Thursday, June 26, 2008

The Future of the Internet: A Political View

The Future of the Internet: A Political View

Geoff Huston

On June 17th and 18th the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) hosted a Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy, attended by Ministers for communications from the 30 OECD member nations and some 15 other nations, all to talk about the future of the Internet Economy.

This was not the only dedicated Internet gathering on the 2008 calendar for governmental delegations, which includes the normal load of two meetings of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) a year as well as three ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) meetings. The track record of the lasting value of such meetings does not appear to be overly impressive, and it appears to be difficult to make the claim that the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the subsequent set of IGF meetings have actually achieved anything at all. In fairness to the IGF, however, achievement of particular outcomes was never a part of the IGF agenda, and in providing a venue for this multi-stakeholder discussion the it is often claimed that the IGF has kept the worst excesses of the political wolves at bay. Without these forums for inter-governmental dialogue and forums for engagement between governments and other organized sectors of common interest it is often asserted that all could've turned out so much worse in terms of politically inspired governmental meddling with the Internet. But lets face it, gathering a collection of ministerial delegations to laboriously recite prepared speeches to each other sounds about as exciting as watching paint dry. And observing meetings where the major outcome appears to be limited to the scheduling of the next meeting can become somewhat tedious after a while. It should not be surprising that the level of expectation of tangible outcomes for such governmental meetings is invariably abysmally low.

So what's the value of adding yet another meeting to governments' schedule? What makes this OECD-hosted meeting so unique in the context of the Internet's current political landscape and its political future? Why would a meeting about the dismal science of economics hold any interest at all? (...)

(leia o restante do texto no site de origem, neste link)

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

OECD Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance

=============================================
June 2008 - "The Civil Society-TUAC Seoul Declaration"

CIVIL SOCIETY - TUAC

"THE SEOUL DECLARATION" TO THE OECD MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE
FUTURE OF THE INTERNET ECONOMY

Seoul, Korea

16 June 2008

This gathering of civil society organizations and organized labor at
the OECD Ministerial Conference on the Future of the Internet Economy
provides a unique opportunity to bring to the attention of the OECD
Ministers assembled and the OECD member countries the concerns and
aspirations of people around the globe, those who are on the Internet
and those who are not. We thank the OECD and the Government of Korea
for the opportunity to organize a civil society and labor event and to
participate in the OECD Ministerial Conference. Civil society and
labor together prepared a paper for the OECD and organized a
conference "Making the future of the Internet work for citizens,
consumers and workers." A wide range of organizations participated in
this effort, and this Declaration builds on its results.

A BROAD FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET ECONOMY

The policy goals for the Future Internet Economy should be considered
within the broader framework of protection of human rights, the
promotion of democratic institutions, access to information, and the
provision of affordable and non-discriminatory access to advanced
communication networks and services. Compliance with international
human rights standards and respect for the rule of law, as well as
effective human rights protection, must be the baseline for assessing
global information society policies. Economic growth should be for the
many and not the few. The Internet should be available to all. We
therefore call attention of the OECD to Ministers to the following
issues and we make the following recommendations:

* Freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is being violated
around the globe by state censorship and by more subtle measures such
as content filtering, privatized censorship and restrictions on
so-called "harmful content." We urge the OECD to defend freedom of
expression and to oppose mandated filtering, censorship of Internet
content, and criminalization of content
that is protected under international freedom of expression standards.

* Protection of Privacy and Transparency, We reaffirm our support for
the OECD Privacy Guidelines as a fundamental policy instrument setting
out minimal requirements for the transborder flow of personal data. We
recommend adoption of the recent policy guidance on RFID and Online
Identity Theft as Council Recommendations. We call on OECD countries
to adopt and enforce data protection laws covering all sectors, both
online and offline, and to establish international data protection
standards that are legally enforceable. We further urge member states
to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability for all data
processing for border security, identification, and decision-making
concerning individuals.

* Consumer Protection. Trust and confidence are critical to the
success of the Internet economy. The OECD should ensure that consumer
protection laws are properly enforced and cover digital products to
the same extent that other consumer goods and services are covered. We
recommend that the OECD adopt the policy proposals on Empowering
Consumers in communications Services and in Mobile Commerce as
Council Recommendations, and that the OECD member countries implement
these recommendations. We support the OECD's efforts to facilitate
crossborder enforcement of anti-spam laws and to develop effective
online dispute resolution mechanisms.

