recieve the goods ordered at his home? Has it become easier for the overseas trader to ship his goods across borders?

Has the International Trade framework progressed at the rate of Internet's technological progress? Have Governments empowered business and consumers as much as Technology has empowered them? Is there any resistence on the part of Governments to adopt to the changes of the times?

It has become even more easier to provide services across borders, but are there any tarrif and non-tarrif barriers to cross border services?

What changes are required in the International Trade framework to empower business and conusmers across borders? What precautions are required to ensure that there is a level playing field? Are there any imbalances pertaining to the flow of commercial information on the Internet? Search Engines are 'gateways' to commercial information. Do these Search Engines have sufficient independance to be fair to the flow of commercial information without discrimination? Are there any limitation on them to prioritize regional commercial information over cross-border commercial information? Do Governemnets anywhere have any centralized information filtering systems acting as non-tarriff trade barriers to goods and services from elsewhere? What is it that needs to be done to progress more towards free trade?

Panelists

in alphabetical order)
Olivier M J Crepin LeBlond, Secretary for Euralo at ICANN atLarge (Remote Coordinator)
Alan Davidson, Director of Public Policy, Americas, Google Inc.
Sheba Mohammid, ICT Policy Specialist, Trinidad and Tobago
Sivasubramanian M, President, Isoc India Chennai ( Not present )
Ravishankar Nagarajan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology, Government of India
Carlton Samuels, Member ICT4D, Jamaica and Member, ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee. ( Not present )
Lee Tuthill, Counsellor, Trade in Services, WTO.
Carlos Vera, ISOC Ecuador ( Not present )
Dimitri Ypsilanti, Head of the Information, Communications and Consumer Policy Division at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Isoc India Chennai wishes to thank all panelists, participants, Olivier and to Sebastian. A special note of Thanks to William Drake of Graduate Institutes of International Studies, Geneva who has been of considerable help in identifying the initial list of panelists for the workshop.

( Transcript of the workshop to be posted a little later in this blog)
.

Isoc President Lynn St Amour at the IGF Vilnius Opening Session, Sep 14, 2010

2010-09-15T16:12:00.000+05:30

Chairman, your Excellencies, ladies, and gentlemen,

It is a real pleasure to be here in Vilnius for the 5th IGF meeting. I would like to thank the Government of Lithuania, the IGF Secretariat, and the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for their efforts in once again organizing an interesting and challenging program.

The theme for this Internet Governance Forum - Developing the Future Together - is a very important one. It embraces many of the key principles that the Internet itself was built on, and on which it continues to thrive. This collection of principles has a name - the "Internet Model". And, this "togetherness" or "collaborative model" lives in an even bigger context called the "Internet Ecosystem", which encompasses the diverse set of organizations and communities that work together, guided by the shared principles of the Internet Model, to develop, manage and operate the Internet. The Internet Model, the Internet Ecosystem, and the Internet itself depend on collaboration, openness, transparency, inclusiveness, and on broad uncensored input and, often, robust debate.

So, clearly there is a lot in common between the Internet's development and the IGF; and one could legitimately say the Internet Model was the forerunner for what is now referred to as multi-stakeholderism.

Since the last IGF, the Internet Society, its global community of members and Chapters, as well as all the other Internet organizations have undertaken many impressive and enabling activities with the aim of expanding access to and participation in the Internet, and in the organizations and communities that make up the Internet Ecosystem. I invite everyone to stop by our booth and the booths of the other Internet organizations at IGF to find out more about these rich and varied developmental activities we all so actively engage in.

As we meet this week, the challenge remains to extend the Internet to the billions more who should also be benefitting from it. With almost two billion people online, the Internet Model's decentralized approach - enabling permission-less innovation, and promoting shared responsibility for development, operation, and management of the Internet - has been the catalyst for boundless innovation and creativity. It is the key to reaching those next billions, as well as to addressing the new challenges the Internet is facing - just as it has always done. The Internet is a platform that intrinsically enables new developments and hence is eminently suited to addressing current and emerging challenges.
I would like to speak briefly about one of these challenges.

The Internet Society firmly believes that in order to preserve the long-term health of the global, open Internet, we must remain true to the principles of the open, transparent, and inclusive Internet Model. It seems extremely unlikely that closed processes will lead to policies that support a truly Open Internet.

Again, there is a lot of commonality between the IGF and the Internet itself. Some stakeholders approached this novel forum with trepidation, expressing some fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The same could be said of the early days of the Internet's development. But along the way, we have seen the value of an open, global Internet, just as we have seen the value of healthy, open debate embodied in the IGF today. The issues we face are complex and have many dimensions, making it all the more important that we work together in open, multi-stakeholder, easily accessible, and mission-appropriate venues.

