Tracking the stratification of Internet and Internet Governance

Tracking the stratification of Internet and Internet Governance (just a quick exercise for my own research)

Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN (condensed)

Full version here: The Public Voice

From The Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)

Myth 1

“Civil Society won’t participate in ICANN under NCUC’s charter proposal.”

False. NCUC’s membership includes 143 noncommercial organizations and individuals. Since 2008 NCUC’s membership has increased by more 215% – largely in direct response to civil society’s support for the NCUC charter.

Myth 2

“More civil society groups will get involved if the Board intervenes.”

A complete illusion. Board imposition of its own charter and its refusal to listen to civil society groups will be interpreted as rejection of the many groups that commented and as discrimination against civil society participation. The appointment of representatives by the Board disenfranchises noncommercial groups and individuals.

Myth 3

The outpouring of civil society opposition can be dismissed as the product of a ‘letter writing campaign.’

An outrageous claim. Overwhelming civil society opposition to the SIC charter emerged not once, but twice. No policy or bylaw gives ICANN staff the authority to discount or ignore groups who have taken an interest in the GNSO reforms. ICANN’s attempt to discount critical comments by labeling them a “letter writing campaign” undermines future participation and confidence in ICANN public processes.

Myth 4

“Civil society is divided on the NCSG charter issue.”

Wrong. Board members who rely only on staff-provided information may believe civil society is divided, but Board members who have actually read the public comments can see the solidarity of civil society against what ICANN is trying to impose on them.

Myth 5

“Existing civil society groups are not representative or diverse enough.”

Untrue by any reasonable standard. The current civil society grouping, the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC), now has 143 members including 73 noncommercial organizations and 70 individuals in 48 countries. This is an increase of more than 215% since the parity principle was established.[1] Noncommercial participation in ICANN is now more diverse than any other constituency, so it is completely unfair to level this charge at NCUC without applying it to others.

Myth 6

“ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society drafted charter.”
False. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that “the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction.”

Myth 7

“The NCUC charter would give the same small group 6 votes instead of 3.”

False. For the past 8 months, NCUC has stated that it will dissolve when the NCSG is formed. It does not make sense to have a “Noncommercial Users Constituency” and a “Noncommercial Stakeholders Group,” as they are synonymous terms. Thus, NCUC leaders would not be in control of a new NCSG – a completely new leadership would be elected.

Myth 8

“NCUC will not share council seats with other noncommercial constituencies.”

Wrong.  Given the diversity and breadth of NCUC’s membership, many different constituencies with competing agendas are likely to form. The organic, bottom-up self-forming approach to constituency formation is much better than the board/staff approach – and more consistent with the BGC recommendations.

Myth 9

“The NCUC wants to take away the Board’s right to approve constituencies.”

False. NCUC’s proposal let the board approve or disapprove of new constituencies formed under its proposed charter.  Our proposal simply offered to apply some simple, objective criteria (e.g., number of applicants) to new constituency groupings and then make a recommendation to the Board.

Myth 10

“The purpose of a constituency is to have your very own GNSO Council Seat.”

False. Some claim GNSO Council seats must be hard-wired to specific constituencies because a constituency is meaningless without a guaranteed GNSO Council representative. However this interpretation fails to understand the role of constituencies in the new GNSO, which is to give a voice and a means of participation in the policy development process — not a guaranteed councilor who has little incentive to reach beyond her constituency and find consensus with other constituencies.

Glossary of ICANN Acronyms

ALAC – At-Large Advisory Committee
ICANN’s At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of the ICANN, as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the “At-Large” community).

gTLD – Generic Top Level Domain
Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as “generic” TLDs, or “gTLDs”. They can be subdivided into two types, “sponsored” TLDs (sTLDs) and “unsponsored TLDs (uTLDs), as described in more detail below.

In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org) were created. Domain names may be registered in three of these (.com, .net, and .org) without restriction; the other four have limited purposes. Over the next twelve years, various discussions occurred concerning additional gTLDs, leading to the selection in November 2000 of seven new TLDs for introduction. These were introduced in 2001 and 2002. Four of the new TLDs (.biz, .info, .name, and .pro) are unsponsored. The other three new TLDs (.aero, .coop, and .museum) are sponsored.

GNSO – Generic Names Supporting Organization
The GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations to the ICANN Board that relate to generic top-level domains (gTLDs).

The GNSO is the body of 6 constituencies, as follows: the Commercial and Business constituency, the gTLD Registry constituency, the ISP constituency, the non-commercial constituency, the registrar’s constituency, and the IP constituency.

However, the GNSO is in the process of restructuring away from a framework of 6 constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups: Commercial, Noncommercial, Registrar, Registry. The Noncommercial and Commercial Stakeholder Groups together make up the “Non-contracting Parties House” in the new bi-cameral GNSO; and the Registrar and Registry Stakeholder Groups will together comprise the “Contracting Parties House” in the new GNSO structure (beginning Oct. 2009).

ICANN – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions.

