text:
Internet Governance/Internet Governance and Development

What is the digital divide and why does it matter?
The digital divide is the term used to refer to the gap between those who have access to the Internet and its associated technologies and services, and those who do not. Although not specifically about the gap between rich and poor countries – a digital divide can exist within a country between urban and rural areas, for example, or between socio-economic groups – the term is frequently used to refer to the access gap between developed and developing countries.

As Table 1 indicates, the gap is striking, and Internet penetration rates are closely connected to the wealth of a country. Such numbers matter for at least two reasons. First, because in today’s global economy, lack of access to the Internet means lack of access to world markets. The digital divide between rich and poor countries prevents the latter from selling their products on a global scale, and restricts the choice of services and goods available.

In addition, the digital divide is important because the lack of computers and Internet sites in poor countries means that these countries have only a limited presence on one of the most important (and certainly most dispersed) forms of media ever invented. Thus the digital divide is limiting cultural and regional diversity on the Internet.

Table 1: GNI and Internet Penetration

Source: Internet World Stats (http://internetworldstats.com, Sept 2005).

What is the relationship between Internet governance and the digital divide?
Decisions made in the realm of Internet governance can play a significant role in alleviating or exacerbating the digital divide.36 Although many of these decisions may appear purely technical, they have important social, political and economic consequences. The areas of governance that impact the digital divide include (but are by no means limited to) the following:

Internationalized Domain Names

Currently, all domain names must be entered in standard ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) characters, which are designed to support the Latin alphabet. This means that diacritical marks, as well as Asian or other international characters, are not supported. Many developing countries feel that the exclusion of their languages from domain names limits Internet access. Users who are not familiar with English have a difficult time accessing English-language URLs; in addition, the lack of foreign-script support makes it difficult for indigenous businesses and entities to be represented on the Internet.

Implementing IDNs is not a simple task. The IETF has developed standards for non-Latin scripts, but complex technical and governance issues have prevented their adoption. ICANN has also been criticized (perhaps not always fairly) for acting slowly on the issue. Adopting IDNs will require greater coordination between national governments and the technical community. It will also require coordination between nations that share a common script (e.g., China, Korea and Japan) so that appropriate standards can be developed. Private entities will also have to be brought on board. Most existing versions of Microsoft Windows, for instance, do not support existing IDN technical standards without substantial updates (though future versions are said to include support), making it difficult to implement IDNs even if standards were agreed upon. The matter is made even more complex by the fact that domain names are used in contexts that employ ASCII encodings—e.g., in URLs, SMTP for email and so on. Thus, the ease of entering a domain name in a natural language script is made more difficult when it is embedded in a URL. In addition, the “. ” is not usually a punctuation character in all scripts.

Country Code Top-Level Domain Names

The use of country-level domain names (e.g., .in, .jp, .sg) is another issue that can determine access in developing countries. In many cases, governments have mismanaged these valuable resources. For example, a recent study suggests that management of Cambodia’s ccTLD became less efficient and more expensive when the government assumed control from an NGO. Bangladesh is another country where concerns have been expressed. Poor management of ccTLDs can limit a country’s visibility on the Internet. In India, relatively few companies had registered “.in” domain names until recently due to requirements that sites be hosted only on servers within the country; under the new system, registrations in the .in ccTLD are growing rapidly.

Poor management can also represent missed revenue opportunities. Operators in some small developing countries have successfully marketed their ccTLDs as alternatives to ICANN’s top-level domain names (Table 2).37 However, when such domain names are not owned by States and marketed by private companies, the misuse can be considered a violation of a country’s collective intellectual property resources.

Table 2: ccTLDs as Alternative Top-level Domain Names

Source: Gelbstein and Kurbalija (2005,44)

Standards

Decisions on technical standards also play an important role in shaping the digital divide. Standards that are proprietary (i.e., whose intellectual property is owned by private entities) can make the costs of access to technology prohibitive by requiring expensive royalty payments. In this context, it is important to remember that the global reach of the Internet depends on the use of open standards, notably TCP/IP, XML and other standards for email, voice over the network, streaming audio and video, collaboration and peer-to-peer exchanges. Such standards have not only made the global network connect seamlessly, they have also made it possible to connect affordably. Problems arise, however, when private standards are used, as developing countries then have to pay for the right to use companies’ intellectual property rights.

In addition to affordability, open standards are also important because they allow developing countries to modify and enhance technology for their particular needs. Open source software, for example, can enable adaptation of operating systems and software packages to local languages or conditions. Indeed, the future of access in the developing world may depend to a significant extent on such open, modifiable code. A number of low-cost access devices (e.g., the Simputer, a handheld developed in India, or Nivo, a thin-client developed for African users), rely for their affordability and usability on open source software. More promisingly, Linux and other open source software, which can be modified freely, are being used with growing frequency by governments, companies and individual users in the developing world as alternatives to more expensive proprietary software. A key governance strategy to bridge the digital divide could therefore include steps to encourage FOSS – for instance, by providing training or other forms of support to organizations that use open source software, or by requiring government agencies to adopt operating systems like Linux.

Recently, it has become evident that developing countries (and others) can suffer not just through the overt adoption of proprietary standards, but also through a more subtle process by which private entities “hijack” open standards and, through modifications, turn them into de facto proprietary standards. This problem has been apparent, for example, in the regular addition of so-called enhancements by companies to HTML and XML. The result is that many features on certain web pages are only fully accessible, for example, on Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.38 A similar situation has been evident, too, with JavaScript, the programming language that powers many websites. Through a steady stream of additions and modifications by various private companies, this ostensibly open standard has been balkanized into several competing versions.

IP Address Allocation

As noted in Section II, the shortage of IP numbers has been a matter requiring governance solutions. Developing countries, in particular, have been concerned as over 80 percent of existing IP numbers have been allocated to organizations in North America. This anomalous situation largely exists due to the historical development of the Internet, and the fact that early IP allocations were made on a first-comefirst-served basis. Since the mid-1990s, however, IP numbers have been managed by RIRs, and have been allocated on the basis of demonstrable need. Figure 2 includes the list of RIRs and the percentage of IP numbers allocated by them since 1999. It shows that the historical anomaly has somewhat righted itself, although concerns for inequalities persist in IP allocation.

The shortage of IP space is likely to be substantially eased with the introduction of a new IP known as IPv6. Concerns, however, persist about methods of allocation that will be adopted for this new protocol: it is imperative for developing countries – especially those currently lacking the technical know-how – to ensure that they receive their equitable share.39

39It should also be noted that equitable is not necessarily equal, and that actual use needs to be taken into account. Poorly crafted assignment policies can lead to explosion of routing tables that could interfere with the operation of the Internet.

Cost of Connection

Figure 2: IP Addresses Allocated Since 1999 (percentage by RIR)

Figure 3: Internet costs and GDP/capita (monthly basis)

As Figure 3 suggests, the cost of Internet access is often substantially higher in developing countries than in developed countries. As explained earlier, there are many reasons for this disparity. The ambiguities and disparities in international traffic charges, discussed in Section II, are one reason. Equally important reasons include a lack of infrastructure, inadequate competition policies, under-developed markets, and predatory pricing by quasi (or actual) monopolies in the ISP market. Addressing all these issues requires a multi-pronged approach that operates at the national, regional, and international levels.

At the national level, the priority should be to foster the development of competitive and open markets for ISPs. One important component of such a strategy is to lower licensing fees and norms; this ensures that new players can enter the market without undue burden, and fosters healthy competition. In addition, ISPs in developing countries often rely on a dominant (sometimes State-owned) telco for access to international bandwidth; this monopoly access to international bandwidth can artificially inflate access prices. Finally, national policies and regulations on interconnection can play a key role. While interconnection terms and prices between network providers are generally best left to the market, in some cases (e.g., when there exists a dominant ISP or telco that can determine interconnection fees) states may need to impose regulation to ensure a more equitable relationship that permits smaller ISPs to connect at fair prices with larger players. The resulting lower costs, of course, should then be passed on to consumers.

In addition to these national policies aimed at fostering competition, the ambiguities and inequities in the international settlement regime, highlighted by WGIG, are also essential to address. As mentioned, one of the main stumbling blocks is the lack of an appropriate global forum where a fair and equitable system for international rates can be negotiated; identifying such a forum is therefore a critical need.

In the absence of such a forum, many developing countries have taken matters into their own hands by setting up regional Internet Exchange Points (IXPs). Such IXPs keep regional traffic regional – i.e., by routing traffic locally, they reduce the amount of international bandwidth that must be used, and as such also reduce payments to international operators. (Without IXPs, even an email sent from one city to another within a given country could be routed via the United States). Over 150 such IXPs now exist around the world, and the Asia-Pacific region was one of the first parts of the developing world to begin routing a substantial portion of traffic through a regional IXP.

