Public participation site

Lesotho IXP setup. Photo Credit: ISOC/Michuki MwangiThe Internet Society today announced that it has been awarded a grant by Google.org to extend its Internet exchange point (IXP) activities in emerging markets. The grant will build on the Internet Society's previous efforts and will establish a methodology to assess IXPs, provide training for people to operate the IXPs, and build a more robust local Internet infrastructure in emerging markets.

IXPs play an important role in Internet infrastructure that allows Internet service providers (ISPs) and other network operators to exchange traffic locally and more cost effectively, which can help lower end-user costs, speed-up transmissions, increase Internet performance, and decrease international Internet connectivity costs. The Internet Society and Internet technical experts have been working for several years to bring IXPs to emerging markets. These efforts have resulted in locally trained experts and facilitated the development of local and regional technical infrastructures. An additional benefit of IXP development is the expansion of community governance models as well as building local Internet expertise.

Google.org, a team within Google focused on social impact, develops and supports technology solutions that can address global challenges, such as expanding Internet access to more of the world's seven billion people.

"The Internet Society has proved to be one of the most effective institutions in the Internet community," said Vint Cerf, vice president and Chief Internet Evangelist at Google. "I am confident that they will apply their grant wisely to extend their work to increase Internet access for everyone, including those in emerging markets."

Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society, stated, "We are very excited to receive this grant from Google.org. With support to extend our IXP development and improvement projects, we can more quickly bring core Internet infrastructure to underserved countries and assist in building key human and governance capabilities. We will also be able to extend the Internet Society's mission to ensure the open development, evolution, and use of the Internet for the benefit of people everywhere. We look forward to working with Google.org, and we are committed to collaborating with Internet community partners around the world on this important project."

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers

Since the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) discharged delegates from an atmosphere of restrained acidity last December, ITU habitués have wondered how that outcome will affect the rhythms of their regular work in Geneva. This is no less true for governments that approved of the WCIT treaty as it is for those which did not, though the immediate anxiety may be greatest for the latter — for those whom we can call, with sloppy shorthand, the G8. Such high stakes present the best reason to take time in deciding on the right next step.

Of Fashion and Sense

Even if the fashion is to disparage the ITU just now, bits of it function well enough. Those members of the G8 that are home to manufacturers of communications equipment and operators of broadband networks know this. They are, with periodic setbacks, ploddingly rewarded for their ITU work: they get (regionally) harmonised frequencies, telecommunications standards and, for operators of space networks, orbital positions that enable long-term operations. Since the WCIT, however, it is easy to believe that governments which are not part of the G8, having started to enjoy the alliterative sounds of their swadeshi rhetoric (classics never go out of style), will offer up less harmony, narrower spectrum uses, and a whole lot fewer parking places for the space assets of the G8's strategic communities.

A Body in Rest Tends to Stay...

2013-14: In the near-term the traditional ITU dynamics are unlikely to change much, for reasons both behavioural and economic.

Frequency and standards discussions remain largely technical. Participants in ITU radio work and standards matters are regulators and bureaucrats, not politicians. There are a few chances to grandstand, but the subject matter makes acerbity hard to sustain: the main argumentation and dialogue is underpinned by colourless, grinding engineering. "Economic colonialism" doesn't rhyme well with "Megahertz".

Nor do most developing countries contribute much to this part of the ITU process: they lack the market size to want to set their own standards, they lack indigenous businesses that demand one, and they lack manpower and budget to attend and push an agenda. Instead, these governments are inclined to arrive at the negotiations with broad instructions to listen to the arguments, and to decide positions according to what promises the best future and least reform. Who develops the compelling technical arguments to which these governments respond? Manufacturers and network operators, sometimes working in tandem with a predictable host of governments (try to spot a distinction between the positions of Nokia and Finland in some of these forums).

Finally, governments of even the least developed economies are clear on the importance of affordable network infrastructure, terrestrial or space-based; ditto on the efficiency of global standards. And a lot of switching equipment, handsets, networks, and satellite connections are still made or designed in the G8 (until China supplies all of these, universally… but this is yet a few years off). So no matter how tempting it may be to carry the WCIT tussle over into the regular ITU bodies, and to block access to the frequencies and orbital positions companies seek, it is the countries with the least developed infrastructures that would suffer most if the G8 were not allowed to continue to do well out of the ITU. More to the point: can you inveigh too long against the same entities that help build, connect or service your national broadband infrastructure without looking a little disingenuous?

Admit That the Waters Around You Have Grown

Inertia and the pace of economic development will not long stand between change at the ITU or anywhere else. But just now, after WCIT, they provide an eddy that allows us to avoid panicked policy decisions. We are on notice that conserving the benefits of the ITU's technical work will, over the longer term, require the G8's many stakeholders to develop their own individual international engagements. These will involve some considered outreach to developing-country governments to blunt the inclination to scold rather than collaborate, the restraint to leave much of the evangelising on matters of principle to the diplomatic corps, and a willingness to reward all organisations that serve them well with in-kind support, policy attention, and more than a bit of coin.

