Why the world is arguing over who runs the internet

The ethos of freedom from control that underpins the web is facing its first serious test, says Wendy M. Grossman

WHO runs the internet? For the past 30 years, pretty much no one. Some governments might call this a bug, but to the engineers who designed the protocols, standards, naming and numbering systems of the internet, it's a feature.

The goal was to build a network that could withstand damage and would enable the sharing of information. In that, they clearly succeeded - hence the oft-repeated line from John Gilmore, founder of digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation: "The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." These pioneers also created a robust platform on which a guy in a dorm room could build a business that serves a billion people.

But perhaps not for much longer. This week, 2000 people have gathered for the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates to discuss, in part, whether they should be in charge.

The stated goal of the Dubai meeting is to update the obscure International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs), last revised in 1988. These relate to the way international telecom providers operate. In charge of this process is the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), an agency set up in 1865 with the advent of the telegraph. Its $200 million annual budget is mainly funded by membership fees from 193 countries and about 700 companies. Civil society groups are only represented if their governments choose to include them in their delegations. Some do, some don't. This is part of the controversy: the WCIT is effectively a closed shop.

Vinton Cerf, Google's chief internet evangelist and co-inventor of the TCP/IP internet protocols, wrote in May that decisions in Dubai "have the potential to put government handcuffs on the net".

The need to update the ITRs isn't surprising. Consider what has happened since 1988: the internet, Wi-Fi, broadband, successive generations of mobile telephony, international data centres, cloud computing. In 1988, there were a handful of telephone companies - now there are thousands of relevant providers.

Controversy surrounding the WCIT gathering has been building for months. In May, 30 digital and human rights organisations from all over the world wrote to the ITU with three demands: first, that it publicly release all preparatory documents and proposals; second, that it open the process to civil society; and third that it ask member states to solicit input from all interested groups at national level. In June, two academics at George Mason University in Virginia - Jerry Brito and Eli Dourado - set up the WCITLeaks site, soliciting copies of the WCIT documents and posting those they received. There were still gaps in late November when .nxt, a consultancy firm and ITU member, broke ranks and posted the lot on its own site.

The issue entered the mainstream when Greenpeace and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) launched the Stop the Net Grab campaign, demanding that the WCIT be opened up to outsiders. At the launch of the campaign on 12 November, Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the ITUC, pledged to fight for as long it took to ensure an open debate on whether regulation was necessary. "We will stay the distance," she said.

This marks the first time that such large, experienced, international campaigners, whose primary work has nothing to do with the internet, have sought to protect its freedoms. This shows how fundamental a technology the internet has become.

A week later, the European parliament passed a resolution stating that the ITU was "not the appropriate body to assert regulatory authority over either internet governance or internet traffic flows", opposing any efforts to extend the ITU's scope and insisting that its human rights principles took precedence. The US has always argued against regulation.

Efforts by ITU secretary general Hamadoun Touré to spread calm have largely failed. In October, he argued that extending the internet to the two-thirds of the world currently without access required the UN's leadership. Elsewhere, he has repeatedly claimed that the more radical proposals on the table in Dubai would not be passed because they would require consensus.

These proposals raise two key fears for digital rights campaigners. The first concerns censorship and surveillance: some nations, such as Russia, favour regulation as a way to control or monitor content transiting their networks.

The second is financial. Traditional international calls attract settlement fees, which are paid by the operator in the originating country to the operator in the terminating country for completing the call. On the internet, everyone simply pays for their part of the network, and ISPs do not charge to carry each other's traffic. These arrangements underpin network neutrality, the principle that all packets are delivered equally on a "best efforts" basis. Regulation to bring in settlement costs would end today's free-for-all, in which anyone may set up a site without permission. Small wonder that Google is one of the most vocal anti-WCIT campaigners.

How worried should we be? Well, the ITU cannot enforce its decisions, but, as was pointed out at the Stop the Net Grab launch, the system is so thoroughly interconnected that there is plenty of scope for damage if a few countries decide to adopt any new regulatory measures.

This is why so many people want to be represented in a dull, lengthy process run by an organisation that may be outdated to revise regulations that can be safely ignored. If you're not in the room you can't stop the bad stuff.

Wendy M. Grossman is a science writer and the author of net.wars (NYU Press)

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Read More..

