Here is a video from the European Summer School of Internet Governance by Wolfgang Kleinwächter which presents the History of Internet Governance in perspective. The lecture is in public domain.
It was not uncommon to find the earliest of the Web Application Developers to assume that all domain names would end in .com, all email addresses would follow the format @xyz.com. While developers took into account newer domain names such as .info in due course, most continued to design applications to accept Domain names and email addresses in ASCII just as software developers in the 80s assumed that it would be unnecessary to have any more than two digits to denote the year, which led to the famous Y2K issue towards the year 2000.
Now there are new Top Level Domain Names (such as .family and .game) and Internationalized Domain Names (in various native non-ascii scripts of India and the world, such as .??????? and .???? (I typed India in Tamil and Devanagiri, displays here as ???) as well as Internationalized email Internet Domain Names that would allow users to have addresses in their native scripts.
If a browser or a form in a webpage limits acceptance of domain names or email addresses with a rule such as “a domain name must be in English and end with .com, or .net or .org” or “an email address must be in English or numerals” then it is archaic.
It is a problem far larger in its dimensions than the Y2K problem of year 2000 which kept the IT community of the entire world talking. On this problem of “Universal Acceptance” there appears to be inadequate attention to the problem in global public interest as well as to the commercial opportunities it presents for enterprising Developers and Corporations. This might emerge to be a huge commercial vertical in itself in view of the Design changes to be brought about and in terms of the testing requirements. #Deity #NASSCOM #WIPRO #TiE #TCS #Cognizant (If you are from a different country, please feel free to rewrite this post to suit your country and publish it. This post is not copyrighted.)
For more information, follow the publicly archived, transparent discussions in the IETF forum, at ICANN and at the Internet Society on this issue. You could also write to isocindiachennai (At) gmail (dot) com for additional pointers or any clarification. Or ask your Executives at a higher level to take part in ICANN meetings that are open and held as multi-stakeholder global meetings. And also join the Internet Society India Chennai Chapter. Such participation would lead you to positive involvement in the global Internet and also connect you to business opportunities not only in the y2k20 (there is no such term, the term is coined to describe the issue and the opportunity) but also in DNSSEC, IPv6 transition, Internet of Things (IoT) and new gTLDs.
What does the phrase “Universal Acceptance” mean?
“Universal Acceptance of domain names and email addresses” (or just “Universal Acceptance”, or even “UA”, for short) means that all apps and online services should accept all Internet domain names and email addresses equally.
Universal Acceptance is an important concept these days because the Internet is changing. One way that it is changing is that addresses no longer need to be composed of ASCII characters. (ASCII characters are the 127 Latin-script letters, numerals and punctuation marks that are dominant on the Internet today. All the characters in this document so far have been ASCII characters.)
Most people on earth are not native speakers of languages which use the ASCII characters, so moving from a character set limited to 127 characters to an alternate which can support more than one million characters is essential for those people to fully use and benefit from the Internet. This alternate is called Unicode.
Another way that the Internet is changing is by allowing lots of new domain names. Not only are there simply more of them, but some are longer than any of the older domain names and many of them use the same Unicode system mentioned above.
Note: “Universal Acceptance” is sometimes confused with “Universal Access” or “Universal Accessibility”; those phrases refer to connecting everyone on earth to the Internet, and to building Internet-connected systems for all differently-abled people on earth, respectively. Universal acceptance is limited to domain names and email addresses.
A special group called “Universal Acceptance Steering group (UASG) has been created to work on issues related to Universal Acceptance. UASG doesn’t work on anything else (e.g. Universal Access or Universal Accessibility).
How does an app or an online service support Universal Acceptance?
Software and online services support Universal Acceptance when they offer the following capabilities:
A. Can accept any domain name or email name as an input from a user interface, from a document, or from another app or service
B. Can validate and process any domain name or email name
C. Can store any domain name or email name
D. Can output any domain name or email name to a user interface, to a document, or to another app or service
Unfortunately, older apps and online services don’t always offer those capabilities. Sometimes they lack support for Unicode; sometimes they make wrong assumptions about new domain names, or even assume they don’t exist. Sometimes they support Universal Acceptance in some features but not in all.
How can Universal Acceptance be measured?
Universal Acceptance can be measured in a few ways.
