Re: an historic retreat
This seems like beneficial evolution from central authority to multiple authorities, and in the future probably to the truly decentralized personal level, as technology advancements begin to support smaller entities controlling their own namespaces and the routing. The Internet was never like broadcast ether, it was just presented that way. Imagine if the air was subject to the mechanics of the Internet: you talk to several people in the room, but some can't hear you, because the air operator didn't feel like it. You act surprised, indignated, and then you complain to the government. All because of your own ignorance about how the air works, and your own gullibility to buy into the air marketing. Internet is not like air, and will never be. Decentralization is a good thing, and the sooner the public perception of the Internet gets closer to reality, the better. Of course, the newly empowered fiefdoms will never agree to further delegate the authority to their subjects, but it will happen to them as it happened to ICANN. Expect to see the exodus of Internet luminaries parasiting on the current centralized system into new subdomains. That's where the money is. take place in a manner which would "Support and enhance the multistakeholder model". This should be seen in the context of the USG's statement to the # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: an historic retreat
Michael, et al., I can think of no one better to quote than Phil Agre, who I suspect is well known hereabouts. The global integration of the economy is likewise commonly held to decentralize political power by discouraging governments from taking actions that can be reversed through cross-border arbitrage. But political power is becoming centralized in equally important ways: the power of national governments is not so much disappearing as shifting to a haphazard collection of undemocratic and nontransparent global treaty organizations, and the power to influence these organizations is likewise concentrating in the ever-fewer global firms. These observations are not pleasant or fashionable, but they are nonetheless true. Read the rest at The Market and the Net: Personal Boundaries and the Future of Market Institutions http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/boundaries.html --dan # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: an historic retreat
Dear Nettimers: There is a very much bigger game afoot where issues concerning the NTIA/ICANN etc.etc. are mere pawns on the chessboard. The NTIA announcement has to be seen in the context of the NetMundial meeting to be convened in Brazil at the end of April and where the NTIA announcement pre-empted a (quite likely and more or less global) agreement on a rather worse set of recommendations from the US's perspective. The key element in the NTIA/USG announcement was not the preamble but rather the first bullet point i.e. the determination that the transfer would only take place in a manner which would "Support and enhance the multistakeholder model". This should be seen in the context of the USG's statement to the NetMundial concerning its position on the future of Internet Governance http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/prsrl/2014/221946.htm where "multistakeholderism" is mentioned 12 times and "democracy" is referred to once in passing. So what exactly is "multistakeholderism"? Well that isn't quite clear and no one (least of all the US State Department) has pointed to a useful definition. But whatever it is a key element is that all the relevant "stakeholders" including the major Internet corporations get to sit around promoting their "stakes" and making Internet policy through some sort of consensus process where all the participants have an "equal" say and where rules of things like procedure, conflict of interest etc.etc. all seem to be made up as they go along. Also, it is becoming clear that the various proponents of MSism see it as a replacement for democratic processes of Internet governance (continuously misrepresented as being completely aligned with multilateral processes). Clearly the major Internet corporations, the US government and their allies in the technical and civil society communities are quite enthusiastic -- getting to sit around and jointly work out things like frameworks, principles and rules (or not) for privacy and security, taxation, copyright etc. in an Internet enabled environment--pretty heady stuff. Whether the outcome in any sense is supportive of the broad public interest and an Internet for the Common Good, well that isn't so clear. Mike -Original Message- From: nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of Felix Stalder Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 2:59 AM To: nettim...@kein.org Subject: Re: an historic retreat Hi Dan, I must say, I've never really understood the politics around ICANN. That has always been too arcane for me. So I don't understand this development either. <...> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: an historic retreat
Hi Felix & Dan, Well, yes, that is basically correct immo. There was, and is, a lot amiss with ICANN, a.o.t. its bending for commercial interests - or at least viewpoints, its greediness in fees-setting and to sell ever more 'virtual estate', and the such, but on the whole, it's a dispensation quite akin to democracy: "the least bad system ... etc." The problem is that its statutes, as a US para-statal of sorts, has simply become untenable 'after Snowden'. Not for intrinsic reasons, but for political ones. Probably many people (& I guess me too) would have wished Obama/ the Administration had done nothing, gambling on the situation to fade away by itself. For which reasons they have done it is a bit of a puzzle. Maybe it has to do with something Snowden knows and we still don't. Cheers, p+5D! > Hi Dan, > > I must say, I've never really understood the politics around ICANN. That > has always been too arcane for me. So I don't understand this > development either. <...> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Ushinor Majumdar: Giving a voice to the voiceless