Finally, reducing international access charges will depend on reducing users’ dependence on international content. Ultimately, it is the lack of local content, stored on local servers, that increases the consumption of international bandwidth. It is thus critical for governments (and other entities) to make it easier to host content locally, as well as to encourage the development of local content. In many developing countries with non-Latin alphabets, this in turn also requires support for local language fonts and local-language software.

What is the current status of developing country participation in Internet governance?
The preceding list of issues makes it clear that Internet governance impacts developing countries in a variety of ways. Calls for greater participation by the developing world have therefore become an increasingly common feature of debates and discussions over Internet governance. These calls have been accompanied by a growing recognition that, for the most part, developing countries are not adequately represented in most governance fora and, when they are represented, often do not have adequate technical capacity or resources to participate on equal terms.

Perhaps because of its centrality to the governance process, ICANN has come in for particular criticism over its perceived exclusion of developing countries. However, to a greater or lesser degree, such concerns have been expressed with regard to a variety of bodies related to Internet governance. In 2002, the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization (CTO) and Panos, a non-profit organization, issued a landmark study, Louder Voices,40 in which they listed a number of steps that could be taken to enhance developing country participation in technical governance (see below). With regard to current levels of participation, the study reached three general conclusions:

 * First, the study found that developing countries are for the most part represented in intergovernmental organizations like ITU and WTO, but that such organizations frequently pay scant attention to the connection between communications policy and development. The study therefore identified a “missing link” between technology policy and development in many important decision-making bodies.

 * Second, the study found that developing countries were generally under-represented in nontraditional decision-making venues, such as the standards-setting bodies, ICANN and other technical groups. Given the centrality of such groups to the management of the Internet, this represents a serious handicap on developing country participation in Internet governance. Combined with the previous observation, it also explains why many developing countries have been pushing for inter-governmental bodies to play a greater role in Internet governance.

 * Third, the study found that, when it comes to governance decisions led by the market, developing countries have virtually no representation at all. This is an important shortcoming for many Internet governance decisions are determined by market-driven processes that result in de facto standards. Developing country exclusion from such processes is, of course, simply a reflection of their more general exclusion from global markets.

How can barriers to developing country participation be overcome?
The CTO/Panos study clearly illustrated shortcomings in current systems of Internet governance. That study, as well as a report submitted to the Digital Opportunity Task Force (DOT-Force), a group set up by the G8 at its Genoa Summit in 2001,41 identified several key steps that could be taken to increase developing country participation. Five of the most important include:

Increase policy awareness: One of the chief obstacles to effective developing country representation is a lack of awareness about policy, policy venues, and even the basic need or relevance of a governance process. Indeed, the CTO/Panos study found a striking lack of awareness when it came to the social and economic impact ICTs can have on development.

Several steps can be taken to increase awareness. One important way is by developing global ICT policy information resources which would provide, among other things, information on the relevance of ICT activities, as well as dates and information on policy venues. Possible vehicles for this information include a web or email-based newsletter, an annual summary of important issues, a research team to field questions from members, and conferences on particularly significant issues. An e-library, containing relevant information on policy, could also be considered.

Build technical and policy capacity: Developing countries’ inadequate technical and policy capacity is a further fundamental barrier to their participation. The CTO/Panos study concluded that the lack of technical capacity is particularly problematic with regard to emerging issues such as migration to IP-based networks, implementation of third-generation mobile communication systems, and e-commerce applications.

Overcoming such barriers is difficult, given the years of education and experience required. However, capacity building measures do exist. One important mechanism suggested by the study is the establishment of a global network of public and policy research institutes, with offices or “nodes” in developing countries, to work on ICT related issues. These nodes would function as training institutes, and help build policy capacity. In order to ensure the effectiveness of this network, of course, financial support would be required.

Provide financial support: In order to increase developing country representation, a wide variety of financial support mechanisms are required. Funding for the above-mentioned capacity-building network is one possible mechanism. Providing travel fellowships and other means for developing country representatives to attend policy venues (often held in expensive first-world locations) is another.

However, financial support does not simply involve throwing more money at the problem. According to the CTO/Panos study, financial hurdles often tend to involve ineffective use of resources rather than resource deficiency. Resources are often poorly allocated, for example, with inappropriate people being sponsored to represent stakeholder interests. To address such issues, developing countries need to evaluate current practices and redesign them so as to ensure greater efficiency. It might be helpful, for instance, to develop a code of practice or other accountability mechanisms to ensure efficient use of resources.

Strengthen national policy institutions and processes: Although establishing a global network is important, it is also essential to strengthen capacity at home. National and regional institutions in developing countries are frequently weak on several levels. At the national level, political leadership is often lacking, national ICT strategies are often absent, and coordination between government departments and agencies is often inadequate. At the regional level, coordination between governments and user groups sharing common interests is often lacking. Further weaknesses at this level include poor preparation for international meetings and ineffective use of human and financial resources.

One remedial step is to improve information flows and policy coordination between government departments and agencies. Another is to promote sharing of experience and expertise at all levels, including sub-regional and regional. Indeed, such collaboration is perhaps one of the most important steps developing countries can take, as it permits a “sharing of bargaining power” that increases their clout. Importantly, in order for such collectives to be truly effective, they should not be limited to just one sector (e.g., inter-governmental alliances), but be true multi-stakeholder alliances.

Facilitate participation in international policy fora: Finally, if developing country representation is to increase in international institutions, it is essential that such institutions specifically consider developing countries in their organizational structure and processes. For example, meetings can be held in developing regions in order to minimize attendance costs. Scheduling of events should also take into account other international events that might require the participation of the limited talent pool available in developing countries. And finally, internal governance structures (e.g., the allocation of seats or voices on committees, the balance of power between different sub-committees) can be designed in a way to enhance developing country interests. It could be possible, for example, to create advisory committees whose specific goals are to provide input on developing country needs.


text:
Template talk:Wikimedia projects

please change the superseded png images to the svg ones - thanks! --87.122.19.46 10:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Template talk:Wikimedia projects


text:
Internet Governance/Models and Concepts

What is self-governance and what are its limitations?
The concept of “self-governance” drew attention in the early days of the Internet, when it was felt that the network’s success depended on keeping the State out. At the same time, it was recognized that some form of control and management would be required to deal with increasingly evident challenges such as information pollution, fraud, and the requirements of standardization. Many experts and users therefore called for a form of regulation in which private and other entities would, in essence, police themselves (sometimes in accordance with broad guidelines laid down by the State). In such a framework, network providers, for example, would not have to deal with intrusive government monitoring, but would nonetheless have to adhere to broadly accepted quality of service standards and other obligations. Advocates of self-governance pointed out that one of its chief advantages would be to shift the responsibility of regulation onto those who had the relevant expertise.

Although popular in the late 1990s, self-governance has since fallen on somewhat hard times. There are at least two reasons for this. First, the concept has always suffered from a certain conceptual lack of clarity. As Monroe Price and Stefaan Verhulst noted in a paper on the related concept of self-regulation: “The Internet is a consummate demonstration of the complexity of determining what ought to be included in the ‘self’ of self- regulation.... In many discussions, governments have failed to recognize that the Internet industry is not monolithic and that there is no single ‘industry’ that speaks for the whole of the Internet”42. This difficulty in identifying a cohesive“self” has also made it difficult to draft a broad series of guidelines that would apply across sectors and user-categories; in effect, it became clear that a somewhat more detailed level of policing was required than that possible under self-governance.

In addition, and perhaps more importantly, it has become clear in recent years that the Internet cannot be managed without a certain degree of active participation by the State. Governments need not be all-powerful, but they are often essential to help manage critical infrastructure, and to ensure civil liberties and other public values. Indeed, the need for the State to be involved in Internet governance was recognized byWSIS, which in its Declaration of Principles states that: “Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.”43

What is multi-sectoral governance?
The failure of self-governance, and the accompanying recognition that action would be required at the many layers described in Section II, have led many in the Internet community to call for a new, multisectoral model of governance. As its name implies, multi-sectoral governance begins from the premise that all stakeholders – governments, private companies, civil society (including NGOs and consumer groups) – need to be involved in Internet governance. Only the collaborative participation of each of these actors can address the range of issues outlined earlier.

In its Declaration of Principles, WSIS outlined the following responsibilities for each sector:44

 * Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues;

 * The private sector has had and should continue to have an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields;

 * Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at the community level, and should continue to play such a role;

 * Intergovernmental organizations have had and should continue to have a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues; and

 * International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.

What are some of the challenges to effective multi-sectoral governance?
Despite the obvious benefits, some challenges exist to the ideal of multi-sectoral governance. One of the most significant stems from what could be called gaps in culture and vocabulary between sectors. In many ways, each sector speaks a different language, and underlying this linguistic distance is usually a different set of priorities and goals. Historically, for example, the relationship between the private sector and civil society has often been adversial. To take just one issue: while it is clear that both need to work together to ensure privacy, the private sector is likely to continue emphasizing profits (often in the name of greater usability) while civil society groups would, in general, restrict profits in the name of greater individual rights. The State, too, has a somewhat difficult relationship to the private sector, particularly in many developing countries, where the latter has often just emerged from the shadow of heavy government regulation. ISPs, software firms and other companies are likely to be extremely wary of greater State involvement.

