[lac-discuss-en] =? Iso-8859-1? Q? RES = 3A_ = BFQui = E9n_controla_el_mun? == Iso-8859-1? Q? Do_Wide_Web = 3F? =

[vanda at uol.com.br]

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: =? Iso-8859-1? Q? RES = 3A_ = BFQui = E9n_controla_el_mun? == Iso-8859-1? Q? Do_Wide_Web = 3F? = 
 From: vanda at uol.com.br

 I I've read and followed the discussions em the list of governance that I believe 
 some colleagues also are part. times shall be made of the upcoming challenge will 
 for all who believe in freedom for the Internet. Governments 
 ESTN avid to take control and do not prove anything good for the 
 users. 


 ----- Mensagem Original ----- 
 From: lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
 [Mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome 
 jam at jacquelinemorris.com 
 Posted in: second-feira, 28 mai 2012 9:16 
 To: lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
 Assunto: Re: Who controls the World Wide Web? 




 [[- Translated text (in -> en) -]] 


 Subject: Re: Who controls the World Wide Web? 
 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com 


 For your information 
 Jacqueline A.Morris 
 The technology should be like oxygen: ubiquitous, necessary, invisible and 
 Free. (After Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) 
















 An article in subsequent reunin CSTD hindayer ... 
 is concerned, 
 GurtbNL&gt; <tbSP 0> ps - just for the information, the circulation of 2.1 hindtiene a 
 million, more than double that of The New York Times .... ( 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_circulation) 




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




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




 Earlier this week at the United Nations Commission on 
 Science and 
 Technology for Development, held in Geneva, India reitersu 
 proposal 
 to create an Internet related policy Comitde (CIRP). This 
 proposal, 
 supported by many others in the global south, aims to 
 democratizacin of 
 And critical Internet resources currently controlled by ESTN 
 USA, 
 big business and powerful nations in various forums 
 governance. 




 The proposed CIRP seruna multilateral institution, where governments 
 sit together and decide on the policies of the Internet, 
 treaties and 
 standards. Not surprisingly, many have interpreted this as a step 
 to 
 greater government control of the web (read more strict censorship), astbNL&gt; as 
 others have praised as a progressive step towards greater 
 democratization of the Internet.This debate is technical-political 
 bitterness 
 polarized, with experts and stakeholders, often backed by 
 powerful pressure groups, 
 arguing for the status quo with US-based non- 
 profit organization ICANN (Internet 
 Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) the 
 last word, insisting 
 that critical Internet resources can not be controlled effectively 
 by a 
 bureaucratic body like the UN or governments that lack the 
 knowledge to 
 keep pace with rapid technological challenges. 




 Amid speculation that India could turn its 
 previous proposal, in 
 Geneva, representatives of India came forward and urged more 
 cooperation &quot;for governments equal to 
 carry out its 
 roles and responsibilities concerning the Internet, and promoting 
 development agenda for the Web. 




 The U.S., and most corporate lobbyists (big 
 Internet companies to be based in the U.S. 
 or operating in other developed countries) have argued for 
 retention 
 the current structure, where ICANN (which already has a board of 
 government 
 with government) maintains control over Internet 
 technologies. They argue that although jurisdictionally in 
 U.S., 
 ICANN is more likely to maintain the democratic structure and 
 free 
 Internet. They argue that governments in general are more likely 
 that 
 stifle free speech and, by extension, the U.S. are 
 likely to maintain 
 commitments to freedom of expression on the web. 




 However, recent developments, such as restrictions on 
 the Wikileaks (Web 
 companies pay cut routes and services to the site claimant, 
 reportedly at the request of the Government) and, recently, projects 
 law proposed, such as 
 Stop online piracy Act (IAD) and the Law on Protection of IP 
 (PIPA), which handled 
 the domain name system (DNS) to enforce intellectual 
 Property laws scoff at these claims. 