* Employment, Decent Work and Skills. We recommend that OECD Member
countries promote learning and training pportunities for workers and
address the technological and organizationalchange in the workplace.
We further urge the OECD to lower the carbon footprint of the ICT
industry and to promote compliance with core labor standards and the
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

* Promotion of Access to Knowledge. We support open access to
government-funded scientific and scholarly works and endorse the OECD
Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data. We support the
OECD Recommendation for Enhanced Access and More Effective Use of
Public Information. OECD countries should oppose extensions of
copyright terms and private ownership of essential knowledge and
cultural information that can be made available on the Internet. We
recommend that the OECD undertake a study on the importance of
copyright exceptions for education, libraries and archives, the
disability community, and new innovative services.

* Internet Governance. Internet governance structures should reflect
democratic values and be transparent and publicly accountable to
users. Global Internet policymaking should involve equal participation
of all people, countries, and stakeholders. We call upon the OECD
member states to support the Internet Governance Forum and to promote
the multi-stakeholder process of the World Summit on the Information
Society.

* Promotion of Open Standards and Net Neutrality. Standards-making
processes should be open and should encourage competition. This
promotes innovation and development. We support the procurement
policies that promote open standards, open data formats, and free and
open software. We further recommend that the OECD Member Countries
oppose discrimination by network providers against particular
applications, devices, or content and preserve the Internet's role in
fostering innovation, economic growth, and democratic communication.

* Balanced Intellectual Property Policies. We urge the OECD member
countries to maintain a balanced framework for intellectual property
protection that is least intrusive to personal privacy, least
restrictive for the development of new technologies, and that promotes
creativity, innovation, and learning. We support the OECD Policy
Guidance for Digital Content. OECD countries should oppose proposals
that would deny individuals access to all Internet services and
opportunities based on alleged copyright infringement. We are also
concerned about the secrecy of the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement" (ACTA) treaty process and the possibility of policies that
may limit legitimate business activity, the participative web, and
e-government service delivery.

* Support for Pluralistic Media. The Internet is a universal platform
for innovation, growth, and the ability of people to express and share
their views. New forms of media and new applications are emerging that
challenge old paradigms and enable broader public participation. At
the same June 2008 3 "The Civil Society-TUAC Seoul Declaration" time,
dominant Internet firms are moving to consolidate their control over
the Internet. It is vitally important for the OECD to develop a better
understanding of the challenge industry consolidations pose to the
open Internet. The OECD Policy Guidance on Convergence and Next
Generation Networks provides a basis this work.

* Inclusive Digital Society. The Internet should be accessible to all.
OECD member countries should ensure that all residents have the means
to access the Internet and should provide public Internet access,
training and support. Particular attention should be paid to rural,
remote and aboriginal populations, as well as the disability
community.

* Cultural Diversity. We support the efforts of the OECD to promote
access to the full range of the world's cultures and to ensure that
the Internet economy reflects the true diversity of language, art,
science, and literature in our world. The deployment of International
Domain Names should be a priority.

PARTICIPATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY AND LABOUR

This participation of civil society and organized labor reaffirms the
role of all stakeholders in the Future of the Internet Economy. Now it
is time to formalize this process. In 1998 civil society and labor
urged the OECD Ministerial Conference in Ottawa to establish an
Advisory Council, similar to the Business Industry Advisory Committee
(BIAC) for business and the Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) for
labor. We said that this new Advisory Council should include civil
society groups in such fields as human rights and democracy, privacy
and data protection, consumer protection, and access to information
and knowledge.

We urge the OECD to establish now the Civil Society Advisory
Committee. The creation of an OECD Civil Society Advisory Committee is
necessary to help realize the democratic goals of inclusion,
participation, transparency and accountability at the OECD.

The OECD offers an important forum for the discussion of policies
concerning the future of the Internet. We welcome this dialogue and
urge the Ministers and members countries of the OECD to fully engage
civil society and labor organizations within their own countries. In
all decisions related to the Internet economy, we advise the OECD
Ministers and the members countries to give particular attention to
those indicators concerning literacy, education, and health. The
success of the Internet Economy should be measured by the well-being
of citizens, and not simply the extent of technology diffusion.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Registros .com.br atingem 70% de solicitações

No universo de domínios que existe no Brasil, sempre vai ter algum tipo de disputa. Frederico Neves, diretor de Serviços e Tecnologia do Registro.br.

O número de registros de site explodiu no Brasil depois da liberação, no último dia 1.º de maio, dos domínios .com.br para pessoas físicas. Números do Registro.br, entidade ligada ao Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil (CGI br ) e responsável pelo registro de domínios na internet brasileira, dão conta que, em maio, houve 70% mais solicitações do que nos meses de março e abril somados.