In addition to distrust and misunderstanding between sectors, multi-sectoral governance also faces challenges from a lack of co-operation within sectors. It is important to keep in mind that civil society, for example, does not represent a uniform block. In fact, smaller and less lavishly funded civil society groups from the developing world often resent the perceived high-handedness of larger NGOs from the developed world. When a consumer group from Europe or the United States speaks at a governance forum, it is hard to make the case that that group represents users in smaller and poorer developing countries. Likewise, governments from developing countries are often at loggerheads with those from the developed world; in the controversy surrounding ICANN, which has often been perceived as dominated by the US government, this is one of the most contentious issues.

Finally, multi-sectoral governance faces the difficulty of finding and working within adequate institutional structures. Few models, and even fewer unequivocally successful models, for multi-sectoral governance exist. Developing the right structures to ensure accountability, representation and legitimacy are key issues that need to be addressed in the coming years if the ideal of multi-sectoral governance is to be realized.

What is the role of average Internet users in Internet governance?
While the roles of the private sector, governments and civil society are usually recognized, discussions of Internet governance typically overlook the importance of average users.

In fact, however, average users have an instrumental role to play in solving (or at least alleviating) many of the most difficult challenges facing the Internet. For example, users are the first line of defence in combating so-called “phishing”, in which fraudulent e-mailers direct users to websites that collect and misuse passwords and other private (often financial) information. While many such websites are fairly sophisticated, well-informed and educated users are far less likely to fall prey to such scams. Likewise, informed users are less likely to allow their computers to be used in denial-of-service attacks (a process by which spammers hijack a computer and employ it to send out mass e-mails).

Both these examples suggest the importance of user education and information. Any system of governance that excludes average users is simply limiting its own effectiveness.

How democratic should Internet governance be?
On the face of it, this should be an easy question to answer. As the preceding discussion has shown, including average users is often critical to the success of governance mechanisms. More generally, at a time when the world’s polity is moving towards near-universal adoption of democratic processes, it would be strange indeed if the Internet were to remain an exception.

Nonetheless, Internet policy-making does raise some difficult questions regarding the balance between technical expertise and widespread public participation, and more generally between efficiency and democracy. Many Internet bodies (particularly those in the standards-setting arena) are composed of experts who make decisions on the basis of consensus regarding the best technical solutions. Given the high level of technical knowledge required for such decision-making, many feel that opening up such bodies to participation by the general public would limit their effectiveness. After all, the argument goes, what does an average user know about standard-setting, interconnection regimes, or intellectual property? Their participation is only likely to slow the process, or lead to lowest-denominator compromise solutions that harm the Internet.

ICANN, in particular, has been at the centre of the debate over democracy and technical decision-making. ICANN’s 2000 “At-Large Elections”, in which anyone with an email address could participate in a process to elect board members, were billed as the first instance of true international democracy. A few years later, however, the experiment was felt by some to have been a failure, and the elected board seats were cancelled, replaced by a nominating committee that selects more than half the board and a number of other ICANN leadership positions. Although this change elicited widespread opposition, ICANN defended it as necessary to streamline the organization’s decision-making processes. As one ICANN board member put it at the organization’s meeting in Montevideo, Uruguay, in 2001: “ICANN is a technical organization, not a democracy.”45

Such arguments need to be taken seriously. But many civil society and other representatives also argue that considerations of efficiency and technical expertise should not be taken as a license to impose unrepresentative decision-making on the Internet. After all, such considerations could logically be extended to various aspects of political life, too (for example, in the realm of economic decision-making). More generally, as we have seen, user participation and trust is essential to the success of the Internet. This means that a balance must be achieved between both technical and democratic requirements. This balance is likely to be found in institutional structures that permit public participation, but allow decision-making to be guided by, for example, elected technical experts. Education and awareness-building programmes that build technical capacity in average users are also critical.

What is the role of “trust” in Internet governance?
Economists and sociologists now recognize that trust is central to the functioning of any social and economic system. Trust, as defined by the sociologist Niklas Luhmann in a classic work on the subject, mediates risk;46 or, as another sociologist puts it, trust is “a kind of social glue that allows people to interact” in a coordinated and co-operative fashion.47

Trust plays a particularly critical role in the online world. In a famous cartoon, published in 1993 in The New Yorker magazine, a dog sitting at a computer states that: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” The darker side of the anonymity celebrated by the dog is the fact that it also facilitates fraud and other illicit actions. Much as no one can identify a dog, so it is difficult to identify a fraudster hiding behind a fake user name on the other side of the world. Anonymity on the Internet also permits the spread of spam, viruses and other forms of pollution by making it harder to track down perpetrators.

The proliferation of fraud and pollution is a serious problem that risks eroding the trust of Internet users. If that happens – if users stop using e-commerce or email for fear of being cheated or overrun with viruses – then the Internet would be in grave jeopardy. Mechanisms to encourage trust are therefore essential components of any governance toolkit. They are particularly important to the spread of e-commerce in the developing world, where credit card penetration is low and payment is often made by cheque or other non-real-time methods that facilitate fraud.

Mechanisms to enhance trust can, of course, include traditional law-enforcement techniques that punish perpetrators of fraud, and establish laws for tracking down content polluters. However, several nontraditional mechanisms have also arisen that include other sectors. These include third-party verification entities that certify websites. Another common mechanism is the use of online reputation systems, such as those promoted by eBay and other e-commerce sites that allow buyers to rate sellers’ reliability and honesty.

What is the relationship between globalization and Internet governance?
The Internet is one of the key drivers of globalization. It is largely because of email, cheaper international IP telephony, and the ease of publishing content for a global audience that the world feels smaller than ever before.

At the same time, the Internet is itself in many ways affected by globalization. Indeed, some of the key challenges confronted on the Internet are the results of globalization. For example, the sprawl of the network across national legal systems and jurisdictions is part of what makes it very difficult to manage (or “govern”) the network. When users in one country download information posted in another country, national jurisdictions frequently collide. Perhaps the most famous instance of this occurred in 2000, when a French court demanded that Yahoo! remove Nazi memorabilia from an online auction site; while sale of the memorabilia was legal in the United States (where the seller was based), it was illegal under French hate-speech laws. Earth Station 5 (ES5), a file-sharing network that has been accused of facilitating copyright infringement, also illustrates the problem of jurisdiction; operated from the West Bank and Gaza, the network exists in a legal no-man’s land, safely beyond the reach of most state authorities.

Confusion over jurisdictions (which often reflect clashing social and cultural norms in different countries) makes it difficult to manage the Internet in a cohesive manner. Many experts feel that effective Internet governance relies on greater legal harmonization at the national level, for example, in treaty-based or other multilateral organizations. But even were such harmonization achieved, the Internet makes it complicated to enforce and implement an international governance system. For one thing, the Internet’s technical architecture, and particularly the anonymity it confers, makes it difficult to track down perpetrators, especially if they are located in another country. In fact, the architecture makes it difficult even to know in which country a user is located. Faced with the French court’s ruling, Yahoo! argued that it was impossible to comply as it had no way of identifying the location of its users. Removing the auction items altogether, the company reasoned, would amount to imposing French laws on a global audience.48

Such difficulties have, to an extent, been mitigated by the rise of geo-location devices that make it more feasible to identify where users are based. But it is still easy for users with even a modicum of technical knowledge to sidestep such technologies. And geo-location techniques are themselves controversial; many people fear that they permit an unhealthy level of control on the network.

Ultimately, successful Internet governance will depend on finding solutions to such thorny problems raised by globalization. A number of governance bodies, notably treaty-based entities like WIPO, WTO and ITU, have always taken an international approach to governance, but they need to contend with a very different problem: the need to remain sensitive to local laws, norms and sentiments. It is unlikely that any one-size-fits-all model of Internet governance will prove sufficient. Successful governance will depend on finding the right balance between the global and the local – a process that development experts call “glocalization”.

What is convergence and why does it matter?
Although a somewhat contested notion, convergence broadly refers to the gradual erosion of boundaries between different forms of communication. This process is driven by the digitalization of media: because different types of content (e.g., voice, data and images) can today be broken up into bits and bytes, this means that they can be transmitted along the same networks. Although convergence remains a work in progress, many users already use a single broadband line to send email, listen to music, engage in telephony, and watch movies or TV.