The Forum's leadership and the willingness of all stakeholders to sit and work together with the aim of contributing to making Internet governance work have been key enablers of this fascinating and rewarding journey.

Yet, while the road we are on has perhaps become more clear, our final destination has not. We find ourselves in a curious place - where it is possible that key Internet policies may be decided by small groups of people or companies.

For example, some national Net Neutrality policy processes, while initially quite open, are increasingly being held as closed sessions with small numbers of participants. Yet it is we, Internet users, who have to live with the outcome of these closed discussions.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), while affecting individuals across the world, was initially negotiated behind closed doors with little to no transparency or active multi-stakeholder engagement. Steps were taken earlier this year to address this shortcoming, and we hope to see continued progress in this direction.

Similarly, many current discussions about cyber-security, which often masquerade as protection for citizens, are more about hardening or locking down the Internet than about finding the right balance between openness and "protection". Rather than focusing on a single solution, innovative approaches such as trust, privacy, and identity management being considered in venues such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), as well as other communities, to address these very real challenges should also be considered.

To truly realize the benefits the Internet promises us - all of us - requires that we all support the Internet Model of development and work even more collaboratively to develop the Internet together. This will ensure we have an Internet that should be all it can be - for each and everyone on this planet. The IGF is one venue, and a very important venue, that embodies this approach.

Clearly, the Internet Society supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum. We believe that the IGF has more to offer going forward; we believe for it to founder now would be a serious blow to advancing Internet governance. And we urge that the future of the IGF be decided in ways true to its multi-stakeholder foundation.

The Internet Society and the other organisations that make up the Internet community take their responsibilities for the overall health of the Internet, for the benefit of end-users, very seriously. As such, we do not make calls like this lightly.

We urge all stakeholders - governments, the private sector, civil society, the Internet community, and intergovernmental organizations - to come together to protect and preserve the open Internet and its collaborative development model, for the undeniable benefits it provides to all of us.

The new opportunities and challenges created by the Internet bring technology and policy together in ways not previously experienced; we believe it is vital that all stakeholders actively strive to make their policy and decision-making activities open and inclusive. Where this has been done, it has shown its worth.

Let us build on the success of the Internet Model, the Internet Ecosystem and the IGF, and not squander a once in a lifetime opportunity to let the Internet be all it can be - for all of us.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Isoc Chennai's Vilnius workshop and Dynamic Coaltion

2010-09-11T07:23:00.004+05:30

At the Internet Governance Forum, Vilnius, Isoc India Chennai is organizing a Workshop on International Trade and Internet Governance and organizing a Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values.

Workshop No 80 International Trade and Internet Governance

Day 2, September 15, 2010 at Room 3, 9 am - 11 am
http://bit.ly/IGF8zero

Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

Day 3, Thursday Sep 16, Room 9, 16 30 - 18.30 hours
http://bit.ly/igfcore

(This Dynamic Coalition is organized by Isoc India Chennai and co-supported by OneWebDay, Ian Peter Associates, Imagining the Internet and the Elon School of Communications.)

Panelists of the 2009 workshop present at Vilnius are to be invited for this formative session during which an initial action plan could be drawn up for further collaboration on this theme. Imagining the Internet and Elon School have been invited to present a summary of the core values session organized during Future Web.

It is becoming more important and all the more urgent for the Internet Community to assert and safeguard the core principles from being compromised by closed industry sectors.

Links:

http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2009/12/igf-workshop-319-workshop-on.html
http://coreinternetvalues.blogspot.com/

Isoc India Chennai Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values Conceptual Outline

..

Invitation to the IGF Remote Participation Hub at Greatlakes

2010-09-09T18:29:00.000+05:30

Invitation to the Isoc Chennai IGF Remote Participation Hub

..

Broadband: Australia's NBN proposes to build a network a thousand times faster than India's present average BB speeds

2010-09-02T09:47:00.001+05:30

The national broadband network will enable speeds of one gigabit per second on its fibre optic network, 100 times faster than originally planned, the company building the network will announce today.

The speed is significantly faster than the maximum speeds promised by the Australian opposition in its broadband policy, and highlights the growing gap between what a fibre-based broadband network can offer compared with existing technology.

It has also emerged that NBN Co told staff to ignore political attacks on the company by the opposition, after its finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, called it a ''stodgy'' bureaucracy, labelled its staff ''talentless'' and promised to close it down if elected to government.

