Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

The internet is doing nicely without its own UN

Filed under
Web

Who runs the internet? Who cares? As long as your internet browser sends you to the right location in cyberspace, the technical workings of the World Wide Web aren't really of much concern. Right?

For web users that's right, but for governments and technology bodies around the world, there's a brewing concern about the fact that most of the infrastructure that powers the internet is based in the United States. Of the 13 servers hosting the intricate system that directs us all to the right places on the internet, only three are based outside of the country.

So far that hasn't proven to be any problem.

A bunch of benevolent American university boffins, some military types and a few IT visionaries from the private sector were primarily responsible for getting the network now known as the internet off the ground in the 1970s. They are legends for doing so and have kept a close eye on the internet's development ever since.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Addresses (ICANN) is the web's current babysitter. But for a technology body, it courts a fair amount of controversy.

The reasons for that are political and commercial. Remember the "internet land-grab"? It kicked into high gear during the dotcom boom as corporates scrambled to reserve the best domain names. The current animosity towards the US-dominated ICANN is a lot like that. No one knows what the future will hold for the internet - and countries, especially developing ones such as India, want a say in how the web will work years from now.

The scenario has played out in the real world since time began. All those conferences of the "big three" (Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin) that took place toward the end of World War II, were to decide how to carve up control of post-war Europe.

It was a delicate game of give and take. Stalin was happy to abandon the communists in Greece for a bigger prize - dominance in Romania and Poland. Churchill, wanting to counter the power of Russia, demanded the French get a controlling slice of the new Germany.

They also talked about setting up a governing body for the world - the United Nations. Now, that same body is facilitating the debate about the delegation of power on the internet. Unable to agree on a single scenario for governance of the internet, a special UN body has drawn up four.

Option one is for the United Nations to create a "global internet council" that would take total power away from the United States in terms of its control of ICANN.

A more radical plan calls for control of the address system to shift from US to international hands - a new body called the International Internet Council.

Yet another plan calls for the creation of three groups that would be responsible for internet addressing. That sounds like a political and logistical nightmare.

The last option, and perhaps the most sensible, is to leave ICANN intact and simply create a forum for greater debate of net issues.

A long-term, official solution will be hammered out at the UN's World Summit on the Information Society, which will be held in Tunisia in November. It will consider taking up one of the proposed options.

Expect there to be some heated debate and intense lobbying as the future controllers of the internet are elected.

None of this would be an issue, were it not for a couple of ominous signs that the United States is willing to fight like hell to maintain the status quo.

Earlier this year, the US Department of Commerce said it planned to keep its hands on the "root zone" file, a simple text file that's integral to this system of turning internet protocol (IP) addresses into actual web addresses.

Apparently the United States "intends to preserve the security and stability" of the web's architecture and needs to keep control to do so.

On top of that came word last month from US Assistant Commerce Secretary Michael Gallagher that the US government is doing away with plans to have an international body overseeing the workings of the internet. In the context of the "war on terror", it's easy to see the Washington thinking behind this. Cyber-terrorism is a not insignificant threat.

ICANN cut its ties with the Department of Commerce late next year but its desire to keep the power base in the United States is unlikely to change.

US moves to draw the web closer to its chest shouldn't worry the rest of the world. The web is essential to US business. The biggest online traders - the likes of amazon.com and eBay.com - are all American. It's in the interests of the United States for all of us to have unfettered, global access to the web. That's why they haven't ring-fenced it and tried to charge us money to use it.

ICANN needn't change much, but a forum for major new issues needs to be established and the UN needs to have "power of veto" when it comes to major decisions that could inhibit access to the internet in any part of the world.

By Peter Griffin
The New Zealand Herald.

More in Tux Machines

Scrivener Writing Software has a Linux Version

In some ways, Scrivener is the very embodiment of anti-Linux, philosophically. Scrivener is a writing program, used by authors. In Linux, one strings together well developed and intensely tested tools on data streams to produce a result. So, to author a complex project, create files and edit them in a simple text editor, using some markdown. Keep the files organized in the file system and use file names carefully chosen to keep them in order in their respective directories. when it comes time to make project-wide modifications, use grep and sed to process all of the files at once or selected files. Eventually, run the files through LaTeX to produce beautiful output. Then, put the final product in a directory where people can find it on Gopher.

Gopher? Anyway …

On the other hand, emacs is the ultimate linux program. Emacs is a text editor that is so powerful and has so many community-contributed “modes” (like add-ins) that it can be used as a word processor, an email client, a calendar, a PIM, a web browser, an operating system, to make coffee, or to stop that table with the short leg from rocking back and forth. So, in this sense, a piece of software that does everything is also linux, philosophically.