Convergence is a powerful force that is redefining the landscape of Internet governance. Two important consequences in particular can be highlighted:

First, the blurring of lines between means of communication also implies a gradual blurring of lines between governance bodies and responsibilities. In an era of convergence, it no longer makes much sense to have separate systems for governing, say, telecommunications and television. Indeed, a growing number of countries have introduced legislation or already have systems in place to install so-called “super-regulators” that would govern across media sectors. Singapore, for example, was one of the first countries in the world to create a converged regulatory body, the Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore (IDA), which in 1999 merged regulation of telecommunications with information technologies. Malaysia, too, has a converged regulatory body, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission; and India’s Communication Convergence Bill, which was passed by parliament but is currently pending, similarly envisions a cross-sectoral regulator.

This union of governance functions is not restricted to oversight by national governments. At the international level, too, there is growing awareness that multilateral organizations and other groups whose responsibilities have hitherto been restricted to a single form of media may need to widen their horizons. ITU, for instance, has gradually widened its responsibilities beyond pure telecommunications; today it is intimately involved in a number of Internet and, more generally, ICT-related issues. The work surrounding ENUM, which involves IETF, ITU and other bodies, is another example of attempts to establish a governance framework across distinct media categories.

This convergence of governance functions, like the underlying convergence of technologies by which it is driven, is still incomplete. Turf-fighting and lack of cross-sectoral technical capacity continue to slow it down. Nonetheless, it is an inevitable process that is already having dramatic effects on the landscape of Internet governance, and is likely to continue having such effects in the future.

How can Internet governance adapt to technological change?
Convergence is but one (albeit dramatic) instance of the rapidity with which technology changes. Just a decade ago, it would have been virtually unimaginable for a user in Asia to purchase and download music across a global network from America. Yet today this happens on a regular basis, and in the process, raises difficult questions regarding governance. We have seen some of these questions in our discussions of globalization and convergence.

Such questions and challenges are only likely to intensify in the coming years. As technology continues to change ever more rapidly, existing governance bodies and institutions have two options. They can either re-tool their systems each time a new technology comes along, or they can create systems today that are flexible enough to accommodate new technologies as they emerge. The first response is called “reactive regulation”, and is generally considered an unsatisfactory and inefficient form of governance. It means that governance is always one step behind technology, and it can lead to governance systems that lack coherence or unity. In addition, it leads to a form of “technological determinism,” in which our laws and governance systems are shaped (i.e., determined) by technology rather than by broader social, political and economic goals.

To avoid such reactive responses, governance structures should be shaped, to the greatest extent possible, so that they are “technology neutral”. This means that they remain broad, and flexible enough to accommodate new technologies as they are developed. Laws need to be framed not with reference to any specific technology, but rather with reference to a society’s underlying values and socio-political goals.

Consider, for instance, the issue of universal access. Universal access policies that are narrowly tailored to a specific technology (e.g., fixed-line telephony) are unlikely to fulfill their underlying motive (i.e., providing access to as many people as possible). This is because they leave new, potentially cheaper and more flexible, technologies out of their ambit. As cheaper wireless technologies emerge on the market and become viable methods for access, it no longer makes sense to exclude them from universal service obligations or government subsidies aimed at boosting access. For this reason, universal access policies need to be drafted in as broad and technology neutral manner as possible, with reference to the wider goal of providing access, not to the specific technologies deployed towards that goal.

title: Internet Governance/Models and Concepts


text:
Internet Governance/Conclusion: Best Practices and Looking Forward

What best practices can we identify?
The preceding discussion covers a wide variety of issues and governance possibilities. In an attempt to synthesize this broad-ranging discussion, six general principles (or Best Practices) can be identified for Internet governance:

 * Multi-stakeholder alliances: We have seen that, on a number of issues, Internet governance is most effective when it includes a diversity of actors. Spam, cybercrime, standards, and much more: all of these require participation by national governments, the private sector, civil society, and consumer or citizen groups. All steps should therefore be taken to develop mechanisms and institutions that bring together these various actors and harness their skills through multi-stakeholder alliances.

 * Foster participation:In order to be accountable and representative, Internet governance needs to be seen as the outcome of a truly participatory process. All affected stakeholders should have a voice, and special care must be taken to include traditionally under-represented groups such as women and people in developing countries. Importantly, these steps should be substantive and meaningful: in practical terms, this means supplementing procedural mechanisms with capacity-building, education and resource support.

 * International approach: The Internet is a global network, and its governance similarly requires a global approach. Nation-specific mechanisms are often ineffective, or even harmful to the seamlessness of the network. It is therefore essential to develop institutions, bodies, fora and treaties that deal with governance issues in an international and coordinated manner.

 * Technology neutral approach: Part of the Internet’s success stems from its openness to new means of communication: as long as a technology respects the network’s core standards and protocols, it can join the network. Internet governance must take a similarly technology neutral approach, encouraging the process of convergence, and ensuring that no particular technology is given regulatory precedence over another. This is particularly important for developing countries, where wireless and IP technologies hold great promise for bridging the digital divide.

 * Maintain original architecture: All governance measures must respect the underlying architecture of the Internet, and particularly the e2e principle and the use of open standards. This underlying architecture is at the root of the network’s phenomenal spread and success, and should be considered non-negotiable in whatever discussions or outcomes result from WSIS and any other process.

 * Supplement law: Finally, and to return to our discussion at the start of this primer, it must be kept in mind that governance means more than just government and government policy. This also implies that traditional State law should be supplemented and enhanced by other, nonlegal, mechanisms. Such mechanisms can include innovations like open source, the use of self-governance and codes of conduct, and the general use of technology to supplement law. The important point is that law is but one tool in the arsenal of effective Internet governance.

What is the future of Internet governance?
As this primer was being finalized, WGIG had just issued its report. The report includes a number of recommendations regarding those issues it considers at the top of the governance agenda. It also recognizes concerns with existing models of governance, and suggests four models for the future. The WGIG is itself agnostic with regard to the choice of models.

In many ways, then, it is clear that Internet governance remains a work in progress, with its final dispensation and shape unlikely to emerge in the immediate future. While it is always difficult (and dangerous) to make predictions, some likely trends can, however, be identified. In particular, it appears likely that in the future national governments may play a greater role in Internet governance, although it should be noted that many actors remain wary of granting States too much power. In addition, steps will most likely be taken to enhance participation, particularly by developing countries. Generally, there will be a concerted effort to enhance the Internet’s role as a tool for social and economic development – and, concomitantly, to enhance the scope of Internet governance beyond the merely technical.

These changes are likely to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Nearly everyone involved in the WSIS process recognizes that changes to Internet governance must be made cautiously, without disrupting the underlying architecture, and without breaking a system that, whatever its imperfections, does in fact function rather well. For this reason, discussions over governance are likely to extend well beyond the November 2005 meeting in Tunis. The current process of reappraisal and the search for alternatives represent just the beginning of a more general discussion that will, no doubt, continue for several years, if not decades.As this paved the way for new innovative life.


text:
Internet Governance/Works Cited and Suggested for Further Reading

Abbate, Janet (1999), Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Baird, Zoe and Verhulst, Stefaan (2004), “A New Model for Global Internet Governance”. Paper available for download at: http://www.markle.org/downloadable_assets/ahs_global_internet_gov.pdf

Berners-Lee, Tim (2000), Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web. New York: HarperBusiness.

Digital Opportunity Task Force (2002), Global Policymaking for Information And Communications Technologies: Enabling Meaningful Participation by Developing-Nation Stakeholders. Available at: http://www.markle.org/downloadable_assets/roadmap_report.pdf

Fransman, Martin (2002), “Mapping the evolving telecoms industry: the uses and shortcomings of the layer model”, Telecommunications Policy (26), p. 473

Gelbstein, E. and Kurbalija, J. (2005), “Internet Governance: Issues, Actors and Divides”, GKP Issues Paper, Diplo Foundation. Available at: http://www.diplomacy.edu/isl/ig/

Internet Governance Project (2004), Internet Governance: The State of Play. Available at: http://www.InternetGovernance.org

Lessig, Lawrence (1999), Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

Maclean, Don et. al. (2003), “Louder Voices: Strengthening Developing Country Participation in International ICT Decision-Making”, London: Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation & Panos.

The Markle Foundation (2003), “Guide to International ICT Policy Making”, New York. Available at: http://www.markle.org

Mueller, Milton (2004), Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Nicol, Chris (2003), ICT Policy: A Beginner’s Handbook. The Association for Progressive Communications. Available at: http://www.apc.org/books

Open Regional Dialogue on Internet Governance (2005), “Voices from Asia-Pacific: Internet Governance Priorities and Recommendations”, An ORDIG Paper for the UN Working Group on Internet Governance and the World Summit on the Information Society. Bangkok: UNDP-APDIP. Available at: http://www.apdip.net/news/ordigdocs

Peake, A. (2005, forthcoming), “Internet governance and the Asia Pacific: Urgent issues for the region”, in Chin, S.Y. (ed.), Digital Review of Asia Pacific, Penang: Southbound. Available at: http://www.digital-review.org.