Jackie Chan wills HK$2.2 billion fortune to wife, charity

HONG KONG: Hong Kong superstar Jackie Chan revealed in a recent interview with a Hong Kong newspaper that he will leave his entire fortune, estimated to be worth about HK$2.2 billion (S$347 million), to his charity and his wife, Joan Lin, reported Hong Kong media.

Chan said he decided to do so after Lin stood by him, even when he strayed and had a daughter, Etta, with Hong Kong actress Elaine Ng in 1999.

The action star added that he does not intend to acknowledge Etta as it "is pointless even if I acknowledge her now", and would not include her in his will.

When asked for her response to Chan's comments, Ng said that it "did not concern" her, and stressed that she can care for her daughter alone.

Ng also clarified that she did not get a big 'breakup-fee' from Chan, after they parted ways many years ago, and said she no longer wished to talk about it as "it is all in the past".

Chan's son with Lin, Hong Kong actor Jaycee Chan, won't inherit anything either.

Jackie Chan, who is currently on the road to promote his new film "Chinese Zodiac", had previously expressed that he expected his son to make his own money.

"If he is capable, he can make his own money," said Chan, at a Beijing awards ceremony last year.

"If he is not, then he will just be wasting my money."

-CNA/ha

Read More..

Obama, Boehner tackle fiscal cliff face-to-face

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• President Obama and House Speaker Boehner meet at the White House


• Their spokesmen issue identical statements about the first such talks in 23 days


• Democrats and the GOP have been sparring about efforts to avert the fiscal cliff


• Sen. Corker joins some Republicans as open to hiking tax rates on the wealthy

Washington (CNN) -- Twenty-three days since they last met face-to-face and 23 days before the fiscal cliff becomes a harsh reality, the two men most pivotal to the contentious budget talks sat down Sunday.

There was no evidence of a breakthrough, though President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner at least did agree on something: what, and what not, to say.

Sunday's White House meeting caught some by surprise, considering it had not been on the president's official schedule and the two sides have been sparring publicly, accusing each other of failing to work sincerely toward a compromise. After the talks ended, White House spokesman Josh Earnest and Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck issued identical statements.

"This afternoon, the president and Speaker Boehner met at the White House to discuss efforts to resolve the fiscal cliff. We're not reading out details of the conversation, but the lines of communication remain open."

The statements didn't give much insight into developments on the effort to prevent the U.S. government from going over the fiscal cliff, the term referring to the widespread automatic tax hikes and spending cuts that will take effect in January without a deal.

On Sunday, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde echoed numerous economic experts in predicting a sharp drop in confidence and "zero" U.S. economic growth if there's no agreement.

But the two political camps' matching words were remarkable, given what they have been saying about each for weeks.

Last Friday, for instance, Boehner reported "no progress" and accused the White House of having "wasted another week."

"There are a lot of things that are possible to put the revenue that the president seeks on the table, but none of it's going to be possible if the president insists on his position, insists on 'my way or the highway,'" the Ohio Republican told reporters.

Obama has held his ground, especially on his insistence that tax rates return to 1990s' levels for families with incomes higher than $250,000, while they'd remain the same for those making less than that.

After campaigning against any tax increases, many top Republicans have expressed willingness since the election to raise revenue by adjusting deductions and loopholes.

But Boehner and others have said any revenue hikes must be packaged with major spending cuts, including reforms to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. And they've resisted any tax rate hikes -- including for the wealthiest Americans -- as part of any deal.

There have been some public departures from that thinking however. On Sunday, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said he'd support raising taxes on the top 2% of households, arguing it will better position Republicans to negotiate for larger spending cuts to Social Security and Medicare despite opposition from many Democrats.

"A lot of people are putting forth a theory, and I actually think it has merit, where you go ahead and give the president ... the rate increase on the top 2%, and all of a sudden the shift goes back to entitlements," Corker said on "Fox News Sunday."

Corker is not entirely alone, as fellow Republican Sens. Tom Coburn, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe have said they could vote for such a limited tax hike.

There have been fewer higher-profile voices express that opinion in the House, though. One of them, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, reiterated Sunday that he could go along with this scenario.

