Ans: See Dr. Zulfiquar Ahmed, A Text Book on Cyber Law in Bangladesh, (Dhaka: National Law Book, 2009), p. 3.
And read more for proper answering: The official answer is no one, but it is a half-truth that few swallow. If all nations are equal online, the US is more equal than others. The governance of the Internet, its regulation and in particular the management of its core resources, is one of the most controversial issues in the ongoing discussion on the future development of the global information society within the context of the Geneva World Summit (WSIS I). While everybody agrees that there is a need for something like a global regulatory framework to guarantee the stability, flexibility und further development of the Internet, there is a broad range of different ideas, which kind of regulation should be developed and applied. Concepts of private sector led self-regulation stands versus governmental regulation with a broad variety of co-regulatory ideas in between.
Not that it is an easy issue to define. The internet is, essentially, a group of protocols by which computers communicate, and innumerable servers and cables, most of which are in private hands. However, in terms of influence, the overwhelming balance of power lies with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, based in Marina Del Rey, California.
Two of the biggest countries pushing for this are China and Iran (Venezuela another lovely country signed up on this bandwagon). According to them, they are doing this so the internet can have more transparency and not be influenced by one country. Except, you would be hard press to find an example of such American abuse. In fact, its almost funny considering the ways some of these countries promote transparency within their own country.
ICANN is a not-for-profit organisation that regulates online addresses, known as domain names, and their suffixes, such as “.com” and “.org”. Since ICANN reports to the US government’s Department of Commerce, the domain name process is effectively overseen by the US government. China, Russia and Europe have all expressed concern at this situation because it means the US has leverage over the global coordination of the internet. “It has a role that is different from the role of all other governments,” says Massimiliano Minisci, a regional manager at ICANN. “That’s a concern around the world.”
It is not hard to see why. Take, for instance, a scenario in which a country wants to change certain aspects of its domain names. Any changes carried out at the “top” level – adding new country-level suffixes, for example – have to be checked by the US Department of Commerce, which verifies that proper procedure has been followed. Once that check has been done, the actual implementation of the change is carried out by Verisign, a US-based private company that manages the root name database, which contains the full official list of recognised suffixes. “The US government could block a modification to this database,” Minisci says. “So the US can, theoretically, decide who is on the internet and who isn’t.”
This unsatisfactory situation will be up for discussion by the parties involved in September 2009. So what can be done?
One drastic option would be to break the internet into chunks. A more realistic idea is for more governments to get involved with ICANN, while the most straightforward option would be for the US government to release its grip on ICANN. Milton Mueller, an internet governance expert at Syracuse University in New York, considers this outcome unlikely. “No one wants to let go. The thinking is that, at the crudest level, it’s something under our control, so why mess with it?”
The US Department of Commerce is expected to sign an “affirmation of commitments” with Internet governing body ICANN today, relaxing US control over the way the Internet is managed over the coming years. The move will see the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) assume greater autonomy over critical policy decisions which will shape the future of the Internet for its billions of worldwide users. Earlier this year, the EU called for the US to cede control to an international body, saying:
The US government is the only body to have had formal oversight of ICANN’s policies and activities since its inception in 1998 … The Commission believes that ICANN should become universally accountable, not just to one government but to the global internet community … This is particularly relevant given that the next billion of internet users will mainly come from the developing world.
An international “G12 for internet governance” is expected to be created, with representation from Europe and the developing world, which would review issues such as security and make policy recommendations to ICANN. ICANN was set up by the US Government as a non-profit organization responsible for administering the TLD (Top Level Domain) system for Internet addresses. Many changes to the TLD system are expected in the coming years, after ICann voted to relax some of the rules around how TLDs were administered. Changes expected include the ability to use, for example, Asian or Arabic characters in Internet addresses and for brands or individuals to define their own domains.
More Read……………….