Written by Gregory Francis, Managing Director at Access Partnership

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Internet Governance

I'm on the record multiple times over the last few months for my opinions on "closed generics". I first posted about it back in June of last year: Big Brands Trying To Corner Generic Namespaces?

Since then I've sent several letters to ICANN (supported by many others) and have been quoted and referenced in several articles on the subject including Politico.com: ICANN's debating what's in a domain name

Others have spoken out on this topic also:

• Kathy Kleiman to ICANN
• Microsoft to ICANN
• Dave Winer

If you're not a domain "geek" then the danger of this issue might not be that easy to understand, so here are five reasons why "closed generics" are a really bad idea.

1. The Internet thrives with freedom of choice and openness
2. Dozens of applications to ICANN for new top level domains (gTLDs) seek to completely segregate and close-off common words for use by one company, rather than for the entire industry, group or class.
3. Generic Words Belong to All People; .CLOUD, .BEAUTY, .BOOK, .BLOG, .SEARCH and .SECURITY should be open to all with appropriate interests and industries
4. Closed Generic TLDs lead to unfair closures and improper restrictions. Companies will be barred from using the generic string of their industry to promote their own businesses on an equal and fair footing online; Entrepreneurs and inventors will be inhibited from bringing new products to market for fear that a large segment of the Internet marketplace will be closed to them; and Consumers, thinking they are accessing an entire industry, will not know the name space is controlled by one entity and competitors are locked out
5. ICANN rules allowed a limited exception for Brands to create a closed space (.BMW), but not for entire classes of goods, services and people to close off (.STORE, .CARS and .BABY)

Just over a week ago Conn and I recorded an interview with domain blogger and journalist Kevin Murphy in which we talked about several things including new TLDs. Kevin gave a fantastic example of a wonderful new TLD — .blog.

As Kevin said in the interview, if you go to a .blog domain name you'd expect to find a "blog". It'll do exactly what you'd expect.

But, as we know Google has applied for .blog and has stated that they'll restrict the domain to Blogger. Here's what they've told ICANN they intend to do:

The purpose of the proposed gTLD, .blog, is to provide a dedicated Internet space where Google can continue to innovate on its Blogger offerings. The mission of the proposed gTLD is to provide a dedicated domain space in which users can publish blogs. All registered domains in the .blog gTLD will automatically be delegated to Google DNS servers, which will in turn provide authoritative DNS responses pointing to the Google Blogger service. The mission of the proposed gTLD is to simplify the Blogger user experience. Users will be able to publish content on a unique .blog domain (e.g., myname.blog) which will serve as a short and memorable URL for a particular Blogger account. This mission will enhance consumer choice by providing new availability in the second-level domain space, creating new layers of organization on the Internet, improving the Google user experience, and signaling the kind of content available in the domain.

So you won't be able to use a .blog with WordPress, MovableType, TypePad, Joomla or any of the other blogging platforms or solutions out there. So much for competition and choice!

But it's actually worse than that!

Charleston Road Registry intends to apply for an exemption to ICANN's Registry Operator Code of Conduct and operate the proposed gTLD with Google as the sole registrar and registrant.

Translation: Google will be the holder / registrant / owner of ALL domains under .blog, so even if you are happy with being restricted to the Google blogging platform you'll never have any real control over yourname.blog

If you are a blogger, shouldn't you be able to choose which blogging software or platform you use? Shouldn't you be able to register a domain for yourself?

What about some of the other closed generic applications?

Look at a sample of them below:

.app (Amazon)
.app (Google)
.baby (Johnson & Johnson)
.antivirus (Symantec)
.book (Amazon)
.cloud (Symantec)
.hair (L'Oreal)
.video (Amazon)

What gives Symantec exclusive rights to every single domain under .cloud?

What about Amazon and .video?

If you agree that this kind of use of new TLDs is a fundamentally bad idea then please let ICANN know via their comment period here.

Related articles:
Closed gTLD debate threatens Google and Amazon Domain Incite
Questions on the Debate on 'Closed Generic' gTLD Applications CircleID

Written by Michele Neylon, MD of Blacknight Solutions

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Domain Names, ICANN, Internet Governance, Policy & Regulation, Top-Level Domains

Shaka just released his book, Writing My Wrongs that you can buy on his website. It's an amazing book and an amazing story. I just attended the book launch party earlier this week and have posted some photos on Flickr. Shaka is one of the MIT Media Lab Director's Fellows, a Knight Foundation BMe award winner and one of the most inspirational friends I have. I was honored to write the following foreword to the book.

--

On July 1, 2012, the MIT Media Lab announced that we would be creating an Innovators Guild-a team of scholars, executives, and designers that would go to communities around the world using the power of innovation to help people. Our first focus for this was Detroit.