"O crescimento é basicamente atribuído à liberação do .com.br para pessoas físicas”, avalia o diretor de Serviços e Tecnologia do Registro.br, Frederico Neves. Segundo ele, a mudança não influenciou os novos registros de pessoas jurídicas, mas implicou numa pequena redução no número de registros concedidos a profissionais liberais, mostrando, assim, que estes preferem os domínios .com.br às terminações mais específicas, como a .adv.br eng.br ou med.br. Com o repentino aumento, o número de registros, no Brasil, alcançou a marca
de 1,3 milhão. O .com.br responde, hoje, por uma considerável maioria nesse total: cerca de 1,24 milhão, ou 92%. O fenômeno segue tendência mundial, mas é mais forte no Brasil. Nos domínios sem a terminação indicando o país, os finais .com, por exemplo, também são maioria, mas com pouco menos de 75% de incidência. A obtenção de um domínio desse tipo não exige, também, que o solicitante seja pessoa jurídica.
Requisitos A exigência de documentação específica para registros está cada vez menor também no Brasil. Antes, para registrar um domínio .com.br, era necessário informar um número do CNPJ (Cadastro Nacional de Pessoas Jurídicas). O fato, porém, não impedia pessoas físicas de obterem um domínio com essa terminação
Muitas pessoas “emprestavam” números de CNPJ de empresas próprias ou de amigos, para poderem ter um site pessoal terminando com o .com.br. “Apenas checagens mínimas são observadas”, explica Neves. Uma das principais segundo ele, são os cadastros na Receita Federal, que devem ser válidos. A escolha dos endereços, portanto, acaba sendo livre, dependendo apenas de não haver nome idêntico, registrado anteriormente.
Com isso, as fraudes acabam sendo comuns. Neves dá alguns exemplos, como o identity theft, que ocorre quando alguém faz o cadastro com dados de terceiros. Neves diz que a preocupação maior do Registro.br é garantir que exista um responsável e que ele seja encontrado. Como a entidade não questiona se o endereço escolhido para um novo site tem alguma relação com o nome da pessoa ou empresa que o solicitou, conflitos acabam ocorrendo. A solução, no Brasil, acaba sendo ou acordo, ou a Justiça. “Quando há questionamento, cumprimos o desejo das partes ou a ordem judicial.”

Liberação

A decisão do Registro.br de liberar o domínio .com.br para pessoas físicas pode se ampliar para outros tipos de site. O comunicado que noticiou a liberação, em maio, já dizia que, inicialmente, somente aquele domínio estaria disponível nesta categoria genérica. Esta semana, um novo comunicado da entidade anunciou a liberação, a partir de 1.º de julho, dos finais am.br fm.br e tv.br, antes restritos a emissoras de rádio e TV, para qualquer pessoa jurídica. Com o fim da restrição, os únicos domínios restritos a atividades específicas serão o .coop.br (cooperativas), o .edu.br (instituições de ensino), o .gov.br (entidades governamentais), o .mil.br (entidades
militares), o .org.br, o .psi.br (provedores de internet) e o .net.br (empresas de comunicação multimídia, rede e circuito especializado ou detentoras de sistema autônomo conectado à internet). Liberação não deve aumentar “cibergrilagem” As disputas por nomes de sites não são mais como antigamente. Se antes, na época do “faroeste da internet”, pessoas registravam grandes quantidades de nomes para depois vendê-los com ágio exagerado a interessados hoje o regramento na área dos registros já está maduro. Os famosos cibergrileiros (ou cybersquatters, no original em inglês), não existem mais, na opinião de Frederico Neves, do Registro.br. Hoje, de acordo com Neves, situações mais complexas ocorrem: “há o reverse hijacking, por exemplo, que ocorre quando o domínio existe e um terceiro registra a marca sobre aquele nome”. A fraude, porém, só ocorre quando as empresas se preocupam em registrar um domínio e não tomam o cuidado de registrar a marca ao mesmo tempo. Apesar de no Brasil não haver estatística consolidada - a maioria dos casos estão espalhados nas justiças cíveis estaduais - dados mundiais comprovam que as brigas ainda acontecem bastante. Ano passado, a WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization - Organização Mundial da Propriedade Intelectual), entidade responsável pela resolução de disputas de nomes de domínio, intermediou 2.156 disputas, contra 1.824 em 2006. A tendência de aumento continua este ano: esta semana, o site da entidade já contabilizava 969 casos.
O modelo de resolução das disputas usado internacionalmente - via arbitragem - acabou não ocorrendo no Brasil. Segundo Neves, a escolha do CGI.br de não repetir o modelo aqui teve dois motivos: “primeiro, que não existe tradição de arbitragem no modelo brasileiro, e segundo, porque o volume de reclamações judiciais é relativamente pequeno”. Mesmo o número sendo pequeno, as disputas são, de acordo com Neves,
relativamente comuns. “No universo de domínios que temos, sempre vai ter algum tipo de disputa”,
avalia. Na opinião dele, a liberação dos domínios .com.br para pessoas físicas não deve aumentar o número de casos de conflito de nomes no Brasil. “Só por este motivo, duvido que tenha algum incremento”, prevê. Segundo ele, a justiça cível tem resolvido os casos com certa agilidade e, quando as ordens judiciais chegam ao Registro.br, têm sido cumpridas em menos de 24 horas. “Além disso, a justiça tem observado as normas estabelecidas pelo CGI br”, completa. (HM)
Total de domínios por tipo no Brasil
1.240.578 92.20% COM.BR
33.447 2.49% ORG.BR
9.468 0.70% ADV.BR
7.663 0.57% IND.BR
3.834 0.28% ART.BR
Total de domínios por tipo no mundo
103.306.399 Total
76.237.886 .COM
11.675.146 .NET
6.839.968 .ORG
4.995.417 .INFO
1.975.480 .BIZ