Internet Co-Governance: Towards a Multilayer System of Regulation
www.un-ngls.org/orf/kleinwachter.doc
Unknown internet 1: Who controls the internet?
www.newscientist.com/…/mg20227062.000-unknown-internet-1-who-controls-the-internet.html
Should US relinquish control of ICANN?
digg.com/…/Should_US_relinquish_control_of_ICANN
And read more for proper answering: The official answer is no one, but it is a half-truth that few swallow. If all nations are equal online, the US is more equal than others. The governance of the Internet, its regulation and in particular the management of its core resources, is one of the most controversial issues in the ongoing discussion on the future development of the global information society within the context of the Geneva World Summit (WSIS I). While everybody agrees that there is a need for something like a global regulatory framework to guarantee the stability, flexibility und further development of the Internet, there is a broad range of different ideas, which kind of regulation should be developed and applied. Concepts of private sector led self-regulation stands versus governmental regulation with a broad variety of co-regulatory ideas in between.
Not that it is an easy issue to define. The internet is, essentially, a group of protocols by which computers communicate, and innumerable servers and cables, most of which are in private hands. However, in terms of influence, the overwhelming balance of power lies with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, based in Marina Del Rey, California.
Two of the biggest countries pushing for this are China and Iran (Venezuela another lovely country signed up on this bandwagon). According to them, they are doing this so the internet can have more transparency and not be influenced by one country. Except, you would be hard press to find an example of such American abuse. In fact, its almost funny considering the ways some of these countries promote transparency within their own country.
ICANN is a not-for-profit organisation that regulates online addresses, known as domain names, and their suffixes, such as “.com” and “.org”. Since ICANN reports to the US government’s Department of Commerce, the domain name process is effectively overseen by the US government. China, Russia and Europe have all expressed concern at this situation because it means the US has leverage over the global coordination of the internet. “It has a role that is different from the role of all other governments,” says Massimiliano Minisci, a regional manager at ICANN. “That’s a concern around the world.”
It is not hard to see why. Take, for instance, a scenario in which a country wants to change certain aspects of its domain names. Any changes carried out at the “top” level – adding new country-level suffixes, for example – have to be checked by the US Department of Commerce, which verifies that proper procedure has been followed. Once that check has been done, the actual implementation of the change is carried out by Verisign, a US-based private company that manages the root name database, which contains the full official list of recognised suffixes. “The US government could block a modification to this database,” Minisci says. “So the US can, theoretically, decide who is on the internet and who isn’t.”
This unsatisfactory situation will be up for discussion by the parties involved in September 2009. So what can be done?
One drastic option would be to break the internet into chunks. A more realistic idea is for more governments to get involved with ICANN, while the most straightforward option would be for the US government to release its grip on ICANN. Milton Mueller, an internet governance expert at Syracuse University in New York, considers this outcome unlikely. “No one wants to let go. The thinking is that, at the crudest level, it’s something under our control, so why mess with it?”
The US Department of Commerce is expected to sign an “affirmation of commitments” with Internet governing body ICANN today, relaxing US control over the way the Internet is managed over the coming years. The move will see the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) assume greater autonomy over critical policy decisions which will shape the future of the Internet for its billions of worldwide users. Earlier this year, the EU called for the US to cede control to an international body, saying:
The US government is the only body to have had formal oversight of ICANN’s policies and activities since its inception in 1998 … The Commission believes that ICANN should become universally accountable, not just to one government but to the global internet community … This is particularly relevant given that the next billion of internet users will mainly come from the developing world.
An international “G12 for internet governance” is expected to be created, with representation from Europe and the developing world, which would review issues such as security and make policy recommendations to ICANN. ICANN was set up by the US Government as a non-profit organization responsible for administering the TLD (Top Level Domain) system for Internet addresses. Many changes to the TLD system are expected in the coming years, after ICann voted to relax some of the rules around how TLDs were administered. Changes expected include the ability to use, for example, Asian or Arabic characters in Internet addresses and for brands or individuals to define their own domains.
More Read……………….
Internet Co-Governance: Towards a Multilayer System of Regulation
www.un-ngls.org/orf/kleinwachter.doc
Unknown internet 1: Who controls the internet?
www.newscientist.com/…/mg20227062.000-unknown-internet-1-who-controls-the-internet.html
Should US relinquish control of ICANN?
digg.com/…/Should_US_relinquish_control_of_ICANN
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন