|
Friday January 18, 2013 |
Today is Internet Freedom Day,
a day to celebrate efforts to ensure an open and free Internet. Coming
on the anniversary of the Wikipedia blackout that successfully stopped
the Stop Online Piracy Act in the United States, it is worth thinking
about the many successes (ACTA, Internet surveillance in Canada),
failures (TPP, digital locks in Canadian copyright law), and tragedies
(Aaron Swartz) that have occurred in the past year.
Last fall, I delivered a keynote address at the University of Saskatchewan for its Technology Week
2012 that focused on these issues. The talk was titled When the Internet Met Copyright and can be viewed via a stream here (sorry no embed available). copyright, internet, sopa Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareFriday January 18, 2013 |
|
|
Tuesday July 03, 2012 |
|
Dozens of civil society groups have issued a Declaration of
Internet Freedom that focuses on five principles: expression,
access, openness, innovation, and privacy.
free speech, internet Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday July 03, 2012 |
|
|
Wednesday June 13, 2012 |
Appeared
in the Toronto Star on June 10, 2012 as UN Internet Takeover Rumours
Mask Bigger Governance Shortcomings
In recent months the Internet has been buzzing about the prospect of a
United Nations "takeover" of the Internet, including responsibility for
governance of the domain name system. The concern hit a fever pitch
late last month when the U.S. Congress held hearings on the issue. A
steady stream of technology companies and consumer groups expressed
fears with potential U.N. and foreign government involvement and
members of Congress pledged to take a strong stand against the takeover.
While a U.N. takeover would indeed be cause for serious concern, the
reality is far more complex and somewhat less ominous. This issue has
been festering for over 15 years and is less about whether there will
be efforts at governmental control and more about which government
controls.
The U.S. government established the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private, non-profit entity based in
California in 1998, granting it responsibility for Internet governance
leadership. ICANN was created with a vision of an open, transparent and
multi-stakeholder approach, where Internet users, companies, interest
groups, and governments could all participate in the development of
policies such as the creation and management of new domain name
extensions, the privacy rules associated with registration information,
and the development of dispute resolution policies for contested domain
names.
The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a U.N. body, was
never happy with U.S. leadership and the ICANN model, embarking on
several efforts to assert greater influence over Internet governance
issues.
In 1996, it attempted to take control over the management of the domain
name system but failed to do so (leading to the creation of ICANN).
Several years later, it was the engine behind the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS), which raised the prospect of dramatic
change to the Internet governance model and a far more assertive role
for national governments. The ITU-backed WSIS initiative had
support from many countries around the world, but the U.S. and its
supporters (which included Canada) were able to keep the existing
system largely intact.
The latest concerns arise from the World Conference on International
Telecommunications, scheduled for Dubai later this year. The ITU is
rumoured to be ready to take another shot at Internet governance
control, a fear fueled by the notorious secrecy associated with the
conference documents (the actual proposals were leaked on the Internet
last week).
Given past history, there is little reason to believe the ITU will
succeed. Yet the issue is likely to recur for as long as the U.S.
treats the Internet as its own.
Successive administrations have regularly pressured ICANN on various
policy matters, including efforts to get it to drop plans to create a
dot-xxx domain (after years of global consultation and the development
of a neutral process for approval) and expressed serious reservations
with the introduction of hundreds of new domain name extensions. While
a multi-stakeholder approach means that governments have an opportunity
to express their views on policy issues, the U.S. seems to believe that
some views count more than others.
In fact, some of the same U.S. politicians who expressed outrage over
the ITU plans only months ago were supporters of the Stop Online Piracy
Act, the now-defeated controversial anti-piracy bill that included
provisions that meddled with the domain name system.
The current controversy misses the bigger point that Internet
governance still lacks a strong, universal commitment to a
multi-stakeholder approach that includes governments, business, and
civil society groups working together to develop policies that best
reflect the views of the global Internet community.
Developing such policies is frustratingly time consuming and difficult
– as any policy that implicates billions of people and the world’s most
important communication system would be. Yet an inclusive and
transparent system offers far more than the current unappealing
alternatives of either secretive U.N. involvement or U.S. assertion of
greater control whenever challenging policy issues arise.
Michael Geist holds the Canada
Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of
Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online
at www.michaelgeist.ca.
governance, icann, internet, un, wcit Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday June 13, 2012 |
|
|
Tuesday April 17, 2012 |
Appeared
in the Ottawa Citizen on April 17, 2012 as Canada Lacking Digital
Strategy
The recent federal budget was a hefty 498 pages, but it still omitted
disclosing the decision to eliminate funding for the Community Access
Program, Canada's longstanding initiative to provide an Internet access
alternative for those without connectivity. The world has changed
dramatically since the CAP was first launched in 1995, but the decision
to cut it without establishing alternative solutions for low-income
Canadians who are not online is a disappointing development that
highlights yet again the absence of a national digital strategy from
Industry Minister Christian Paradis.
The CAP was once a foundational element in the federal government's
effort to connect Canadians. In the late 1990s, many did not have
Internet access at home and wireless data plans were still years away.
Today, the majority of Canadians have residential broadband access as
well as wireless connectivity through their smartphones or other
devices.
The decision to cut the CAP therefore does not come as a surprise. In
2010, it appeared the government was set to cancel the program,
bolstered by a 2009 evaluation conducted by the Audit and Evaluation
Branch of Industry Canada. The evaluation found that the program was
"less aligned with the current priorities" of the government and that
"it may have out-lived its usefulness as a means to bring the Internet
to communities across Canada."
When letters were sent to local programs notifying them of the
impending cuts, the local communities expressed their concern to
elected officials. The outrage led then-Industry Minister Tony Clement
to quickly reverse the decision, chalking up the notification letters
to a funding misunderstanding.
Changes in Internet access rates may have made the CAP an obvious
target for elimination, but fostering universal access to the Internet
is more important than ever. As governments embrace open government
initiatives and shift toward electronic delivery of services, ensuring
that all Canadians have Internet access becomes an absolute necessity.
Yet the 2010 Statistics Canada Internet Use survey found that many
low-income Canadians do not have Internet access at home. While 97% of
Canadians in the top income quartile have access, that number drops to
54% for those in the bottom quartile. In other words, nearly half of
all Canadians with incomes of $30,000 or less do not have ready access
to the Internet.
For those Canadians, the issue is not whether Internet access is
available but rather whether it is affordable, particularly when
combined with the need to invest in computing equipment. The CAP helped
address the affordability gap by ensuring that thousands of Canadians -
even those without a computer or who found that monthly access charges
were beyond their means - would have access to the Internet.
The CAP may have needed retooling, but there remains a Canadian digital
divide that should be addressed. By comparison, the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission teamed up with cable and technology companies
last year to launch Connect-to-Compete, which promises to bring
computers and Internet access to low-income households.
The program, which will officially launch in September, includes a
commitment from the cable companies to offer $10 a month broadband
Internet access to homes with children that are eligible for free
school lunches. Moreover, families can purchase a refurbished computer
for $150 or a new one from Microsoft for $250. For those without
computer expertise, Best Buy's Geek Squad will offer basic digital
literacy training in 20 cities around the country.
For thousands of Canadians that relied on the CAP, its elimination
raises the real prospect of being cut off from the Internet. The
failure to identify alternatives that support affordable access to
Internet services and computers, along with the necessary skills
development, places the spotlight once again on Canada's missing
digital strategy.
Michael Geist holds the Canada
Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of
Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online
at www.michaelgeist.ca.
cap, community access program, industry canada, internet Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday April 17, 2012 |
|
|
