The Accessibility Policy
This section was created to inform readers of international policies of internet access and internet governance regulations.
Article of Interest:
The global debate on Internet governance will once again gather people from all over the world at UN’s IGF, this time in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The process was started last year in Athens, when more than 1,200 participants focused on discussion of the overarching issues tied to the future of information and communications technologies, including control over the Internet architecture and numbering and naming system, security, intellectual property, openness, connectivity, cost and multilingualism.
The IGF’s innovative multi-stakeholder format, designed to grant governments, NGOs, and commerce an equal seat at the table, was praised by many as an evolution from the bounds of classical diplomacy. But the role of the IGF as a pure discussion forum — “a neutral, non-binding and non-duplicative process” as the EU presidency put it — and the absence of a more formalized output were intensively discussed by several governments and NGOs, Brazilians included. Blogs report:
Grandes expectativas e uma boa dose de autocrítica devem permear o II Fórum de Governança da Internet (IGF), evento que acontece em novembro no Rio de Janeiro. Resultado de um grande esforço do governo brasileiro em trazer o evento para o solo nacional, o II IGF deve ter como principal discussão mais do que os temas convencionais do ambiente virtual, mas a própria razão de sua existência. Diferentemente da sua última edição em Atenas, caracterizada pela ausência de poder deliberativo, devem estar no centro da pauta no Rio de Janeiro o modelo de governança da Internet e o poder do próprio IGF.
II Forum de Governança da Internet – Dialógico
Great expectations and a good dose of self criticism will surely be present at the Second Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which will take place in November in Rio de Janeiro. The occurrence of the IGF in Brazil was the result of a big effort of the local government, and the discussions will focus not only on the conventional issues related with the virtual environment, but also on the foundational purposes of the IGF process. In a significant evolution from its last meeting in Athens — which was characterized by the absence of deliberative power — the IGF in Rio will position the present Internet governance model and the IGF’s mandate as central themes of the forum.
II Forum de Governança da Internet – Dialógico
A revised draft program for the event, and the definition of the items of debate in each of the five thematic axes — access, diversity, openness, security and critical Internet resources — were the results of the IGF’s multi-stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva last week. A civil society appointee of the Brazilian delegation blogged about the meeting and its outcomes.
O principal debate desta reunião do MAG se deu justamente em torno da ementa do painel sobre “critical internet resources”. A representação brasileira lutou quase solitariamente para incluir questões como custos de interconexão, infra-estrutura de telecomunicações, administração dos servidores-raiz e o registro de nomes e números… o caráter multistakeholder do IGF é a sua grande fortaleza e sua fragilidade. Como tomar decisões em um encontro com atores de natureza tão diferente? E, no longo prazo, para que serve um encontro que não delibera? Para discutir a natureza do IGF e tentar encontrar respostas para estas questões, um dos painéis centrais do IGF se chamará “taking stock and the way forward”. Esta foi uma proposta do Brasil, que contou com a oposição do “sistema ICANN” (que sempre lutou contra a própria existência do IGF), mas que foi aprovada como parte do programa oficial do IGF… A terceira questão em disputa foi decidir se o IGF produzirá ou não um relatório final. Neste caso, o Brasil conseguiu atrair a União Européia para a defesa explícita de que, se este IGF não chegará a produzir um documento final (que seja fruto de uma votação), deve pelo menos produzir um relatório que reflita as diversas posições existentes… Mais uma vez, e contando com a oposição do “sistema ICANN, o Brasil defendeu o conceito de “Athens plus”, ou seja, ir além do que houve em Atenas 2006.
Gustavo Gindre direto de Genebra – PSL Brasil
The main debate in this meeting of the multi-stakeholder Advisory Group focused on defining the items of the ‘critical internet resources’ thematic axis. The Brazilian delegation fought an almost solitary fight to include issues like interconnection costs, telecommunications infrastructure, root-servers administration, and names and numbers registry… the IGF’s multi-stakeholder format is at the same time its biggest strength and also its frailness. How to reach decisions in a meeting with actors from such different natures? And in the long run, what is the use of a forum that does not decide anything? In order to discuss IGF’s mandate and find answers to the previous questions, one of the main panels will be “taking stock and the way forward”. This was proposed by the Brazilian delegation and opposed by the “ICANN group” [who have been against the IGF's very existence], but finally approved as part of the official programme… The third dispute was to decide if the IGF would or would not produce a final report. In this case, Brazil managed to attract the EU to its position defending that, although the IGF-Rio still won’t produce a final document [voted by the plenary], it will at least generate a report reflecting the diverse positions presented… Once again, and suffering strong opposition from the “ICANN group”, Brazil has supported the concept of an “Athens Plus” for the IGF-Rio, or a going beyond what happened in Athens 2006.