Read more theage

A debate about the technical feasibility in the comments on the slashdot article

..

Remote Participation in the Internet Governance Forum

2010-08-03T18:14:00.003+05:30

The internet Governance Forum (IGF)

The IGF takes place once a year and aims to discuss issues related to Internet governance that touch directly upon the lives of Internet users, such as: privacy, freedom of expression, access to the Internet and content diversity, to name just a few. The IGF is a multistakeholder forum. This means that governments, civil society and the business sector can participate on equal footing.

In 2010, the IGF will take place in Vilnius, Lithuania. Unfortunately, several factors may hamper physical attendance, such as professional commitments and travel costs. But staying in your home city does not mean that it is not possible to follow the debates. It does not mean you cannot participate actively and make your voice heard. There will be interactive channels for e‐participation through Remote IGF Hubs.

Remote Participation Hubs:

The hubs are local meetings that take place in parallel with the main meeting. People can watch the webcast together and send questions (text or video) that will be answered by panelists in IGF. In addition, hub participants can hold debates to discuss the themes introduced at the IGF, but from a local perspective. Hubs help in raising awareness about Internet Governance issues, it fosters networking among participants and community building and it encourages follow‐up activities.

Here is a video recording of the 2009 IGF Peru Remote Hub:

(Text of this blog post from the official Internet Governance remote participation Website. Read more here

Those from Chennai interested in being a part of the Chennnai Hub of the IGF Vilnius Meeting are invited to register their interest by email to isocindiachennai at gmail.com

..

India to introduce IPv6 from 2012

2010-07-24T19:35:00.003+05:30

India will start using IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) from March 2012, according to a new roadmap released by the Indian government.All telecom and ISPs will have to be IPv6-compliant by the end of next year and offer IPv6 services thereafter, the government said in a statement issued on Wednesday by the country's Press Information Bureau.

Federal and state government ministries and departments and public sector companies will switch over to IPv6 services by March 2012, the government said.

IPv6 is an Internet protocol version that offers a larger address space than the current IPv4. This is because it uses a 128-bit address as compared to 32 bits in IPv4.

(The news is based on a report By Tony Bradley, PC World. The following article on IPv6, also from pcworldexplains why and how IPv6 is the need of the hour:)

The world is almost out of IP addresses--or at least it's almost out of the IPv4 addresses that IT admins and users are most familiar with. Fortunately, IPv6 has been developed to exponentially expand the pool of available IP addresses while also providing a few other benefits.

To address issues with the current IP protocol in use (IPv4), and to add features to improve the protocol for the future, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) hasintroduced IPv6(Internet Protocol version 6). Let's look at a few ways that IPv6 will come to the rescue and save the Internet.

1.More Addresses. IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses rather than the current 32-bit addresses allowing for an exponential increase in the number of available IP addresses. Network routing experts have been aware of the limitations of IPv4 addressing since the 1980's--before most of the world even knew the Internet existed, and before the Web became ubiquitous.

With 32-bits, IPv4 only allows for approximately 4.3 billion IP addresses. Since every Web-connected device--server, desktop, notebook, smartphone, tablet PC, and more--must have an IP address, and since the Web has exploded in countries like China and India, the world is rapidly approaching the end of the available IPv4 addresses.

With 128-bits to use for creating unique addresses, IPv6 is capable of an insane number of IP addresses far exceeding the demands of today's Internet and Web connected devices. Rather than 4.3 billion address limitation of IPv4, IPv6 has enough addresses that every single person on the planet could have billions upon billions assigned to them personally.

2. Backwards Compatible. IPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv4 so that different networks or hardware manufacturers can choose to upgrade at different times without disrupting the current flow of data on the Internet. Given the world's dependence on the Internet and Web for news, commerce, public safety, national security, and more this is an important feature of IPv6.

Eventually, all IPv4 equipment will be replaced by attrition and IPv6 will be the only address protocol in use. But, that could take decades, so backwards compatibility will be crucial for the foreseeable future.

3.Better Security. IPv6 was designed with encryption and authentication in mind. IPsec is an optional security component of IPv4, but in IPv6 it is mandatory. With IPsec each individual data packet is encrypted and authenticated, making many of themalicious attacks plaguing the Internet today impossible--or at least substantially more difficult.

4.Better Performance. Changes have been made to the way IP packets and headers are formed, and to the way IPv6 routers process the packets to improve performance--resulting in fewer missed or dropped packets, and more reliable and efficient connections. With more people and devices sharing the Internet, and higher demands for VoIP (voice over IP) and video streaming, performance will be more critical than ever.