"You have to do something, and doing something requires the cooperation of the Senate, which the Democrats run, and the signature of the president," Cole said on CNN's "State of the Union."

But one of his colleagues, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, said the Republicans shouldn't budge. Despite the loss of Republican seats in the House and Senate, Blackburn argued voters affirmed support for the GOP on Election Day and "clearly said we don't want our taxes to go up."

"The president thinks he has momentum, I think he is running on adrenaline from the campaign," the Tennessee lawmaker told CNN.

This story was reported by Jessica Yellin, CNN's chief White House correspondent, in Washington and written by Greg Botelho in Atlanta.

Read More..

Fiscal Cliff Talks: Boehner, Obama Meet Face-to-Face

For the first time in more than three weeks, President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner met face-to-face today at the White House to talk about avoiding the fiscal cliff.

White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest would offer no details saying only, "The lines of communication remain open."

Erskine Bowles, the co-creator of a debt reducing plan, who was pessimistic a couple weeks ago, said he likes what he's hearing.

"Any time you have two guys in there tangoing, you have a chance to get it done," Bowles said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

The White House afternoon talks, conducted without cameras or any announcement until they were over, came as some Republicans were showing more flexibility about approving higher tax rates for the wealthy, one of the president's demands to keep the country from the so-called fiscal cliff -- a mixture of across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts that many economists say would send the country back into recession.

Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo; Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo

Fiscal Cliff Battle: President Obama vs. Speaker John Boehner Watch Video

"Let's face it. He does have the upper hand on taxes. You have to pass something to keep it from happening," Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said on "FOX News Sunday."

This comes after the White House moderated one of its demands about tax rate increases for the wealthy.

The administration was demanding the rate return to its former level of 39.6 percent on income above $250,000. The so-called Bush tax cut set that rate at 35 percent. But Friday, Vice President Joe Biden signaled that rate could be negotiable, somewhere between the two.

"So will I accept a tax increase as a part of a deal to actually solve our problems? Yes," said Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn on ABC's "This Week."

The problems the senator was referring to are the country's entitlement programs. And there was some progress on that front, too.

A leading Democrat said means testing for Medicare recipients could be a way to cut costs to the government health insurance program. Those who make more money would be required to pay more for Medicare.

"I do believe there should be means testing, and those of us with higher income and retirement should pay more. That could be part of the solution," Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

But Durbin said he would not favor raising the eligibility age from 65 years old to 67 years old, as many Republicans have suggested.

The White House and the speaker's office released the exact same statement about the negotiating session. Some will see that as a sign of progress, that neither side is talking about what was said behind closed doors.

Read More..

Kenyan elephant numbers plummet by 1000 in four years

IT'S a case of up then down for Kenya's second largest population of elephants. After a promising growth spurt, the elephants are now dying faster than they are being born. The decline is being blamed on illegal poaching, driven by Asia's demand for ivory.

The Kenya Wildlife Service recently conducted a census of the Samburu/Laikipia population, the country's second largest. It found that the population lost over 1000 elephants in just four years, and now stands at 6361. Previous censuses in 1992, 1998, 2002 and 2008 had revealed a growing population, which appears to have peaked at 7415 in 2008.

Poaching is suspected. A July report by three conservation groups found that it has been on the rise across Africa since 2006. Poaching is also spreading eastwards from central Africa into countries like Kenya, says Richard Thomas of TRAFFIC in Cambridge, UK, one of the three groups that drafted the report. The July report found that more than half of all elephants found dead in Africa in 2011 had been illegally killed.

The rise in poaching appears to be driven by increasing affluence in China and Thailand, where ivory is often used to make religious sculptures and other decorations.

Organised criminal gangs have capitalised on this increased demand. "If it's worth someone's while to smuggle the ivory, they'll take the risk," Thomas says. There is evidence that gangs are moving into Kenya to hunt elephants.

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Read More..

Two killed, dozens hurt in clashes in Bangladesh

DHAKA: At least two people were killed and dozens hurt across Bangladesh on Sunday when police and ruling party activists clashed with protesters blocking roads to demand early polls under a caretaker government.

Police fired rubber bullets and tear gas to break up rallies in a dozen places in the capital Dhaka. Demonstrators threw scores of small hand-made bombs, burned tyres and torched cars and buses.

