Internet Governance Project

I love a lot of what the EFF does, but this campaign, and many other organizations involved in it got a lot wrong. The real issue, that in fairness the EFF leads with, was the change in the .org contract, not the sale itself. The most robust overview of the whole thing that I have read can be found here: https://www.internetgovernance.org/2020/05/01/no-real-winners-in-dot-o… Whether people like it or not the operation of the DNS, including .org, is a commercial endeavor. It doesn't make sense to focus only on .org, when a) Registrars not Registries are the real place to try and protect Registrants. b) Org has always been open to anyone, and their are likely as many, if not more civil society organizations in com, net, and other tlds.

usually this is my 1st stop to understand current topics re: ICANN etc. :: Milton Mueller at Internet Governance Project (1). his latest blog post may shed some light (2). 1. http://www.internetgovernance.org 2. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2016/09/28/its-over-yestoiana/

I follow this space and am currently doing some research into the renewal/transition of the IANA contract. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-trans… For a good start read this and the linked PDF: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140426_the_illusion_of_internet_govern… TLDR; The DNS industry has an oversized representation in ICANN. ICANN makes a ton of money, and no one really seems to care. You can read the actual contract ICANN has with the government(NTIA) here: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_awa… Mueller is someone who regularly criticizes ICANN. I don't always agree with him, but I think he's right on with this one. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesn…

I predict a future showdown over Section 230 because "algorithms" are used to cheat on the safe harbor protections. Let me explain. The general principle of Section 230 is that a platform provider isn't generally liable for user generated content. This was a key piece of legislation that enabled forums, Reddit and ultimately social media. The platform provider does have responsibilities like moderating illegal content and responding to legal takedowns, etc. Alternatively if you produce and publish your own content you are legally liable. You can be sued for defamation, etc in a way that you can't if you simply host user generated content (unless you fail to adequately moderate). REcommendation algorithms (including news feeds) effectively allow a platform provider to select what content gets distributed and what doesn't. All algorithms express biases and goals of humans who create those algorithms. It's not a black box. It is a reflection of the company's goals. So if you wanted to produce content that's, for example, only flattering to the administration even if you outright lie, you can be sued. But what if your users produce any content you want but you only distribute content that is favorable to the administration? At the same time, you suppress anti-administration content and content creators. It's the same end result but the latter has Section 230 protections. And it really shouldn't. This isn't hypothetical. The Biden administration revived the dead Trump 1…

The link to the actual publication is: https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/TikTok-and-US-na…

I was curious what actually happened to cause this situation since this article and the ones that it linked to are quite light on details. This article from 2021 paints a better background: https://www.internetgovernance.org/2021/08/19/a-fight-over-crumbs-the-… The article that is linked to in the original article also points to some really shady behavior by the parties involved: https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/22/afrinic_failure_warning_apnic_l…

It's not just speculating, there is even large-scale IPv4 address allocation fraud going on: https://www.internetgovernance.org/2021/08/19/a-fight-over-crumbs-the-…

Searched about it because it might matter and came up with this article: https://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/11/07/jurisdiction-icann-belon… Apparently it is under Californian State law so US law.

This work is a fallout of the conclusion of this report: https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/02/20/report-on-ipv6-get-ready… "legacy IPv4 will coexist with IPv6 indefinitely" which was referenced in the original talk, and I wish more "just deploy ipv6" advocates would read. I have worked very hard on making ipv6 deployable (notably in the cerowrt project) and came to the conclusion after reading that that if we wanted sustained internet innovation we needed to expand and improve ipv4, also. Thus 240/4, 0/8, 225/8-231/8 (pending) and yes, even a large portion of 127 and a push to clean up other problems in ipv4 in general.

A few "legacy" address holders in the ARIN region have managed to hold on to legal ownership. https://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/09/22/its-official-legacy-ipv4… But it's true that newcomers these days can't truly "own" their own addresses.

The could seize IP space using a security system, which began deployment three years ago, called the RPKI[1]. If you use the RPKI to protect the internet against BGP attacks, you provide a technical mechanism which governments, or other actors, could use to seize addresses. I just presented a paper on this[2]. IP takedowns are a risk, the Iranian case is not the only example, for instance RIPE was ordered to seize IP Space by a dutch court[3]. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Public_Key_Infrastructure [2]: See paper "From the Consent of the Routed" http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe/papers/RPKImanip.html [3]: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/08/09/court-says-ripe-ncc-has-n…

> Governments across the globe that introduced biometrics in SIM cards > as part of the on-boarding process, to clamp down on fraud, include > China, Afghanistan, Mexico, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan > and Venezuela. This list of countries should tell you everything you need to know about the spread of techno-authoritarianism. I've spoken to Nigerians who say they've had enough and want out due to overbearing and corrupt government there. They tell me that corruption is both perpetrated by the government and then used as an excuse to clamp down on personal liberties and freedom of business that ultimately benefits corrupt government officers. It's a vicious downward spiral fuelled by digital technology. We need much more stuff like Declaration for the Future of the Internet [1]. Though I don't see how that can directly help people in these kind of regimes when we allow our own companies like Bluecoat [2] to export oppressive technologies. [1] https://www.internetgovernance.org/2022/04/29/the-declaration-for-the-… [2] https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/blue-coat-citizen-lab-report-says…