FONTE: http://www.parana-online.com.br/noticias/indexphp?op=ver&id=350471&caderno=4

Friday, June 6, 2008

ICANN: threats to internet users - percentage of sites per top domain names

There are two reports out this week that flooded the online news
outlets. One report was from McAfee with their annual Site Advisor
report that showed the .hk ccTLD had the highest proportion of
websites (19.2%) posing a threat to internet users with .cn second
this year (over 11%). By contrast, .fi remains the safest online
destination for the second year with 0.05%, followed by .jp.

Among the gTLDs, .info was again the most dangerous gTLD with almost
12 per cent (11.73%) of sites posing a threat compared to 7.5 per cent
in 2007. Of the gTLDs, only .com and .biz improved. All others were
worse than in 2007.

The riskiest ccTLD in 2007, .tk, dropped to 28th position. Some key
findings from the report were:
* the chance of downloading spyware, adware, viruses or other
unwanted software from surfing the Web increased 41.5% over 2007
* sites which offer downloads such as ringtones and screen savers
that are also loaded with viruses, spyware and adware increased over
the last year from 3.3% to 4.7%
* the Philippines (.ph) experienced a 270% increase in overall riskiness
* tokelau (.tk) and Samoa (.ws) were notably safer in 2008 dropping
to 28th and 12th
* in Europe, Spain (.es) experienced a 91% increase in overall risk.

However critics of the McAfee report in the IDG report note "the
survey did not demonstrate any real risk as emanating from the SAR.
'McAfee are only looking at the top-level domain bit, they are not
looking at the location of the server,' said Richard Stagg, director
and managing consultant at Handshake Networking, a vendor-independent
security consultancy. 'They're not paying attention to where sites are
actually hosted.'" However a report in Hong Kong's The Standard quotes
"Maren Leizaola, who runs online services company HK.COM, said the
HKDNRs lax policy in order to promote the citys own
domain name was short- sighted." While "Internet Professional
Association chief executive Gary Chao said ".hk" and ".cn" domain
names were popular with small to medium sized enterprises that had
limited budgets and were reluctant to invest in security." It is noted
in a couple of several articles .hk has begun to tighten policies in
response to security issues.

And in China, the Los Angeles Times says the big allure may be price,
with domain names available for as little as 15 cents wholesale. But
overall, the level of risk around the world in 2008 was the same as
2007. Ars technica notes McAfee's methodology is not flawless and that
"many malware companies deliberately choose to host their services
with a foreign domain registrar precisely because its much more
difficult for such domains to be shut down. SiteAdvisor's risk
evaluation contains no information on where malicious software vendors
are actually housing their servers."

The second report is from MarkMonitor whose Brandjacking Index 2008
reports "brand-jacking is increasing, with online scammers actively
abusing a brand's reputation in order to build more legitimacy into
their campaigns, by taking advantage of the brand's trusted
reputation" according to ZDNet.

From the MarkMonitor news release:

"The findings show vendors in China, the U.S. and other countries are
selling questionable aircraft components in bulk online, adding
complexity to the supply chain for commercial aircraft and regulation
of commercial aviation. Business-to-business channels are not the only
targets for brandjackers who use online auctions to offer unusable
airline vouchers to trick cost-conscience consumers out of their money
and spam to infect their computers with spyware as well as to siphon
business from legitimate brands. In other brandjacking trends,
cybersquatting, the most pervasive form of brandjacking, grew by 40
percent in Q1 2008 while pay-per-click fraud declined by 42 percent.
Phishers target fewer new organizations and focus 90 percent of
phishing activity on a small number of brands."