Police said said one person died in a knife attack as protesters from the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and supporters of the ruling party clashed in the old part of Dhaka.

They said a second man was killed in the northwestern town of Enayetpur.

The BNP staged the rallies to demand early elections under a neutral caretaker government.

The caretaker system was laid down in a constitutional clause that has been scrapped by the incumbent administration led by the Awami League party.

"A young tailor was chopped by unidentified attackers during the clashes (in Dhaka) between BNP protesters and Chhatra League activists," said local police chief Nazrul Islam, referring to the ruling party's student wing.

BNP spokesman Rizvi Ahmed told AFP the person was one of his party activists. He said three other opposition workers were also killed in attacks by police and ruling party supporters.

Police in the capital arrested about 50 people for using violence, said Dhaka police spokesman Masudur Rahman, adding 11 buses or cars were torched in the city.

Some 10,000 police were deployed to try to keep highways open in the country but officials said traffic on many roads ground to a halt.

"We allowed peaceful protests. But once they started attacking cars and buses and throwing cocktail bombs, we used non-lethal weapons such as rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse them," deputy police commissioner Imtiaz Ahmed told AFP in Dhaka.

At Enayetpur, clashes between hundreds of ruling party and opposition supporters left a 65-year-old man dead, local police chief Humayun Kabir told AFP.

A senior BNP official who is also a former lawmaker was hit by live ammunition during clashes in Dhaka and was undergoing an operation, a hospital official said.

Police also clashed with protesters in the cities of Khulna, Rajshahi, Barisal and Sylhet. In the northern town of Palashbari security forces fired non-lethal shots at hundreds of protesters blocking a road, officials said.

The past four general elections in Bangladesh were held under the caretaker government system. This took over for three months at the end of an elected government's tenure, and oversaw the next round of national polls.

The BNP and its 17 smaller allies including Islamic parties have said they will not take part in any future elections unless the system is restored.

- AFP/xq

Read More..

Chavez says his cancer is back, talks of a successor

From Patrick Oppmann, CNN

updated 12:56 AM EST, Sun December 9, 2012

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: Parliament will convene special session over Chavez's trip to Cuba, an official says


• "An operation like this, an illness like this, always carries risk," says Hugo Chavez


• He says his vice president should succeed him if his health worsens


• Chavez, who won reelection this year, will return to Cuba for the operation

Havana (CNN) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced late Saturday that his cancer has returned and that he will go to Cuba to undergo surgery.

Speaking during a televised address from the presidential palace, he said that if his health were to worsen, Vice President Nicolas Maduro should replace him.

It was the first time Chavez spoke publicly about the possibility of a successor -- a shocking admission from a man who looms larger than life in Venezuela and in Latin American politics.

"It's absolutely necessary, absolutely vital that I undergo a new operation," said Chavez.

As he spoke, he repeatedly kissed a cross and at one point broke out into song.

"An operation like this, an illness like this, always carries risk," he said. "If something were to happen that would incapacitate me, Nicholas Maduro should not only finish my term as the constitution requires ... You should also elect Nicholas Maduro to be president."

A special session of parliament will be convened Sunday morning to consider Chavez's health and his pending trip to Cuba, Diosdado Cabello, president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, said on state-run TV.

The parliament is required under the constitution to approve any trip that takes the president out of the country for more than five days.

Just this week, Chavez returned from Cuba after receiving medical treatment. He said doctors detected malignant cells and that he expects to undergo surgery in the coming days.

The president has repeatedly spoken publicly about his cancer battle, but has never specified what type he has.

Chavez, who had surgery in 2011 to remove a cancerous tumor, has undergone further operations and radiation therapy in Cuba since then. He declared himself cancer-free in July.

The government has released few specifics, fueling widespread speculation about his health and political future.

Health rumors dogged Chavez on the campaign trail this year, but didn't stop him from winning reelection in October.

Details of his health, however, have been a closely held secret, and some people who claim to have insider knowledge say the president is in much worse condition than he publicly lets on.

CNN's Dana Ford and Rafael Fuenmayor contributed to this report.

Read More..

Venezuela's Chavez says cancer back, plans surgery

CARACAS, Venezuela Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced Saturday night that his cancer has returned and that he will undergo another surgery in Cuba.