Price, Monroe and Verhulst, Stefaan (2000), “In Search of the Self.” Working paper available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/paper.taf?abstract_id=216111

Richmond, Riva (2005), “Internet Scams, Breaches Drive Buyers Off the Web, Survey Finds”, Wall Street Journal Online, Jun. 23, p. B3.

Saltzer, Jerome et. al. (1984), “End-to-end arguments in system design”, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2, 4 (November 1984), pp 277-288. An earlier version appeared in the Second International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (April, 1981) pp 509-512.Thierer, Adam (2003), ''Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction''. Washington: Cato Institute.

Werbach, Kevin (1997), “Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications Policy”, OPP Working Paper Series No. 29. Washington: FCC. Available at http://www.kentlaw.edu/legalaspects1/aspectsofecommerce(ac)/readings/digital%20toronado.pdf

Whitt, Richard (2004), “A Horizontal Leap Forward – Formulating a New Policy Framework Based on the Network Layers Model,” global.mci.com/about/publicpolicy/presentations/horizontallayerswhitepaper.pdf

Working Group on Internet Governance (2005), Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance. Available at: http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf


text:
Internet Governance/Appendix 2: Additional Background

Roles and functions of ICANN and IANA

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was created in 1998 to institutionalize the oversight of the Internet’s system of unique numbers and identifiers. The task had been the responsibility of Dr Jonathan Postel, a researcher who was deeply involved in the development of the Internet and who served as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for over a quarter of a century. ICANN is a multi-stakeholder organization responsible for the “bottom-up” development of technical policy for the management of the unique names, numbers and identifiers associated with the Internet and the accreditation of the operators of certain key Internet functions. The IANA function is incorporated into the ICANN operation.

Due to its role in the initial development of the Internet, the US Government has played a key role in the oversight of the IANA function and more generally, ICANN. There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that guides ICANN’s progress towards independent operation. The present MoU expires in September 2006 and it is expected that ICANN will operate as an independent entity assuming it is able to fulfill all of the obligations set forth in the MoU. In the interim, the US Government, by way of the Department of Commerce (DOC), National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA), has the responsibility and authority to approve changes to the Domain Name Root Zone file. In all the years of IANA operation, the US Government has not rejected any recommendations for such a change.

Every device on the Internet has an Internet address (either a 32-bit or 128-bit number). The addresses are assigned on the basis of network topology so as to minimize the amount of information that has to be exchanged throughout the Internet to effect the routing of Internet packets from one place to another. IANA allocates blocks of Internet address space to the five RIRs who in turn allocate address space to ISPs or assign address space to qualified end users. There are five RIRs: APNIC (Asia/Pacific Rim), LACNIC (Latin and Central America), AFRINIC (Africa), RIPE-NCC (Europe), and ARIN (North America). The five RIRs, for purposes of developing global allocation policies, work together as the Number Resource Organization (NRO). Their recommendations come to ICANN for approval and adoption. The Executive Council of the NRO serves as ICANN’s Address Supporting Organization and is responsible for appointing two of the members of ICANN’s board of directors.

The Internet’s DNS is used to translate domain names into Internet addresses. In rough terms, there are two major classes of domain names in the Internet system. The now-familiar ‘www.icann.org’ style of domain name is an example of a generic domain name and .org is a TLD. The other class is the country code domain name such as ‘www.denic.de’, where “de” stands for “Deutschland” or Germany. There are scores of generic top level domains (.com, .net, .org, .int, .edu, .mil, .gov, .arpa, .info, .biz, .museum, .jobs, .mobi, .travel, .cat, .coop, .aero, .post with others still pending). There are on the order of 200 country code TLDs (ccTLDs) such as .fr, .uk, and so on. The set of top level domains and the computers that translate domain names into Internet addresses form the distributed DNS. There is a central list of all top level domain name servers and this is called the Root Zone File. This list is replicated in Root Servers that are located throughout the Internet. IANA maintains the Root Zone File and provides updates to the Root Server operators as needed. There are 12 Root System Operators who are responsible for 13 Root Servers. By means of a special Internet routing system called “anycast” there are actually as many as 100 replicas of the Root Servers in operation throughout the Internet.

ICANN has extensive contractual relationships with most of the generic TLDs (exceptions being .mil and .gov which are operated by the US Government, .arpa and .int which are largely operated by IANA). ICANN has responsibility for delegating operation of the ccTLDs although with some exceptions, it does not have contractually documented oversight. Redelegation of the operation of a ccTLD is a responsibility of the IANA and very carefully structured processes and procedures are employed when such a redelegation is needed.

ICANN has a Country Code Name Supporting Organization (CCNSO) with membership drawn from the operators of ccTLD registries. ICANN also has a Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO) whose membership includes domain name registry operators, domain name registrars, ISPs, business community members and non-profit organizations. The CCNSO and GNSO each help to develop policy for adoption by the ICANN board and each appoints two directors to the Board of ICANN. The CEO of ICANN is an ex officio member of the Board. The remaining eight directors of ICANN are appointed by a nominating committee whose membership is drawn broadly from the global Internet community.

In addition to its supporting organizations, ICANN has a number of advisory committees including the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), charged with helping to organize policy input from civil society; the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC); the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC); and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). The latter has membership from about 100 countries and is responsible for providing public policy input to the ICANN board.

Internet standards

In the early period of Internet development, an Internet Activities Board (IAB) was created by DARPA to oversee the standardization of Internet protocols. Later, the details of protocol development fell to IETF that spun out of the IAB. An Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) was also created to pursue advanced concepts not yet ready for standardization. In 1992, ISOC was formed to provide an institutional home for IETF, IRTF and IAB (renamed at that time the Internet Architecture Board). In addition, with the advent of the World Wide Web in 1989, W3C was formed to pursue further development of the standards and technologies of the World Wide Web. Other standards organizations also contribute technology that supports the Internet, notably IEEE andITU among others, such as regional and national standards bodies.

The Internet Society, in addition to supporting the IAB, IRTF and IETF also supports the Request For Comment (RFC) editor. The Request for Comment series of documents, founded in 1969 during the development of a predecessor to the Internet, the ARPANET, comprises the standards documentation for the Internet. The IANA maintains tables of Internet parameters that are referenced by the RFCs. The Internet Society has other outreach activities, including scores of chapters around the world and education and training programmes that promote technical competence in Internet implementation and operation.


text: User talk:88.72.219.199

title: User talk:88.72.219.199


text:
Nets, Webs and the Information Infrastructure

Table of Contents

 * /Preface/
 * /Introduction/
 * /Enter the Net/
 * /Viruses, Privacy and Security/
 * /Net for us/
 * /For Further Reading/
 * /Notes/
 * /Glossary/
 * /Acknowledgment/
 * /About the Author/

Information
This book is donated by UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) to the community. The original publication by:

Author: Edwin S. Soriano

© UNDP-APDIP, 2003, 49 pages

is located at http://www.apdip.net/publications/iespprimers/eprimer-nets.pdf

This wikibook is available under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attribution License 2.5


text:
Nets, Webs and the Information Infrastructure/Introduction

Introduction
This primer attempts to capture the essence of current information and communications technologies that are relevant to policy makers in developing countries. The technologies, case studies and examples focus on the Internet (the “Net”), the World Wide Web (the “Web”), and the information infrastructure also known as the information highway.

In the first section, “Enter the Net,” current technologies are explained to give the policy maker an idea of the real world infrastructure crucial to building a country’s information infrastructure. Web sites and other references are provided for further reading.

The second section, “Viruses, Privacy and Security,” discusses the oft-spoken dangers of the Internet. Examples of actual regional and legislative initiatives addressing privacy and security issues on the Internet are given in boxes.

Section three, “Net 4 Us,” lays out the issues where government action is important. Topics in this section include the digital divide, open source, the language barrier, local content, broadband deployment, universal service, and universal access.


text:
Nets, Webs and the Information Infrastructure/Enter the Net

What is information and communications technology?
From the Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary (http://www.webster.com), we have the following definitions:

 * Information - the reception of knowledge or intelligence
 * Communication - an act or instance of transmitting; a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior
 * Technology - a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge

Information and communications technology (ICT) refers to a broad field encompassing software, hardware, computers and networks. It includes communication infrastructure and technologies such as regular telephony, cellular networks, satellite communication, broadcasting media, and other forms of communication.

What is the Internet?
The Internet is by far the fastest growing information and communications medium. There has been a phenomenal growth in the number of users, extent of infrastructure, and amount of information in the Internet over the past few years. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) estimates that the Internet has grown from about 4.4 million users in 1991 to 655 million in 2002. Internet user population for 2004 is projected at 709.1 million (eMarketer) and 945 million (Computer Industry Almanac).

The Internet has become a powerful tool and enabler in various fields, including communication, hobbies, learning, commerce, governance, research, entertainment, agriculture, and the arts. It is the most pervasive medium worldwide, commanding the attention of anyone who wants to keep abreast of world developments.