1. Source code reviews and unit testing
2. Manual testing
3. Automated testing
#1 means inspecting the source code and verifying that only the correct programming techniques, software libraries and interfaces (AKA “APIs”) have been used, then verifying that the app or service works by testing against specific test cases for the capabilities A-D listed above. #1 is only practical for app developers and online service providers.
UASG is reaching out directly to the community of app developers and the largest online service providers to encourage them to perform source code reviews and testing to determine the level of Universal Acceptance in their offerings. UASG is also providing a list of criteria which can be used to develop test cases for the capabilities A-D listed above.
#2 can be done by anyone, but it’s labor-intensive. Examples of #2 would include submitting an email address when registering for an online service and verifying that it has been accepted. Since there are lots of potential online services to sign up for, and lots of potential new email address combinations, one must pick and choose which combinations of app, services, email address and/or domain name to test.
UASG is developing a list of top web sites, apps, email addresses and domain names suitable for testing.
#3 requires up-front technical work, but is more scalable to large measuring and monitoring efforts. An example of #3 is the recent gTLD investigation performed by APNIC on behalf of ICANN. <http://www.potaroo.net/reports/Universal-Acceptance/UA-Report.pdf >
UASG is investigating methods of automated testing for Universal Acceptance and will share these as they are developed.
OneWebDay, 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.
OneWebDay 2014 will be held on Monday 22 September 2014. The suggested theme for this year’s events is to Recognizing Internet Core Values. These core values can be defined as End-to-End, Open Standards, Universal Access, and Freedom of Expression. For OneWebDay in 2014 we suggest the viewing/reposting of the three videos below.
1) On August 24 2014, Dave Moskowitz of InternetNZspoke at TEDxWellington. His topic was ‘The Four Superpowers of the Internet‘. Dave describes the Core Internet Values as superpowers, which he titles more briefly as DIRECT – OPEN – ACCESSIBLE – FREE. To use these powers justly he invokes TED prize winner Karen Armstrong’s Charter for Compassion, which calls upon each of us to live the “golden rule”, and treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves.
View on YouTube: http://youtu.be/CLCkjfUI_fs
Transcribe on AMARA: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/6f0PUcknxwvH/
Read text: http://dave.moskovitz.co.nz/2014/09/10/my-tedx-talk-the-four-superpowers-of-the-internet/
2) On August 29 2014 the U.S. Department of State Bureau of International Information Programs, issued a video “The Internet Belongs to Everyone” which very much emphasizes the core values, and their maintenance via the multistakeholder model – which needs for to be defended from regulatory encroachment worldwide. The video has English closed captions.
3) On September 5 2014 the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values met at the Internet Governance Forum 2014 in Istanbul. The session brought together Representatives from two Civil Society Organizations, two Business Corporations, two Governments, two Technical Organizations and two Universities. PANEL:
Dr Vint Cerf ?(ARIN)?; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, (Internet Society India Chennai); Baroness Rennie Fritchie DBE (Nominet, UK) ; Amy Stepenovich (Access Now); David Cake(Electronic Frontiers Australia ); Lawrence E Strickling (NTIA, USA); Paul Wilson (APNIC); Dr. Steve Crocker (ICANN); Adam Peake. (Academic Community); and Desiree Miloshevic, Internet Society, CHAIR: Dr Olivier Crepin-LeBlond ? (ICANN At-Large)?. While this is a lengthy video (94 mins) it really brings forth some of the key issues affecting and, occasionally, threatening core Internet values in 2014. There is a rough transcript.
View on YouTube: http://youtu.be/LHkXhjF6Zqs
Transcribe on AMARA: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/YVcbsEeVHlEZ/
Read text: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/174-igf-2014/transcripts/2021-2014-09-05-dc-on-core-internet-values-room-10
**If you are interested in helping organize OneWebDay 2015 please email email@example.com
(Content reproduced from onewebday.org)
Recently the National Telecommunications and Information Association of United States announced its intention to step down from this role of oversight by asking the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS).
The Government of India provided the following input, signed by Shri J Satyanarayana, Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, whom I have an occasion to meet at the Internet Governance Forum at Baku, Azerbaizan two years ago. The Comments at the end of this post on the Government’s input are presented here respectfully.
The PDF file above documents the Government’s views. What follows below is a write up on relevant history and the key issues, followed by quotes of the Governments inputs with my comments.