And so, Scrivener, despite what I said above, is in a way the very embodiment of Linux, philosophically.

I’ve been using Scrivener on a Mac for some time now, and a while back I tried it on Linux. Scrivener for the Mac is a commercial product you must pay money for, though it is not expensive, but the Linux version, being highly experimental and probably unsafe, is free. But then again, this is Linux. We eat unsafe experimental free software for breakfast. So much that we usually skip lunch. Because we’re still fixing breakfast. As it were.

Details with Screen Shots Here

Anyway, here’s what Scrivener does. It does everything. The full blown Mac version has more features than the Linux version, but both are feature rich. To me, the most important things are: A document is organised in “scenes” which can be willy nilly moved around in relation to each other in a linear or hierarchical system. The documents are recursive, so a document can hold other documents, and the default is to have only the text in the lower level document as part of the final product (though this is entirely optional). A document can be defined as a “folder” which is really just a document that has a file folder icon representing it to make you feel like it is a folder.

Associated with the project, and with each separate document, is a note taking area. So, you can jot notes project-wide as you work, like “Don’t forget to write the chapter where everyone dies at the end,” or you can write notes on a given document like “Is this where I should use the joke about the slushy in the bathroom at Target?” Each scene also has a number of attributes such as a “label” and a “status” and keywords. I think keywords may not be implemented in the Linux version yet.

Typically a project has one major folder that has all the actual writing distributed among scenes in it, and one or more additional folders in which you put stuff that is not in the product you are working on, but could be, or was but you pulled it out, or that includes research material.

You can work on one scene at a time. Scenes have meta-data and document notes.

The scenes, folders, and everything are all held together with a binder typically displayed on the left side of the Scrivener application window, showing the hierarchy. A number of templates come with the program to create pre-organized binder paradigms, or you can just create one from scratch. You can change the icons on the folders/scenes to remind you of what they are. When a scene is active in the central editing window, you can display an “inspector” on the right side, showing the card (I’ll get to that later) on top the meta data, and the document or project notes. In the Mac version you can create additional meta-data categories.

An individual scene can be displayed in the editing window. Or, scenes can be shown as a collection of scenes in what is known as “Scrivenings mode.” Scrivenings mode is more or less standard word processing mode where all the text is simply there to scroll through, though scene titles may or may not be shown (optional). A lot of people love the corkboard option. I remember when PZ Myers discovered Scrivener he raved about it. The corkboard is a corkboard (as you may have guessed) with 3 x 5 inch virtual index cards, one per scene, that you can move around and organize as though that was going to help you get your thoughts together. The corkboard has the scene title and some notes on what the scene is, which is yet another form of meta-data. I like the corkboard mode, but really, I don’t think it is the most useful features. Come for the corkboard, stay for the binder and the document and project notes!

Community chest: Storage firms need to pay open-source debts

Linux and *BSD have completely changed the storage market. They are the core of so many storage products, allowing startups and established vendors alike to bring new products to the market more rapidly than previously possible. Almost every vendor I talk to these days has built their system on top of these and then there are the number of vendors who are using Samba implementations for their NAS functionality. Sometimes they move on from Samba but almost all version 1 NAS boxen are built on top of it. Read more

Black Lab SDK 1.8 released

QT Creator - for QT 5 Gambas 3 - Visual Basic for Linux Ubuntu Quickly - Quick and dirty development tool for python emacs and Xemacs - Advanced Text Editor Anjuta and Glade - C++ RAD development tool for GTK Netbeans - Java development environment GNAT-GPS - IDE for the following programming languages. Ada, C, JavaScript, Pascal and Python Idle - IDE for Python Scite - Text Editor Read more

Did Red Hat’s CTO Walk – Or Was He Pushed?

He went on to say that some within Red Hat speculate that tensions between Stevens and Paul Cormier, Red Hat’s president of products and technologies, might be responsible, although there doesn’t appear to have been any current argument between the two. Cormier will take over Stevens’ duties until a replacement is found. Vaughan-Nichols also said that others at Red Hat had opined that Stevens might’ve left because he’d risen as high as he could within the company and with no new advancement opportunities open to him, he’d decided to move on. If this was the case, why did he leave so abruptly? Stevens had been at Red Hat for nearly ten years. If he was leaving merely because “I’ve done all I can here and it’s time to seek my fortune elsewhere,” we’d expect him to work out some kind of notice and stay on the job long enough for Red Hat to find a suitable replacement. Turning in a resignation that’s effective immediately is not the ideal way to walk out the door for the last time. It smells of burning bridges. Read more