Box 1: Your Computer to the Internet

What is the difference between the Net and the Web?
The Internet (or Net) is a network of networks. It is made up of computers, cables, and other networking hardware. Different individuals and institutions have helped develop tools and protocols that use the Internet as a medium for information or data exchange.

The Internet encompasses data exchange facilities (computers, servers, hubs, switches, backbones, etc.) and protocols (HTTP, FTP, TCP/IP, WAP, etc.) and other applications (email, telnet, chat, instant messaging, streaming video, usenet, etc.).

The World Wide Web (or Web), on the other hand, is the most popular of all Internet applications. The Web provides users with the ability to access information and services while connected to the Internet. Web users may also publish information and offer services that can be accessed by anybody else in the Internet. The Web’s primary protocol, HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP), allows users to jump from one link to another. This is similar to reading many references and skipping from one topic to another instead of reading in a fixed sequence (for example, from page 1 to 100).

What is the most common way of connecting to the Internet?
Dialing from a computer via a modem and phone line is still the most common way of connecting to the Internet.

Different areas and telephone companies have different telephone facilities. The telephone equipment in a user’s vicinity and the equipment of the telephone company will determine the type of service that will be available to a user.

Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) refers to the telephone system based on copper wires carrying analog voice data. PSTN requires the user to have a modem to dial up to the ISP. It is also commonly known as Plain Old Telephone Service or POTS.

PSTN uses a circuit switched network to transmit continuous real-time data (e.g., voice). Live video is also transmitted better via a circuit switched network. Packet switched networks are used for data that do no need to be sent immediately or in real-time. Thus, email, the Web, chat and other Internet applications use packet switching.

Packet switching technology is continuously being improved. Eventually, packet switching networks will be able to transmit voice and video as efficiently as circuit switching networks.

Table 1: Comparison of Circuit Switched and Packet Switched Network

What is DSL? DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) is a form of high-speed Internet access over standard telephone lines. Unlike regular dial-up connection, which requires a modem, DSL provides a dedicated connection to the Internet and the PC is always connected to the ISP. Furthermore, DSL can handle a telephone call and Internet access at the same time.

There are three types of DSL, namely, Asymmetric DSL (ADSL), Symmetric DSL (SDSL) and ISDN DSL (IDSL). These types differ in the speeds of receiving and sending data.

DSL in general is more expensive than ordinary dial-up access. The advantage, of course, is a faster Internet connection.

What is ISDN? Integrated Services Digital Network or ISDN is an international communications standard for sending voice, video and data over digital telephone lines. ISDN lines may be used to make regular calls to PSTN or DSL phone lines.

ISDN has two kinds of channels, which are like different lanes on a single highway. The B-channel can be used for Internet connections or voice calls. The D-channel is a signaling channel used by the ISDN network equipment.

In addition, ISDN has two pre-defined configurations: Basic Rate Interface (BRI) and Primary Rate Interface (PRI). BRI uses two multimedia channels and one signaling channel within a single line. BRI is used primarily by small offices and home users to connect to the Internet. A PRI connection supports 23 (sometimes 30) multimedia channels and one signaling channel. It is used primarily by corporations and organizations with large communication requirements.

ISDN modems and lines are more expensive than standard dial-up, cable modems and DSL lines.

Can I get an Internet connection through my cable TV?

Cable television providers have started to deliver Internet access. In some cases, a single cable from the cable company can connect to both the television and the computer through a cable modem. The modem takes care of separating data for the TV and data for the computer. Whereas dial-up and DSL connections make a one-to-one connection to the Internet provider, cable modem users must share bandwidth with everyone else on the network. The more people online using the same pipeline at any moment, the slower the data transfer rate will be.

What is broadband?
Broadband, formed from the words broad and bandwidth, pertains to data carriers that have significantly wider bandwidth than the ordinary dial-up access of home-users. A wider bandwidth translates to a faster Internet connection. DSL, ISDN and Cable Internet are considered broadband connections to the Internet.

Having broadband is just like having a wider pipe to supply water to a household. Broadband allows Internet users to view Web pages more quickly, including multimedia files. Ordinarily, it takes several minutes for large images to be downloaded from the Internet using an ordinary dial-up. With broadband, a user will be able to download movies, audio and image archives. Users will be able to maximize video conferencing. They will also be able to make national and international phone calls using the Internet.

What are wireless technologies?
Wireless technologies refer to methods or devices that achieve data transfer without the use of wires connecting two devices. Essentially, wireless technologies are based on radio frequency waves just like a music radio or a two-way radio.

There are mobile wireless and fixed wireless configurations. The difference between them has to do with whether the devices are movable. Examples of mobile wireless devices are the mobile phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), laptop computer, digital camera, and audio player. A powerful quality of the mobile device is that the user can take it anywhere.

Fixed wireless, on the other hand, refers to wireless devices or systems that are situated in fixed locations such as an office or home. A wireless LAN (WLAN) using desktop computers is an example of a fixed wireless device. (See discussion on Wi-Fi.)

Satellite Internet access is also high-speed. Unlike the analog dial-up and the DSL, satellite access is available practically anywhere, even in remote areas without phone lines. Aside from the Internet, television channels and radio stations can be transmitted to a user’s satellite dish. For countries that do not have good telecommunications infrastructure, satellite technology is an option for Internet connectivity. However, considerable electric power is needed for wireless data transmissions using a satellite connection.

Figure 4: Table 2: Comparison of Local Loop Data Carriers

Adapted from: “A Broadband Primer,” BusinessWeek online (October 8, 2001); available from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_41/b3752049.htm; accessed 3 September 2002.

What is Bluetooth?
Bluetooth is a global standard for a short-range wireless connectivity that can establish links between mobile phones, PCs, laptops, PDAs, and digital cameras, among other devices. It enables a user to connect with a single or several devices at once. Because it is a global standard accepted by major telecommunication, software and networking companies, it is expected to become a widespread technology within a few years. This will allow “universal” and seamless data communication of various devices across different platforms and different hardware.

Bluetooth eliminates short data cables. For example, Bluetooth can replace the cable that connects a music player or mobile phone to a headset. It can also be used to replace the data cable used to synchronize PDAs with computers. Bluetooth focuses on applications where there is low power requirement and where data transfer rates are moderate.

What is Wi-Fi?
Wi-Fi, short for wireless fidelity, is a broadband wireless technology with a data transfer rate of more than 10 times that of Bluetooth. It is based on the IEEE 802.11b industry standard. Products certified as Wi-Fi by Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance (WECA) are interoperable with each other even if they are from different manufacturers. A user with a Wi-Fi product can use any brand of access point with any other brand of client hardware that is built using the Wi-Fi standard.

Wi-Fi offers a 100-meter range and an 11-Mbps transmission rate. This makes it ideal for quick Internet access. Wi-Fi’s foremost use is to augment existing local area networks (LAN). Although Wi-Fi is not necessarily going to replace wired LANs, it makes a network more versatile in terms of expansion and can also increase users’ mobility.

What is the difference between Bluetooth and Wi-Fi?
Although Bluetooth and Wi-Fi operate in the same frequency of 2.4GHz, the two technologies have three main differences: range, data speed and power consumption.

It must be noted that Bluetooth and Wi-Fi operate in a portion of the ISM band commonly allocated to the industrial, scientific and medical fields. Worldwide, the ISM band is generally used free of charge and without license for non-commercial purposes.

Common appliances such as cordless phones and microwave ovens, as well as magnetic resonance instruments (MRIs) and medical equipment may interfere with devices using Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. Technology is being improved so that interference between devices can be avoided.

The regulatory policies in the deployment of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi should also be carefully reviewed.

Table 3: Comparison of Bluetooth and WiFi

Adapted from Michael Man, Bluetooth and WiFi (Socket Communications, March 2002); available from http://www.socketcom.com/pdf/TechBriefWireless.pdf; accessed 3 September 2002.

How do mobile wireless devices access the Internet?
There are a couple of ways to connect to the Internet via wireless devices.

WAP (Wireless Application Protocol) is a protocol that enables some mobile phones and PDAs to transfer data from the Internet. To gain access to the Internet, a subscriber needs to connect to the cellular phone company’s gateway. The gateway connects to WAP servers that provide content. Content is written in wireless markup language (WML), a programming language designed for displaying information accessed via WAP. A WAP-enabled mobile phone has a micro-browser to view sites. Not all Web sites can be accessed using WAP. Content needs to be written in WML so that a WAP-enabled mobile phone can access the content. WML may also be embedded in Web sites so that portions of the Web site may be accessed using WAP.

General Packet Radio Service or GPRS is a technology that speeds up the data transmissions of WAP. GPRS gives access to the Internet at speeds of 56 to 114kbit/s using packet switching. Its key feature is that a user is charged only for the packets of data that are transferred regardless of how much time it takes to transfer these data. Without GPRS, a user will most likely be charged on a per-minute basis re-gardless of the amount of data transmitted.