Internet was invented and architectured by the work of the Technical Community; The Internet has emerged as a Global medium connecting users from around the world, without any inherent discrimination on economic or social status or geographic origin. Internet Governance is taking shape as a Global process on the Multi-Stakeholder model. In Internet and Internet Governance, the stakeholders are Government, Civil Society (representing the average Internet User), Business, the Academic Community, the Technical Community and International Organizations. Multi-stakeholder process is a process wherein all these Stakeholders are seated equally around the table to formulate policy on Internet Governance.
The Internet Names (Domain names such as .com, .net etc.) and the Critical functions related to the Stability and Security of the Domain Names System are coordinated by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a Global Organization with participation of Stakeholders from around the world. The Internet Numbers (the IP addresses assigned to every Internet Connection) and the Root Servers (Computers that store the ‘addresses’ of networks and domain names, with hundreds of identical ‘mirror’ computers around the world) have been managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). The functions of IANA have been technically coordinated by ICANN, but these IANA functions have so far been subjected to overall U.S. oversight.
ICANN came into existence in 1998 and it functions as a Global Multi-Stakeholder Organization. Over 100 Nation States are part of the Governmental Advisory Committee and meet three times a year at ICANN; Over 150 User Organizations are part of ICANN At-Large and participate in ICANN policy through the At-Large Advisory Committee as also through the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group; Business participants, including Internet Service Providers and Domain Name Companies and other Businesses are broadly grouped under the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO); Country Code Domain Names such as .IN (for India), .DE (for Germany), and .cn (for China) participate under the Country Code Supporting Organization (ccNSO); ICANN now has Hub Offices in Los Angeles, Singapore and Turkey and Engagement Offices at China, Belgium, Switzerland, Uruguay and South Korea; Other offices are being planned, possibly including one in India; ICANN has a multi-cultural, Gloabl staff, has a Global Multi-Stakeholder Board.
ICANN has taken shape so well, exceedingly well, in its infancy of its first 15 years of Operations. Further Internationalization and further evolution of its Mutli-Stakeholder model and its Accountability and Transparency mechanisms happen continuously, to address areas of concern in its Governance processes.
ICANN process are Open, Participative, Transparent and in Global Public Interest. Stakeholders from around the world participate with no restrictions on participation. (If you are interested in ICANN issues, irrespective of your Nationality or Stakeholder affiliation, you can walk into one of the three ICANN meetings every year, you will be seated equally, you could join a policy discussion on Day 1, offer your views, your views will be recorded, transcribed and circulated for all of ICANN to listen, and include as inputs and perhaps decide on the basis of what you have said. Alternately you could subscribe to the email lists and join the Global participants to discuss policy and programs). This is the way ICANN has been governed and it is the way ICANN continues to operate.
Internet has evolved and it connects users globally WITHOUT any form of centralized control, but some functions of Internet Governance have been coordinated by ICANN (Names and Numbers), Internet Society (ISOC) ( Evolution, Policy), Internet Engineering Task Force – IETF (Internet Technical Standards by Open, Participatory Global processes) and the Worldwide Web Consortitum – W3C (World Wide Web Standards).
The International Telecommunication Union which controls all forms of Communication except the Internet has been vocal about its intent to take over Internet Governance, and a few Nation States directly or indirectly express views that are aligned to that of the ITU. Some of the proposals from Russia, China and other countries favor a model of Internet Governance controlled by the Governments, and these proposals include creation of Governance mechanisms in the U.N. environment which implies a greater role for the ITU, or even directly further ITU’s aspirations for a controlling role of the Internet.
Unlike the ICANN processes, the ITU processes are procedurally complex, modeled on Inter-Governmental procedure bound-processes that are closed. A greater role for ITU would imply an Internet controlled by Governments enhanced for Telecom revenues. The Internet offers a level playing field for all users across the world, does not discriminate between a Big Business or a small user, there are no fast lanes for Internet traffic that would, for example, send an email from a Big Business CEO faster than an email from an average user in India. Any one from any part of the world, or any Business, big or small, can establish any application (for example, a search engine, a shopping portal, or a Social Network or any Innovative Application, without the need for permission from anyone. This is the eco-system of Permissionless Innovation. This eco-system offers the greatest hope for Developing countries like India for progress and prosperity. This environment could change if the Internet Governance moves anywhere closer to the ITU environment.