original to: http://www.tehelka.com/giving-a-voice-to-the-voiceless/ (bwo BytesforAll list/ Frederick Noronha) Giving a voice to the voiceless Ushinor Majumdar A little-known initiative from the Chhattisgarh won the Digital Activism Award this year. Ushinor Majumdar on the project that beat Edward Snowden in the race Last year, Edward Snowden became the champion of Internet freedom for exposing the US government's pervasive Internet surveillance and privacy invading programmes. With adulation came accusations. As Internet activists rallied behind the former CIA contractor, the US government charged him with espionage, sparking off a global debate on the protection of whistleblowers. Snowden put Internet activism in the spotlight and was nominated for the 2014 Digital Activism Award. He won the online battle. In January, he said, 'For me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission's already accomplished. I already won.' Digital corporations and governments across the world came under fire for colluding on sharing personal data of Internet users. However, he lost the Digital Activism Award race to a little-known Indian journalist, who works with tribals in India's hinterlands. The year's award was given to Bhopal-based Shubhranshu Choudhary for his initiative called: CGNet Swara, which seeks to empower the most marginalised of the Indian population. Tribals from hard-to-reach areas in central India dial in with local news stories and they are then podcast through CGNet Swara. In fact, it doesn't even require a call. A missed call ensures that an automated service dials you back and helps record your message into the server. Considering the four heavyweight contenders -- Edward Snowden, for his expos' of US surveillance; Free Weibo, touted as the Facebook of China, for providing information that has been censored or deleted by the country's oppressive regime; and TAILS (The Amnesiac Incognito Live System), for developing an encryption system that seeks to protect online sharing of information; and Choudhary's CGNet Swara -- the award is a matter of great prestige. Although, regulations in Chhattisgarh do not allow community radio, it's surprising what CGNet has achieved since its inception. For example, when State-sponsored armed militia, Salwa Judum, started fighting the Maoists, national newspapers ignored the atrocities committed on civilians. International media that were tracking CGNet's podcasts first broke the news globally. The Indian media later picked up the story to produce some stellar reporting on Salwa Judum, which finally led to the Supreme Court banning the outfit. 'Advertisement-based revenue generation system of the Indian media doesn't allow journalists to cover many things. The reasons for the rise of Maoism is one such phenomenon,' says Choudhary. He set up CGnet as a mailer group on Yahoo! to report from the interiors of Chhattisgarh and within a year, there were 2,500 people on the list. There were bigger issues like conflict in mineral-rich areas, which the national media kept well away from. CGNet had to evolve into a platform where the tribals themselves could report. In February 2010, CGNet Swara was launched as an 'experiment' to connect tribal people with the Internet using mobile phones, which had started permeating into the central Indian tribal territory. Choudhary picked up funding from the International Centre for Journalists (ICFJ) under the Knight International Journalism Fellowship for his project. And since 2013, the UN is funding the project. Accustoming the tribals to technology was difficult. Choudhary started with the basics of traditional news reporting, right out of a journalism school. Needless to say, it didn't work. The new CGNet Swara training module employs trainers like Bhanu Sahu and Choran Parte to use song, dance, puppetry and traditional forms of storytelling to train the tribals. They are also taught to attribute, and check and verify facts. The reports range from health issues, social welfare payments, education, midday meals, PDS leakage to corruption. Villagers drop a missed call on CGNet's server, which then calls them back, and records their reports. Moderators later edit and put up the audio files on CGNet Swara's website. It is not just a source for information but an arterial network that gives the pulse of the tribal heartland, and can be used to understand what absorbs tribal people into the Maoist struggle. 'There are a number of tribals who are pulled into the Maoist struggle. Most are pushed into it because of the negligence of the government; alienation and neglect of local language is one of the great contributors,' explains Choudhary. Politics of language has an important role in the growth of the left wing extremism (LWE). One of the most common languages among the tribals in central India -- across Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra -- is Gondi. Hindi loses its significanc
Re: an historic retreat
Hi Dan, I must say, I've never really understood the politics around ICANN. That has always been too arcane for me. So I don't understand this development either. When I read these articles, the suggestion is that a weak Obama administration is trying to appease foreign governments angered by the Snowden leaks handing over control over an essential part of the infrastructure to an entity that is dominated either by commercial interests, or foreign governments bent on censoring the internet, adding to trend towards fragmentation and renationalization already underway. As the lawfare blog (what a name, lawfare!) concludes: > For me, the bottom line seems relatively clear ... the United States > has been a fundamentally good steward of the network. It has fostered > innovation, openness, freedom and growth. Not perfectly to be sure > and not always without a healthy dollop of self-interest, but at its > core the US management of the network has been more benign than > venal, with the result that we have today a vibrant network with more > good than bad in it. > > The transition to ICANN management may well upset that happy vision Is that really all there is, a panicky Obama selling out freedom to appease dictators? This sounds like a standard right-wing narrative to me (which is does not in an of itself invalidate it). Felix On 03/23/2014 04:20 AM, d...@geer.org wrote: > > > > Those who read the WSJ or PGN's RISKS will have seen this. > > http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303563304579447362610955656 > > It is too long to quote in full, but here's Esther Dyson > > In the end, I'd rather pay a spurious tax to people who want my money > than see [Icann] controlled by entities who want my silence. > > > If you prefer pithier/legalistic, try > > http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/who-controls-the-internet-address-book-icann > > -ntia-and-iana > > > The word for the week: apoplectic > > --dan > > > > > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # > is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # > collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # > more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: > http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > -- | http://felix.openflows.com |OPEN PGP: 056C E7D3 9B25 CAE1 336D 6D2F 0BBB 5B95 0C9F F2AC # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
an historic retreat
Those who read the WSJ or PGN's RISKS will have seen this. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303563304579447362610955656 It is too long to quote in full, but here's Esther Dyson In the end, I'd rather pay a spurious tax to people who want my money than see [Icann] controlled by entities who want my silence. If you prefer pithier/legalistic, try http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/who-controls-the-internet-address-book-icann -ntia-and-iana The word for the week: apoplectic --dan # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