3G refers to the 3rd Generation Phone, which gives a user access to regular voice calls, short message service (SMS), email, Internet access and video. Some 3G phones have built-in video cameras that may be used to take digital photos or videos, which can be sent to other 3G phones. 3G boasts of transmission speeds reaching from 128kbit/s up to 2Mbit/s depending on whether the phone is at standstill or in a moving vehicle.

A mobile phone can also be used to connect a PDA or laptop computer to the Internet. The PDA or laptop is attached to the mobile phone and is the user’s primary visual interface to the Internet instead of the small screen of the mobile phone. Web-enabled mobile phones are increasingly able to access Web content that was originally designed for traditional PCs. In countries lacking general access to large screen computers, mobile Web-enabled devices are viable alternatives, giving more of the population access to vital knowledge resources. The W3C, responsible for Web technology, is paying particular attention to this new aspect of the Web and its effect in developing countries.

 * Box 2. Applications of High-Speed Wireless Solutions for Developing Countries: Lessons Learned in Latvia and Moldova

Source: Guntis Barzdins, John Tully and Arnis Riekstins, “Applications of High-Speed Wireless Solutions for Developing Countries: Lessons Learned in Latvia and Moldova,” INET 99 [home page online]; available from http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/inet/99/proceedings/4d/4d_2.htm; accessed 3 September 2002.

What is convergence?
Convergence is the coming together of computers, communications networks, and broadcasting/television. More and more data are being stored in digital format and networks are becoming digital. Thus, in the near future there will be no need for separate TV and communications networks. TV shows will reach viewers via the telephone network just as easily as when using a TV broadcasting network. A more formal and comprehensive definition of convergence is “the progressive integration of the value chain of the information and content industries-telecommunications, posts, multimedia, electronic commerce, broadcasting, information technology, and publishing industries-into a single value chain based on the common use and distribution of digital technology.”

Convergence can be classified into three types:

1. Convergence of technologies - a common platform to deliver voice, data and video services

2. Convergence of services - delivery of multiple services to end users over the same medium/network

3. Regulatory convergence - establishing a single Regulatory Authority (RA) with the blurring of the regulatory boundaries for telecommunication, information technology and broadcasting

Why and how is convergence essential?
Convergence revolutionizes two things: the communications infrastructure and the way in which people communicate with one another. Communication in this new technological milieu will be more efficient and more economical as the need to set up separate networks for telephone services, television broadcast, cable television, and Internet access will be eliminated. From the standpoint of a consumer, having only one information provider will mean cheaper communication costs.

Moreover, the principle of universal access can be made more achievable with convergence. The present scenario shows that the high costs of installing landlines in sparsely populated rural areas prevent telecommunications companies from installing telephones in these areas. The private sector can be motivated to install landlines in rural areas if revenues from these landlines will not be limited to local and long distance telephone charges, but will also include cable TV and Internet charges.


text:
Radiation Oncology/Tumor markers

Gastrointestinal cancers

 * 2006 ASCO Guidelines - PMID 17060676 — "ASCO 2006 Update of Recommendations for the Use of Tumor Markers in Gastrointestinal Cancer." Locker GY et al. JCO 2006 Nov 20;24(33):5313-27.

 * 2000 ASCO Guidelines - PMID 11251019 — "2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology." Bast RC Jr et al. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Mar 15;19(6):1865-78.

 * 1997 ASCO Guidelines - PMID 9469371 — "1997 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer." [No authors listed] J Clin Oncol. 1998 Feb;16(2):793-5.

Breast cancer

 * 2007 ASCO Guidelines - PMID 17954709 — "American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer." Harris L et al. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Nov 20;25(33):5287-312.

 * 2000 ASCO Guidelines - PMID 11251019 — "2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology." Bast RC Jr et al. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Mar 15;19(6):1865-78.

 * 1997 ASCO Guidelines - PMID 9469371 — "1997 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer." [No authors listed] J Clin Oncol. 1998 Feb;16(2):793-5.

title: Radiation Oncology/Tumor markers


text:
XForms/Hierarchical Bookmarks

Motivation
We often need to be able to edit groupings of data. This example demonstrates how groupings of records (a section of bookmarks) can be modified as a block. This example uses nested  to achieve this.

Link to working example
Bookmarks Example

Sample bookmarks.xml File
This is the file that is read into the instance and updated when save is clicked.

Discussion
This example does not have re-ordering.

title: XForms/Hierarchical Bookmarks


text:
User talk:Rodneyeast

Welcome
Hi Rodney,

Thanks for your contributions to the AY Honors Answer Book. I noticed you took the bait and filled in the "About the Author" section. Thanks for doing that. I wanted to add your name to the Author section of the Infobox, but I was just guessing that your name was Rodney East.

While you're here, would you mind reviewing the Stars and Advanced Stars honors for accuracy? I did most of the work on them, but astronomy has only been a hobby with me - I never even took an astronomy class in college.

By the way, I had meant to wait until you were not actively editing the Physics honor to fix a few spelling errors, and then I noticed that you were right in middle of editing. Sorry about that - and I think I did it twice (last night and this morning)!

Jim Thomas 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It was not a problem that you were working at the same time as me since it was educational for me and gave me a sense of comunity creation of resource rather than me simply working alone.

--Rodney 04:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Knots
Oh! You're responsible for "Why Knot"!!! Do you think you'd like to finish writing the Knot Tying answers? Gerald G (a graphics guy) had started work on the Sailing honor and was uploading knot illustrations, so I moved them into templates so we could leverage the work in the Knots honor. He was rather daunted at the thought of illustrating all of them, but as it turns out, there are already a lot of knot illustrations available on the wikimedia commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Knots

Any images there can be added to a wikibook directly. In fact, that's the preferred place for uploading images for wikibooks. I wrote something about using templates in the Talk page of the First Aid honor (that's another place with lots of overlap).

BTW, I liked the sheepshank method shown in the Why Knot DVD - very cool.

Jim Thomas 14:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm so interested in the Knot honor, and I am still trying to figure out the image part of this. As soon as I understand how to do the images, I'll add even more info. I'll read your write up soon.

Thanks

--Rodney 04:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Chemistry/Physics/Optics
Hi Rodney,

Thanks for your work on the Chemistry honor. I can't wait to see the finished product.

Also, are you finished working on the Physics honor? I think we need something for requirements 8-11. Perhaps some instruction that adds details to conducting the experiments, and maybe some trouble-shooting tips and the expected results (such as "use slick books and a slick tablecloth so that friction doesn't pull the books off the table").

BTW, I added the requirements to the Optics honor in hopes that you would pick that one up as well. I think you're far more qualified than I to write it. In retrospect, I thouoght that perhaps my adding the requirements might have dissuaded you from contributing to that one.

Jim Thomas 14:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

About the Author
It would be a good idea if you moved your "about the author" section into a template so that you could include it at the bottom of the chemistry honor. The way I do that is by editing the section that has the info and adding something like this:

Then I "show preview", follow the red link in a new tab (gotta love Firefox!) and paste the contents in the new page. Once that's done, I chop the text out of the original page, "show preview" again, and if all looks OK, save it.

Jim Thomas 14:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you
Hi Rodney,

I'm glad to hear from you. It's OK to bounce around - I do that a lot myself. I still don't know everything there is to know about wiki's either, and that's after a little more than a year of working on this project. Thanks again for joining the fun. Jim Thomas 06:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots of Work!
Hi Rodney,

I noticed you've been been building a lot of honor "skeletons" tonight. Nice job. I have been filling in some information behind you, making heavy use of templates. I had been working on the first aid honors, and since there's a lot of overlapping requirements between them, I captured a lot of the info in templates. Adding it to the honors you outlined tonight was pretty easy, so I went ahead and did that. I also created links to some first aid templates that don't exist yet (such as ).

As you know, there is a lot of overlap in the camping/pioneeiring/backpacking/wilderness honors, so I encourage you to make use of templates whenever you recognize it. I haven't come up with a consistent naming convention yet, except that all the first aid templates begin with "First aid". I've also used "Knot" and "ay" as template prefixes, and maybe "camping". I dunno. Maybe I'm adding structure where it's not needed.

Jim Thomas 06:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin Privs
Hi Rodney,

There are a couple of guys on Wikibooks who regularly patrol the site for vandalism. They have helped our book on numerous occasions. Right now they are looking to have their rights escalated so that they may have "Checkuser" privileges. This will equip them with more powerful tools for fighting vandalism.

In order for that to happen though, they have to get 25 votes of support, and that is /very/ difficult to achieve. Their usernames are Herbythyme and SBJohnny. I would appreciate it if you would go to these URLs, click the edit link, and add this:

Support: ~

The tildes leave your username and the date. You /do/ have to be registered and logged in for the vote to count.

Here's where you can vote for them:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WB:RFA#Herbythyme_.28talk_.7C_email_.7C_contribs_.7C_logs.29 http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WB:RFA#SBJohnny_.28talk_.7C_email_.7C_contribs_.7C_logs.29

Thanks in advance.