Chavez, who won re-election on Oct. 7, also said for the first time that if his health were to worsen, his successor would be Vice President Nicolas Maduro.

"We should guarantee the advance of the Bolivarian Revolution," Chavez said on television, seated at the presidential palace with Maduro and other aides.

The president said that tests had shown a return of some cancerous cells and that he would return to Cuba on Sunday for the surgery, his third operation to remove cancerous tissue in about a year and a half.

He called it a "new battle."

The 58-year-old president first underwent cancer surgery for an unspecified type of pelvic cancer in Cuba in June 2011 and had another surgery last February after a tumor appeared in the same area. He has also undergone chemotherapy and radiation treatments.

Chavez made his most recent trip to Cuba on the night of Nov. 27, saying he would receive hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Such treatment is regularly used to help heal tissues damaged by radiation treatment.

Chavez said he has been coping with pain. He said that he was requesting permission from lawmakers to travel and that he hoped to have good news after the surgery.

Read More..

Gay Marriage: Will Justices Follow Popular Opinion?

The Supreme Court's announcement that it would hear two cases challenging laws prohibiting same-sex marriage has reinvigorated one of the most hotly contentious social debates in American history, a debate that has been fueled by a dramatic change in attitudes.

With some states taking significant steps towards legalizing gay marriage, the hearings come at a critical moment.

This week in Washington State, hundreds of same-sex couples lined up to collect marriage licenses after Gov. Christine Gregoire announced the passing of a voter-approved law legalizing gay marriage.

"For the past 20 years we've been saying just one more step. Just one more fight. Just one more law. But now we can stop saying 'Just one more.' This is it. We are here. We did it," Gregoire told a group of Referendum 74 supporters during the law's certification.

Washington is just the most recent of several states to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, signifying a significant departure from previous thinking on the controversial subject.

READ: Court to Take Up Same-Sex Marriage

A study by the Pew Research Center on changing attitudes on gay marriage showed that in 2001 57 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, while 35 percent of Americans supported it.

The same poll shows that today opinions have greatly shifted to reflect slightly more support for same-sex marriage than opposition -- with 48 percent of Americans in favor and 43 percent opposed.

In fact, just two years ago, 48 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage while only 42 percent supported it -- indicating that opinions have changed dramatically in the last couple of years alone.

David Paul Morris/Getty Images

Supreme Court Set to Tackle Same-Sex Marriage Watch Video

Gay Marriage: Supreme Court to Examine Marriage Equality Watch Video

Marijuana, Gay Marriage Win in 2012 Election Results Watch Video

Check Out Same-Sex Marriage Status in the U.S. State By State

It's hard to imagine that only 16 years ago, the fervent gay marriage debate led to the conception of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union solely held between a man and a woman.

While debating the Defense of Marriage Act in September 1996, former Sen. Robert Byrd said: "If same-sex marriage is accepted, then the announcement will be official: America will have said that children do not need a mother and a father. Two mothers or two fathers will be OK. It'll be just as good. This would be a catastrophe."

Even a few short years ago a newly-elected President Obama did not support the legalization of gay marriage. It wasn't until earlier this year, at the end of hiss first term and with the impending election in sight, that the president told ABC's Robin Roberts the he'd "been going through an evolution on this issue."

Obama went on to attribute his shift in stance to the influence of his daughters.

"You know, Malia and Sasha, they've got friends whose parents are same-sex couples. It wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently," he said. "That's the kind of thing that prompts -- a change in perspective."

Obama isn't the only one to experience an evolution in thinking on the matter of gay marriage. Attitudes towards same-sex marriage have shifted dramatically over the past decade across the board, particularly in the past few years.

Gone are the days when a majority of people opposed same-sex marriage; the days when gay politicians and supporters of same-sex marriage could not get elected.

Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com

Today, nine states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex unions -- a number likely considered inconceivable just a few short years ago. And yet, the same-sex marriage debate still begs for the answering of a question: Will this newfound public opinion, largely driven by young people, women and Democrats, have an effect on the Supreme Court's ultimate decision on the matter?

"I think (gay marriage is) just not a big deal for a lot of young people," Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center says. "The justices are human beings so they're not completely immune to public opinion. ... I think the real question for them is going to be do they want to be on the wrong side of history?"

Read More..