Gustavo Gindre direto de Genebra – PSL Brasil
There are two other interesting issues in the UN Press Release. It explicitly mentions that the Advisory Group has been tasked to make proposals on “a suitable rotation among its members”. This reflects a concern among civil society groups who suspect that unless some rules of procedures are established the multi-stakeholder approach will degenerate into some nontransparent back-room deals by a few self-appointed buddies. The fact that the UN addresses this concern indicates a comprehensive care for the IGF’s legitimacy which includes the views of non-governmental actors. The second remarkable issue concerns the mandate of the IGF. The press release announces “critical internet resources” as an additional fifth theme on the IGF’s agenda. Similar to old WSIS days, the G-77 countries forcefully made the point at the May 23 consultations that the question of DNS and IP address management needs be tackled in the context of the IGF to fulfill the Tunis Agenda. The UN press release acknowledges this claim by referring to its widespread support. So far, the UN’s political support structure for the IGF strives to be inclusive and to balance the concerns of the various stakeholders. No major mistakes have been made.
IGF’s MAG renewed: government flex muscles? – IGP
Apart from the Brazilian interest in the IGF — with preparatory events at FGV and Nupef — which in great part comes from being the host country, the event doesn’t seem to be attracting much global attention at the moment. The Italian government is organizing a preparatory event in Rome, specially focusing on Internet rights, and the Open Society Institute for Southern Africa (OSISA) is preparing to send a 20-member delegation to Rio, but that’s all we can trace on the blogosphere right now.
In regard of an event intended to hold the global dialog on Internet governance, and which has as one of its main goals reaching out for a broad remote participation, we are not seeing yet any preparation of participatory channels for the event in terms of interactive web interfaces. But, as the Brazilian government has announced efforts to assure the participation of all interested sectors of society, especially focusing on Brazil and Latin America, we are hoping to hear more about it soon.
In contrast with the almost reticent coverage of the IGF-Rio by the media and the blogs, there was an event last week that caught the attention of almost everyone involved with the Internet: Google’s call for web privacy laws. Extensively covered by all kinds of media, the venue did not go unnoticed. It was at the UN’s Strasburg conference where the company’s privacy chief Peter Fleischer choose to make his announcement. This meeting was the third of a cycle of regional UNESCO’s conferences on the ethical dimensions of the information society and was intended as a contribution to the implementation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and preparatory to the Internet Governance Forum. Surely, the success of an international privacy standards initiative will depend on support from many stakeholders. Some are wondering if this move by Google could be a signal that it plans to use the UN as a platform to reach out for global consensus?
Ele descreveu um cenário típico de compra on-line, envolvendo um consumidor francês que utiliza um site norte-americano. Essa página norte-americana pode ter centrais de processamento de dados em diversos países e o atendimento ao consumidor pode ser realizado a partir da Índia. “A cada vez que uma pessoa usa seu cartão de crédito, a informação pode atravessar seis ou sete fronteiras nacionais”, disse Fleischer falando sobre a importância da definição de padrões de proteção à privacidade dos internautas. Perguntado sobre o motivo pelo qual o Google está propondo uma agenda de privacidade mundial em vez de recorrer a Washington, Fleischer demonstrou resignação sobre a simplificação de políticas norte-americanas. “Eu simplesmente não acredito que as mudanças vão ocorrer neste Congresso”, disse ele. “O debate mundial vai ajudar a motivar o debate nos Estados Unidos.”
Google propõe padrão mundial de privacidade – Cdigitalizando
He [Peter Fleischer] described a typical scenario of an online transaction, involving a French consumer that uses a North American website. This North American web page can have data processing centers in many countries and the customer service may proceed from India. “Each time a person uses the credit card, the information can cross six or seven borders”, said Fleischer mentioning the importance of reaching global patterns for privacy protection of the internauts. Asked about the reason why Google chose to propose a global privacy agenda instead of approaching Washington, Fleischer showed resignation about the North-American simplifying policies. “I honestly don’t believe that changes will occur in this Congress”, he said. “The global debate will help to motivate the debate in the US.”