Three weeks later the Knight Foundation, which was funding our trip, organized a meeting with Detroit community leaders. We gave presentations about MIT and the Media Lab and about how we had come to Detroit to explore how we could create innovative solutions to long-standing problems.

Then, during the Q&A, a tough-looking black man with dreadlocks stood up and spoke. "Many well-meaning people come to Detroit with a missionary mentality. Then they get discouraged when they realize how just how tough our problems are. If you want to make a real impact you have to go out among the people in the communities and not buy into the romanticized view of Detroit based on Midtown and Downtown." Although there were other comments expressing skepticism, this one stood out. We realized, for the first time, that we were looking into the face of reality-The Truth.

After the formal part of the meeting, the man came up to us and introduced himself as Shaka. He said that if we were willing he would show us the real Detroit. We immediately accepted the offer. On the next trip we avoided Downtown altogether and went straight to Brightmore on Detroit's West Side, a neighborhood full of burned-out, vacant homes and liquor stores fronted with bulletproof glass. Shaka told us stories that had none of the romance, but they were real.

We quickly realized that we couldn't just fly in, do good, and go home. We needed to introduce ourselves to the community, learn about the people who live there, and build trust. If we wanted to have a positive impact on Detroit we had to be there for the long haul.

In the following weeks, my team from the Media Lab and creatives from the design firm IDEO flew to Detroit, working with Shaka and others to come up with a plan for how we might be able to join the community and work together. We then invited Shaka and the Detroit team to the MIT Media Lab to meet students and faculty and see and learn about what we do. Bonds began forming between the Lab and the Detroiters.

In October, we all converged on Detroit-setting up a base at the headquarters of OmniCorpDetroit, a vital, local organization. We were a team of community leaders, chief innovation officers, students, and designers. Each of the teams started working on projects ranging from solving the streetlight issue to urban farming. Shaka emerged as our natural leader, keeping the energy high and the teams working together.

By the end of an insanely productive three days, I had a plan. I would make Shaka a MIT Media Lab Fellow and he'd be our man in Detroit-our connection to the incredibly important world he represents. Since then, Shaka and the Media Lab team have started to work together extensively, and Shaka continues to inspire and challenge us.

In December, Shaka emailed me that he had a rough draft of his memoirs and asked if I was interested in reading it. I read the entire book in two sittings, riveted. Shaka is, among his other talents, an amazing storyteller. The book is funny and moving and astute and by the end I felt as if I had been the one convicted of murder, as if I'd spent seven years in the hole, and gone through the dramatic transformation from angry, scared young boy, to enlightened teacher and leader.

And by the end I could begin to see how a generation of bright children full of promise are channeled into a system that sees them as little more than felons-in-waiting. Yet again, Shaka has inspired me to help right the wrongs by, in this instance, helping him "write the wrongs". The book may be about Shaka's past, but it points to a future in which we all take the next step to build a more just society.

Back in the early 90's, I had a small startup called Eccosys. It was started by a rag tag team of friends in my apartment. We knew a lot about the Internet, but few else in Japan did. As the Internet started to get more and more press, a lot of companies started creating and trying to sell Internet products.

Eccosys struggled to get "real" Internet related work. Then, I met Kaoru Hayashi, the CEO of From Garage. From Garage was a small advertising production and planning shop that had literally started in a garage a few blocks from my apartment. Dentsu was one of From Garage's biggest clients. From Garage and Eccosys made a unique team of Internet-enabled producers, and we helped a bunch of companies launch Internet-related products like Sun's Java, IBM's OS2 Warp, and Lotus Notes' Merchant Server. It turned out that in the early days, there was much more money to be made helping people talk about the Internet than actually making money doing anything on the Internet.

As more and more work from Dentsu and others went "digital" Kaoru and I decided that it made sense to formally join forces and in 1995, we created Digital Garage and merged all of our companies into one company. At Digital Garage, with the help of the ad agencies, we launched Infoseek Japan and began the first effort to sell ads by CPM - Cost Per Thousand (impressions).

In Japan, there are a number of huge ad agencies. As the story goes, each of original ad agencies picked a medium and specialized. Dentsu, which is short of "electronic communications" in Japanese, picked radio and TV and hit a jackpot as these media turned out to be the winners. In a uniquely Japanese way, Dentsu not only advertised, but they lead the way in the development of the media supporting their innovation and business development.

Digital Garage and Dentsu have worked together closely for decades, but I'm super-excited that we are now "family" with today's announcement of the decision for Dentsu to make a significant investment in Digital Garage and create a business alliance.

Jeff and I spent the day cranking on our book. Feeling good about the structure of the book and we made a lot of progress.

One of the things I decided I need to do is to get my blog voice back so - hello!

We still don't even have a real title for the book, but we're close. Watch this space for more about the book as we get rolling.