NCUC – Noncommercial Users Constituency
The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for noncommercial organizations and individuals in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN policy making and Board selection, it develops and supports positions that protect noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet. NCUC works to promote the public interest in ICANN policy and is the only noncommercial constituency in ICANN’s GSNO (there are 5 commercial constituencies). The NCUC is open to noncommercial organizations and individuals involved in education, community networking, public policy advocacy, development, promotion of the arts, digital rights, children’s welfare, religion, consumer protection, scientific research, human rights and many other areas. NCUC maintains a website at http://ncdnhc.org.

NCSG – Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
The GNSO is in the process of being restructured from “6 constituencies” to “4 stakeholder groups”, including a Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) into which all noncommercial organizations and individuals will belong for policy development purposes, including members of the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC). The NCSG and the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) will together comprise the “Non-contracting Parties House” in the new bicameral GNSO structure beginning October 2009.

Cloud computing can reign in generativity, reducing its subversive potential

Zittrain OP-ED about a topic I’ve written about recently (waiting for editors to review), applies his generativity argument to reasons why we should worry about the cloud from a development perspective. Issues that we should worry about include privacy, lack of control over our data, and lack of functionality (preventing the freedom to innovate). However, third parties are not mentioned, which pose an increasing privacy risk on sites like Facebook with over 950,000 application developers accessing user data for secondary purposes (see: Facebook needs to improve privacy practices, investigation finds).

The chief worry is that our computing and content will exist in an environment controlled by a cabal of “gated cloud communities,” providing platforms that discriminate against developers, “hindering revolutionary software.” Zittrain’s recommendations for a better cloud environment include: 1) requiring companies, under fair practices law, to allow users to access and erase their digital dossiers 2) requiring companies to adopt more secure communication practices and password protections 3) demanding companies to keep their word about how users can use content sold and accessed online (in the cloud) 4) applying a regulatory requirement – governments or independent judiciaries to demand better safeguards for data held in the cloud 5) provide a “subtle set of incentives . . . tax breaks and liability relief”

Zittrain’s most emphatic point, again, is the generativity argument. Cloud computing environments that are controlled by “mighty incumbents” like Google, Apple, Facebook, are gated. That is, they prevent the freedom to develop applications for these sites and services, thereby control their uses, and reign in the radical potential of ICT innovation. When we fight against poor applications, wonder why there aren’t better ones that perhaps enable more interoperability and more syndication features, its due to a closed “cloud-computing infrastructure” that prevents it.

Social media revolution coverage overview

Recent appraisals of using social media for social change have been on an accelerated track. Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, etc are claimed to be either aiding or hurting democratic participation and free speech. The pattern of appraisal seems to start with hype, refutation, following with reasoned reassessment. For example, the hype – Thomas Friedman’s “The Virtual Mosque” NYTimes op/ed (June 16), refutation – Jeremy Scahill’s blog post and Tweets taking to task  Friedman’s piece (June 16), and the reassessment – Teharani’s piece in GlobalVoices. Sometimes this pattern can be observed over one person’s responses – i.e. Shirky’s initial excitement over social media as a social force, and his support of Twitter’s use in Iran’s post election demonstrations, and his reversal based on new data (see: Will Heaven’s piece in UK Telegraph). Teharani points out, as do others (Evegeny Morozov and Patronus Analytical), that there could be important limitations to social media use, as well as opportunities. To sum/crib Teharani:

1-Communication tool for reformists leaders Twitter and Facebook along with reformist websites such as Ghlamnews help communicate the decisions of reformist leaders and pass on the message.

2-Closing the gap between Iran and the world Iranian tweets reached thousands around the world and by following and re-tweeting people get involved.

3-Twitter does not organize demonstrations: Reformist leaders and their supporters make decisions to organize protests and they communicate it through different means.

4-Tweets can misinform people: either through reflex/impulse retweets or through malicious infiltration and disinformation (see Patronus Analytical for more on this).

5-Tweeting is recycling news and tips Information pool -most people tweet what they read on websites, and have also shared useful tips and information to help Iranians circumvent internet filtering and censorship.

6-Misunderstanding the sender: Sometimes tweet information form online sources without checking the facts, or without mentioning any references.

7-Activism and agendas: Most Iranians who tweet are activists supporting the protest movement and promoting a cause. Their information should be double-checked and not be accepted at face value.

Another important reassessment is Ted Friedman’s Tweeting the Dialectic of Technological Determinsm , which recognizes and responds to the unmistakeable US hype over Twitter’s social media revolution, attributing it to technological determinism or “a familiar American narrative of technological utopianism, in which hopes for social and political transformation become attached to the promise of new technologies.” Friedman gives a balanced view first looking at the benefits of cyber utopianism, which “momentarily transcend immediate pragmatic concerns” helping imagine new possibilities and a “radically different future.” But he also looks at the dangers of technological utopianism, which can “simply replace military utopianism as a self-serving imperial fantasy;” that democratic change cannot simply happen through military or technological means. The dialectic, then, is to “distinguish cybertopian hopes from the messier reality, without giving short shrift to either.” Well stated.