Jim Thomas 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Rodney,
 * Today my user page was struck by a particularly nasty vandal, and the change was reverted by SBJohnny in under one minute. The best way I can think of to thank him is by urging my friends to vote for his request for Check user rights on the Request for Admin page.  I know you already voted for Herby, and I thank you for that as well.  I think SBJ deserves the same.  Thanks in advance! Jim Thomas 16:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of Discussion
Hi Rodney,

I think we could use the discussion area just as you suggest, and I think its a good idea. I was even thinking that it would be good to use a wiki to develop new honors, but that may be out-of-bounds for wikibooks. The "rules" exclude "research" topics. I think it'd be good if we could find another wiki somewhere to do new honor development. I think it would be even better if the NAD would offer to host it.

The form your A/C asks you to fill out at the last minute is available online now and has been for about a year (at pathfindersonline.org). I filled one out to suggest changes and was contacted by the person at the other end of the form, and we struck up an email conversation. I was excited about that, because it seemed like someone was listening. But then nothing came of it. I pointed out a few metric conversion errors (see Archery and Gardening), and suggested that the Swimming honors be renamed Swimming I-V. "Swimming Beginners Advanced" doesn't really float my boat.

That said, they may have implemented at least one of my suggestions. I asked about the requirement to light a fire with one match in one of the Camping Skills honor. Specifically, what do you do if it doesn't light on the first match? Do you have to take everything apart and start over, or wait a day, or what? It now reads "Practice lighting a fire with one match" (perhaps not an exact quote).

I had also recruited Mark West to write the answers for the Archery honors - if you don't know, he's they guy who shot through 11 balloons at Faith on Fire. If you ask me, he is THE Pathfinder archer. He had a few bones to pick with the archery requirements, so I put him in contact with the same people. But I don't think anything came of that.

If you think the Physics honor needs work, take a look at the Computer honors! They are definitely based on mid-80's DOS. That was one of the first answer sections I put together (even though I still haven't finished Advanced, because I don't do databases or finance). For that one I discussed its "legacy" problems that would make the honor difficult to complete as written. For instance, there is a requirement to make a "mirror image" of a disk. I have to think that they are talking about duplicating one floppy to another using the A: and B: drives. I haven't seen a two-floppy PC in years and finding one with even one floppy drive is becoming increasingly difficult. I noted as much in the honor and suggested alternatives.

I added every page and subpage to my watchlist before most of them even existed, so I did notice your nephew's work on Fishes. I was wondering if you and Stephanie had decided to change usernames to Lookeast and Eastoforion or if you had recruited relatives to help. Naturally, I am very excited that you recruited more help!

When the Fishes honor says "family" I don't think they meant to be using the taxonomic term. The same thing happens in other honors as well. I think they mean "major grouping" instead. Take a peek at the "official" answer book for confirmation. The Marsupials honor has the same problem (though its an SPD honor not adopted by the NAD, so complaining to the NAD would be even less effective). There are several dozen taxonomic families of marsupials, and knowing what each of them are, the differences between them, and what characteristics make each animal a member of what family is far beyond the scope of a Skill Level 1 honor.

Gotta go now... if you wanna talk more about this, it might be easier to use email. I'm jthomas at bittware dot com.

Physics
Hi Rodney,

It looks like Physics is done enough to mark it as 100%. I don't know if there are still things you want to do to it (which is fine - these things are never done). If it's OK with you, I'd like to announce it on pathfindersonline.org (or you could do it). Great job!

Jim Thomas 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

SVG
Hi Rodney,

There's a thread on this at the Staff Lounge. You might want to ask there - it's near the bottom of the page. I know that Gerald G aka Jazzmanian (he did our book cover) had some trouble too.

Jim Thomas 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Another possibility is that the Wikipedia files are not in the commons. The Commons was started sometime after wikipedia and is the preferred place to upload any images.  A lot of images were uploaded to wikipedia before this time, and some people still upload to wikipedia instead of to the commons.  Most of the time an image you see in wikipedia is in the commons.  Click on it to get details.  If it's in the commons, it'll have a little box that says so.  If it's not, you can down load the image to your computer and then upload it to the commons.  If you do that, use  this link, as it has tools to copy the metadata from wikipedia.  Jim Thomas 16:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Hey Rodney. If you want, just link to the images on wikipedia and I'll be happy to copy them over to the commons.  Also, I was wondering what you thought about this idea regarding the focal length picture - I think it'd be better in our book if it were horizontal instead of vertical.  If you'd like, I could try making a horizontal version of it.

 * One other thing you mighht like to know is how to force a page break. Use this markup:

 *

 * I dunno what other options there are other than both and clear, but I do know that this will force the next bit of text to start after the bottom of an image. Jim Thomas 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Units and Species Names
Hi Rodney,

I really like your idea with the species names, and I think we should go ahead with that. I haven't made up my mind on the metric/english conversions though. I can see your points, but there are o few other things to consider as well.

First, click on the "printable version" link in the "toolbox" box on the left in the Mammals honor and take a look at how it deals with those conversion links. It's not pretty.

What if we did something a little different, such as look into how the "stage short" template displays the date? If you hover the mouse over one of the "stage" icons on an index page, it'll show you the date on which the progress was evalauted. I'd be happy if we jammed metric units in the text, and displayed english units when hovering.

OTOH, I fear that some people might come in later and edit the units to English. We could always edit them back I suppose. I wonder if there's a way for a user to express a units preference (default to metric) and have them print accordingly? Perhaps we could look at how the Table of Contents "hide" link works, I dunno.

Jim Thomas 15:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

 * What do you think of this template: The speed of light is

Might wanna choose some other calculator icon though.

Templates for Birds
Hi Rodney,

I have been making heavy use of templates lately, as it decouples the information from the layout. I was thinking that might be a good idea for the Birds honor too, assuming you plan to put together a section for bird identification. Kinda like a mini-field guide.

Take a look at Edible Wild Plants, Animal Tracking, or Cattle Husbandry for examples.

You might want to use the Species_id template for birds, or we could create a Bird_id template if there's something specific to birds (like their calls) we want to add. Here's how I used the Animal_sign template:

This renders as

Jim Thomas 01:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Rodney,

Nice to see you back again. You'll probably notice before reading this, but since you are editing right now (as best I can tell), I'll point it out rather than fix it - In the Einstein section of Physics, the you need to square the m for c^2.

Energy topic
Hello, Mr. Rodney! It is really awesome find the Honor Book here in Wiki. And i've seen your contribution with some honors. Congratulations for your work! If you permit, let me make just one comment about the Phisics Honor: I was looking at it and I noted that the Energy unit is "Watt", when in fact would be "Joule". Watt is used as a power unit. Good luck with this blessed work with the Pathfinders. Regards, Paulo (teilb@yahoo.com.br).

title: User talk:Rodneyeast


text:
Talk:FHSST Physics/Work and Energy/Work

Isn't work defined as:

$$W = \mathbf{\overrightarrow{F}}\cdot\mathbf{\overrightarrow{s}}=|\mathbf{\overrightarrow{F}}|\mathbf{\overrightarrow{s}}|\cos{\theta}$$

?

--GatesPlusPlus 14:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:FHSST Physics/Work and Energy/Work


text:
Cold War on a Global Scale/Space Race

The space race was the competition between the USSR and the United States. It took place during the time of the cold war. It lasted effectively from around 1957 all the way to 1969. President John F. Kennedy led the United States in this race and pushed funding for it very heavily. Progress was constantly being made and the boundaries of possibilities were being increased.

Timeline

 * Space exploration was a battle arena in the cold war and the USSR was in the lead for the majority of it.
 * The Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union began on Oct. 4th, 1957 when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1 into space.
 * The United States soon followed in Jan. 31, 1958 when they successfully put a satellite into orbit.
 * Things started heating up when in 1959 the USSR launched a probe named Luna 2 onto the moon.
 * The next step was to send a person into space and on April 12, 1961 Yuri Gagarin of the Soviet Union orbited the Moon.
 * That same year in April the U.S. launched a man named Alan B. Shepard into space.
 * They took small steps at a time, and in 1961 the USSR launched the first woman into space.
 * The competition was aimed at becoming the first country to have a man land on the moon.<
 * For around 8 years the progress in feats became stagnant until on July 16, 1969 the United States successfully accomplished a lunar landing which basically won the United States the victory in the Space Race.

title: Cold War on a Global Scale/Space Race


text:
User:Andrew c

w:user Andrew c

title: User:Andrew c


text:
A-level Critical Thinking

Table of Contents

 * /Credibility of evidence/
 * /Sources and types of evidence/
 * /Making a reasoned judgement/
 * /Unit II/
 * /Types of reasoning/
 * /Deductive and Inductive reasoning/
 * /Flaws in Arguments/

title: A-level Critical Thinking