 Technology debate 




 There are two sides in this debate: one that simply refers to the 
 techno-political aspect of Internet control, and the other 
 concerned with social policy debates and policy. In purely 
 technological 
 terms, the debate revolved around the root name servers or DNS 
 the 
 Internet Domain Name System, which is the column 
 backbone of the communication 
 the Web. 




 DNS is a database used by Internet applications 
 to assign or 
 translating Web URLs (eg www.thehindu.com) to a 
 unique IP address. 
 All generic names and IP addresses of all domains 
 upper level (by 
 mapping) are stored in what is called a file 
 raíz.Tan area 
 when you type a URL in the address bar 
 browser, a query is 
 sent to the DNS (often through server provider 
 Internet services, 
 often stores this information so that consultations are not 
 to be sent all 
 once), which translates into the numeric IP address. Although, as 
 users, this saves us the trouble of having to remember numbers and 
 codes, 
 greater profits, of course, have to do with the fact that 
 can access any 
 site from anywhere. 




 In fact, there is some confusion about what these servers, and 
 extension 
 control technology, it is. At the core of the DNS system are 13 
 root servers controlled by 12 different organizations and entities 
 private 
 or operators. Many hundreds of root servers in more than 130 
 physical 
 places in many different countries, says an official blog of the ICANN 
 bust myths about how the U.S. controls the Internet through 
 the root 13 
 servers. Sometimes a server is in over 25 countries, 
 said. 




 However, what really matters here is who controls the file 
 root zone.This 
 file contains the domain names and IP addresses that allow the 
 procesos.El query-mapping root zone file, and access or 
 authority to 
 editing, is what is crucial in this debate because finally 
 architecture 
 DNS system, and the essence of the Internet depends on how this 
 file is managed. Therefore, a domain is valid only if this 
 archive. As 
 For now, the root zone file is controlled by ICANN. 




 Why not ICANN? 




 But why is problematic that the authority to handle this 
 file is 
 with a body like ICANN? ICANN continues to be a non 
 profit 
 in the U.S., which is subject to the decisions and laws made by the 
 U.S. 
 government. For example, under the pretext of implementing a system of 
 intellectual property, 
 U.S.can enforce changes in the DNS system, as 
 proposed in the soup 
 legislation, which retracted after Internet companies 
 technology and activists 
 lobbied against it, earlier this year. 




 So what's the solution? No wonder that the proposed 
 India's 
 United Nations, for pure government control, is perceived as 
 problems, taking into account 
 recent announcements by Indian politicians expressing 
 desire 
 regulate media or pre-screen that appears 
 Web.En in effect, 
 governments around the world, we now and then tried to 
 curb 
 Internet. 




 Tech commentators have argued that, under U.S. control 
 indirect, ICANN 
 in recent years has limited its mandate to the technical domains, and 
 can be 
 a better alternative to a UN agency.But then, how 
 Where does the developing world 
 point of view of the world to fit in? In general, it is legitimate to say that 
 have control in the country's powerful Internet is illegitimate. The 
 United Nations 
 bodies have a better record as to the methods 
 democratic go, where 
 countries can sit together and vote. That's why the BRIC 
 (Brazil, 
 Russia, India, China and South Africa), countries are pushing for 
 more equal 
 control of the Internet as a global resource, says Senthil S, 
 member 
 Free Software Movement in India. However, the UN will 
 to ensure 
 that promotes a body without censorship, to Internet governance 
 can 
 be more democratic. 




 Commenting on this debate, Parminder Jeet Singh, CEO of 
 NGO based in Bangalore, IT for Change, aims to draw the line 
 divide between questions 
 technical management or management and other cultural, social and 
 political aspects of Internet governance. 




 While Internet governance albiet technique is dominated by 
 large 
 business - is in fact a highly distributed and open issues 
 related 
 large public policies on social, economic, cultural and 
 political 
 things are much more important and are neglected in this debate, Mr. 
 Singh 
 He said. He also commented on how Internet companies are increasingly 
 more monopoly 
 decide policy issues, and wondered why organisms 
 as the Organization 
 for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Council of Europe 
 make policy without consulting the developing countries.
 - 









[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/5b34b0052e.html
--]]