Ruling in US file-sharing case found insane and unconstitutional

Raw Story article reports on Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the “first file-sharing case to go on trial,” where a Minnesota jury fines woman $1.92 million for sharing 24 songs – $80,000 per song! (Typically individuals targeted by the recording industry settle for around $3k according to BBC). The verdict has been described as “insane” by ZDNet and “unconstitutional” by EFF. Insane because the extremely high amount actually exceeds the $750-30,000 per infringement fine for “willful violation,” ( bound by Title 17, section 504), the evidence for willful violation is weak, the rejected ruling in the first trial was much less ($220k total). And unconstitutional for two reasons: 1) “grossly excessive” punitive damages “violate the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution” and 2) excessive damages suggest jury ruled in order to “send a message”  to other users, which violates recent Supreme Court rulings that “a jury may not award statutory damages for the express or implicit purpose of deterring other infringers who are not parties in the case before the court.”

Implications: ZDNet suggests this could bring down RIAA, Ray Beckerman’s blog Recording Industry vs. The People suggests this will make US justices system the laughing stock of the international community, and EFF suggests that claims of unconstitutionality will be presented to the judge in “post-trial” motions, who will hopefully find the case unconstitutional and dismiss it. (Nnot sure about this last point).

At the very least, this will freak many people out (the millions of file sharers out there), destroy the woman who was scapegoated by the recording industry, and perhaps demonstrate to law makers, regulators and the public that new laws, regulations, and user protections are desperately needed to stop future abuse by RIAA and pro-industry  juries coerced by powerful RIAA legal teams.

Filtering PC’s in China, and monitoring the filtering

EFF reports “The Chinese Ministry of Industry and IT’s announcement that all PCs sold in China must include government-approved filtering software is a profoundly worrying development for online privacy and free speech in that country.”

The software called “Green Dam Youth Escort” would be able to “collect IM and email conversations, install keyloggers, relay microphone and webcam recordings. It could prevent or detect the use of web proxies (the primary method of Chinese citizens seeking an uncensored Internet), and scan for privacy-protecting software like Tor and PGP.”

“Herdict Web” – Berkman Center for Internet and Society’s  tool for “tracking global web (in)accessibility” is now available in Mandarin.

Not sure if this tool will be able to monitor the new filtering by PCs, but if Herdict Web itself is filtered, how will Chinese know what they are not getting access to?

Iran’s protests and new media: Facebook and Twitter vs. MSM

Background on SNS in “The Politics of Facebook in Iran” by Babak Rahimi & Elham Gheytanchi.

Discussion of Twitter: “Twitter’s Internet Revolution” by Ari Berman for The Nation

Supporters of protesters on Twitter suggest “change yr Twitter settings to show GMT +03:30 Tehran as your timezone & change home city to Tehran to confuse the Iranian censors” (http://twitter.com/finderic).

France’s HADOPI “three strikes” law rejected by Constitutional Council

This law would have tilted the balance away from individuals rights to free expression and information and towards abusive industry enforcement of copyright “permission” or “clearance” culture online. Internet governance should address the balance between industry rights and public interest rights. The monitoring of users’ online activities for copyright violations and then the removal of their access to the Internet would have set a sad precedent for universal access to information and free expression, widely recognized as a fundamental human right. See “Council of Europe: Access To Internet Is A Fundamental Right”

Who is Julius Genachowski? (to head FCC…)

As head of FCC, Genachowski is going to oversee the roll out of broadband to rural and lower income areas. A Washington Post article suggests his “insider status as a both a Washington telecom policy insider and business executive” will be an asset. He is credited as the “godfather” of Obama’s  online campaign (using social networks and YouTube for fundraising, outreach, and messaging). And he is also founder of LaunchBox Digital and Rock Creek Ventures, “which invests in, advises, and launches digital media and commerce companies.”  Genachoswki may be partial to social media, wireless, mobile media, and interoperability. He may then also oversee key challenges related to Web 3.0, including open standards and the privacy implications. One analyst suggests Genachowski will be more hesitant to adopt private sector solutions to public ICT problems. However there may be some conflicts of interest with Genachowski’s businesses that could favor deregulation in some areas, and competition in others. Perhaps the start-ups his investment firms back will be given first bids on the broadband roll out…

Time Warner to separate distribution and content businesses

The reason given in article is that the combination of assets “has fallen out of favor on Wall Street as big media corporations compete with faster-moving Internet companies.” Could it be that there is a conflict of interest at play as well, as ISPs require the passage of infringing content (legal under DMCA provisions), whereas content providers seek criminalization of infringing uses of their content? This conflict might prevent TW to compete with the “faster-moving” Internet companies that privilege the interests of ISPs. An encouraging prospect–to disentangle the restrictive intellectual property interests of media owners  from the relatively IP neutral interests of Internet service providers.