[[--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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org [Mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome jam@jacquelinemorris.com Posted in: second-feira, 28 mai 2012 9:16 To: lac-discuss-es@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@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> <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> 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 "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 --]]