It has been coming for more than two decades, but theIPv4 address crunch is beginning to get very real. Expect to see a spike in IPv6 adoption in the near future.

..

ISOC India Chennai Chapter

A conversation with Internet Inventors

APRICOT 2012 FELLOWSHIPS NOW OPEN

Internet Society 2010 Annual Review

Comments invited on Internet Society's Draft Paper on DNS Filtering Trends

Introduction to W3C Mobile Web and Application Best Practices

Magna Carta of the Internet: Consent of the Networked

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for newcomers

Internet for the IT Sector: The impact of altered Core Interent Values in Business

Thank You Afilias, NamesBeyond and NIXI for sponsoring our Events during June 2011

Applications open for ISOC Fellowships to OECD Technology Foresight Forum

Webcast Archive of the ISOC India Chennai IPv6 Event

Event Announcement: IPv6 Workshop, Seminar and the Panel Discussion on Core Internet Values

ICANN Approves Historic Change to Internet's Domain Name System Board Votes to Launch New Generic Top-Level Domains

Internet Looks to Singapore and ICANN 41 for Fate of New gTLDs

Hot Topics at ICANN 41

IETF Fellowship for the IETF Meetings at Taipei and France

IPv4 to IPv6: Largest Transition in Internet's History

ISOC England publishes IPv6 Matrix Test results for IPv6 Day

Call for applications: Online courses in Internet governance and ICT policy

Nominations open for Jonathan B Postel Service Award

IGF 2011 Ambassadors Programme calls for Applications

Call for Applications from the 5th International Summer School of Internet Governance

Embrace mutli-stakeholder model of Governance NOW: Vint Cerf at the ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting

Future of the Internet as foreseen in the Past : Ira Magziner at the ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting

President Bill Clinton at the ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting

Closing arguments leading to the approval of .xxx by the ICANN Board at the ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting

EU Data Retention Directive rejected as Unconstitutional by Czechs

Applications now open - Next Generation Leaders eLearning programme “Shaping the Internet – History and Futures”

Parallel standards development poses threat to future Internet health

Should Governments have an Internet Kill Swtich?

Global Internet Community Leader joins the Internet Society as VP for Public Policy

A Walled Wide Web for Nervous Autocrats

What is IPv6 and who is in charge?

UN Needs to Ensure Open and Inclusive Internet Governance

Internet Society on the WikiLeaks Issue

Milton Mueller on Networks and States @ NYU

Did China hijack 15% of World's Internet Traffic?

Accepting Applications to ISOC Fellowship to IETF

Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the management of the Internet protocol address resources in the public interest

Internet pioneer Vint Cerf warns over Internet address changes

What's at stake in the battle for net freedom:

The world's riskiest Top Level Domains and how criminals abuse them

Mapping the Mal Web, McAfee’s 4th annual study of the web’s riskiest domains

The Web's Most Dangerous Search Terms

Did The Stuxnet Worm Kill India’s INSAT-4B Satellite?

Coffee on OneWebDay

ICANN fellowships for its San Francisco Meeting

Transcript of Isoc Chennai IGF Vilnius Workshop on International Trade and Internet Governance

Magna Carta of the Internet: "no free man shall be deprived of his liberty"

Internet Society calls on users to act to keep the Internet open and transparent at I Net London

Transcript of Isoc Chennai IGF Vilnius Workshop on International Trade and Internet Governance

IGF Vilnius Workshop on International Trade and Internet Governance by Isoc India Chennai The shortened hyperlink for the blogpost with the video recording is http://bit.ly/igf10tradev

Transcript of the first meeting of Isoc Chennai Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values at IGF2010, Vilnius

Youth participation in Internet Governance: Invitation to Great Lakes

IGF Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values: first meeting at Vilnius

IGF Remote Participation Hub at Great Lakes.

IGF Vilnius Workshop on International Trade and Internet Governance by Isoc India Chennai

Isoc President Lynn St Amour at the IGF Vilnius Opening Session, Sep 14, 2010

Isoc Chennai's Vilnius workshop and Dynamic Coaltion

Invitation to the IGF Remote Participation Hub at Greatlakes

Broadband: Australia's NBN proposes to build a network a thousand times faster than India's present average BB speeds

Remote Participation in the Internet Governance Forum

India to introduce IPv6 from 2012

Mapping the Mal Web, McAfee’s 4^th annual study of the web’s riskiest domains