Google propõe padrão mundial de privacidade – Cdigitalizando
As the Internet Governance Forum continues to evolve definitions of the potential UN role in promoting the global debate on the future of the Information Age, stake-holders from small to large are also in the process of defining themselves, their agendas and their participation in the new worlds of cyberspace governance. The November meetings of IGF-Rio could be the place where many conversations and initiatives rise from blog-talk into a world view.
From GlobalVoicesOnlinehttp://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/09/18/internet-governance-global-privacy-and-igf-rio/
Article of Interest:
October 11, 2007, 12:37 pm
Google, Mozilla and the Open-Source Phone
There is a lot we don’t know about Google’s cellphone effort, but this much seems clear from the many reports: Google isn’t making a phone, it is developing an open-source cellphone operating system. Google will, no doubt build some proprietary applications that run on it, find manufacturers and cut deals with carriers to deliver a shiny package to consumers.
Another interesting fact: Mike Schroepfer, the vice president for engineering of the Mozilla Foundation, announced that the group is working on a mobile version of its open-source Firefox browser.
But consider how dissonant the first part is: open source and cellphone. As these and other open-source initiatives move forward, we will see far more challenges to the existing structure of the wireless industry.
Mostly, cellphones have been closed environments, with a behind-the-scenes battle for control between the carriers (who have power in the United States) and the handset makers (who have a bit more power in many other countries).
There are some open elements on some phones. Many of the rudimentary browsers can reach rudimentary mobile Web sites. And some phones allow Java applications to run. (On my little Samsung flip phone, a few of the decent things I can do are Java apps for Google maps, Gmail, Citibank banking and such.)
The reason for these limits is the intersection of economics and psychology: People want a low upfront price for their phones. But it turns out that many will pay a lot of money to add features later. I wrote yesterday about the $9.99 monthly fee that Verizon charges to use the GPS technology that is already in your phone. And think that many people pay as much as $3 for a 30-second ringtone from a 99-cent song.
A truly open phone would allow you use any of its features and play any music you owned when it rang without paying an additional toll. Of course, it may well cost more up front too.
But Moore’s Law and its corollaries promise that cost will become less of an issue. Meanwhile, the capabilities of mobile devices are multiplying. In his blog post, Mr. Schroepfer wrote that a full Firefox browser, with plugins and such, is going to be possible for mobile phones because of rapid advances in mobile computing power.
The single most important thing about the iPhone is that it gives us a vision of what these devices will be able to do and an interface that will allow people to use them.
That’s why I find the battle between Apple and the hacker community over the capabilities of the iPhone so interesting. Apple has some good reasons for trying to keep control over the iPhone. A cellphone has to be reliable, and in these early days, Apple has an interest in keeping its platform safe from bugs and malware.
This is one of the constant fault lines in technology: stability versus innovation. And the demand for innovation around mobile computing is like water massing at the top of Niagara Falls.
Google has been pushing for openness in the Washington jockeying over the auction for the UHF television frequencies. And it will open another front in this war with its open-source phone operating system.
That said, Google may have a hard time in the United States. The most natural distributor for a phone running its OS is Verizon, which is locked out of the iPhone market. But Verizon has been the biggest opponent of Google’s vision of open spectrum. You can imagine all sorts of compromises from all sides to get a deal done. And Google may have to offer the carriers more control than it wants to, just as Apple had to accommodate AT&T.
But it may well be that Google’s OS takes off faster outside of the U.S. Many countries, after all, have more of a market for unlocked phones as well as faster adoption of mobile data services. And Google has rapidly growing advertising networks in Europe and Asia that could profit well from piggybacking its services on these phones.
This may well be good for consumers in the United States anyway. Rapid adoption of an open-source phone environment will help drive down costs and create applications that doubtless will eventually migrate here.
The handset makers, I suspect, are of mixed opinions on this. Nokia, and perhaps a few other big players, would like to profit from software and services, as Apple is. But there are enough other companies, like HTC, that are mainly in the volume manufacturing business, who would like nothing better than a free supplier of sexy software.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/google-mozilla-and-the-open-source-phone/