In this background, Government of India has provided Inputs on IANA transition from U.S. Government oversight to ICANN, as in the PDF above, copied below, with some of my comments as an individual:
All comments as an individual who believes that other Stakeholder groups in India might have a position different from that expressed in this document by the Government of India. What I see as problem areas are shown in text colored orange, based on my own perception of the sensitivity of the wording. The differences with the positions of the Government are freely and openly expressed here with the belief that our Government would tolerate this freedom of expression from someone who believes in the multi-stakeholder process of Internet Governance 🙂
 Government of India notes the announcement by the US NTIA of its intent to transition its role on coordination of Internet DNS as a first step in the right direction aimed at attempting to reform one of the aspects of Internet Governance.
“evolve” would have been a milder choice. Why does the Government of India use the word “reform” here?
2. In continuation of India’s commitment to maintain an open, safe and secure Internet,and as a key stakeholder in the global internet space, India will engage constructively and actively with other important stakeholders to develop a transition proposal that is representative, democratic and transparent.
The reference to “India’s commitment to maintain an open, safe and secure Internet” is very positive. Interesting to see how the word “stakeholder” is used here. Does India imply that India as a country is a Stakeholder, thereby hinting at an inclination to classify Stakeholders as Nation States (represented by Governments only?) It looks like the Government of India is talking about multilateralism (Internet Governance only by Governments) here using the very word “stakeholder”.
3. The announcement is a recognition of the Widety held View that this aspect of internet Governance, as also others, needs to be made representative, democratic and that inclusive and the institutions responsible for managing and regulating the internet need to be Internationalised.
The choice of words “representative” and “democratic” are words apparently positive, especially for anyone who does not understand the diplomatic significance of these words in the context of the history of Internet and internet Governance. These words are used to emphasize multilateral governance in place of multi-stakeholder governance. Internet Governance needs to be a multi-stakeholder process, whereby Civil Society, Business and Technical Community would be stakeholders together with Governments in Internet Governance.
4. lndia believes that the transitional proposal should have a proper international legislative authority for it to have legitimacy, credibility and acceptability by the international community.
Very uncomfortable with what is implied by a “proper international legislative authority”. Perhaps the Government of India adores the ITU?
5. Efforts to frame a transition proposal are an initial move towards addressing only one aspect of Internet Governance. While India would actively participate in this process, We do not see it subsuming discussions and considerations that are taking place elsewhere in multilateral fora and international mechanism on the management of the Core Internet Resources and on the entire of range of International Public Policies in the Cyber Space.
What Multilateral fora is referred to here that the Government of India does not “see it subsuming” ?
6. As We, along with other stakeholders Work to develop a transition plan,ICANN shouid ensure that the process is representative anc! democratic. There should be full participation of all the stakeholders in accordance with Tunis agenda.
Does the Government of India here implies Other Governments? This reference to Stakeholders, read together with the way the word “stakeholder” is used to denote a whole country in point  could mean that India implies “other Governments” here.
Signing this post to indicate that all views in this post are views as an individual. Posted here to invite quick comments from Chapter Members, by email to firstname.lastname@example.org. You could send a mail simply to say You agree, Or, write your views, it would be valuable. Or, if you have different views you might say so. I intend to write to our Government on this, after a rough consensus on this based on your response.
A group of 83 Internet inventors and prominent engineers sent an open letter today to the members of the United States Congress, stating their opposition to the SOPA and PIPA Internet blacklist bills that are under consideration in the House and Senate respectively.
We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it. We’re just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it.
Last year, many of us wrote to you and your colleagues to warn about the proposed “COICA” copyright and censorship legislation. Today, we are writing again to reiterate our concerns about the SOPA and PIPA derivatives of last year’s bill, that are under consideration in the House and Senate. In many respects, these proposals are worse than the one we were alarmed to read last year.
If enacted, either of these bills will create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure. Regardless of recent amendments to SOPA, both bills will risk fragmenting the Internet’s global domain name system (DNS) and have other capricious technical consequences. In exchange for this, such legislation would engender censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties’ right and ability to communicate and express themselves online.
All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended to restrict, but these bills are particularly egregious in that regard because they cause entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just infringing pages or files. Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under these proposals. In fact, it seems that this has already begun to happen under the nascent DHS/ICE seizures program.
Censorship of Internet infrastructure will inevitably cause network errors and security problems. This is true in China, Iran and other countries that censor the network today; it will be just as true of American censorship. It is also true regardless of whether censorship is implemented via the DNS, proxies, firewalls, or any other method. Types of network errors and insecurity that we wrestle with today will become more widespread, and will affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government.
Read more on CircleID