Comments on: United Nations ponders Net's future

An international gathering spotlights criticism of U.S. dominance and feels out avenues for change. But some say a bureaucracy on the scale of the U.N.'s would only hamstring innovation.

Cuba prohibit access to the internet to its citizens

Cuba prohibit access to the internet to its citizens

What is this Cuba's Ministry of Informatics and Communications is complaining about? In Cuba the internet is illegal only a few people can go on the net. Last year 27 independent journalists were incarcerated to up to 20 years in prison for using the internet to "aiming to overthrow the Cuban revolution".

This guy joking? Instead of him complaining we should be asking him why is illegal to use the internet in Cuba


Please read this article bellow taken from: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=9648


Reporters Without Borders seeks meeting with Marco Tronchetti Provera, Chairman of Telecom Italia's board of directors
Reporters Without Borders has asked to meet the chairman of Telecom Italia's board of governors about the implications of the company's ties with Cuban telecommunications operator ETECSA, that has been made responsible for Internet censorship.
"We would like to meet you to discuss together the problems arising from your investment in Cuban telecommunications", the international press freedom organisation said in a 25 March 2004 letter to Marco Tronchetti Provera.
"We believe that your company should broach the issue with ETECSA and the Cuban government to bring an end to relentless censorship of the Net in Cuba and so that 27 journalists jailed in March 2003, accused in particular of putting the Internet to "counter-revolutionary" use, can be released."
The vast majority of Cubans are banned from using the Internet. In Fidel Castro's Cuba only those with explicit permission can access the Net. The ban is all the more severe because it is illegal to possess computer equipment. The cybercafés are reserved for the use of tourists and are under very strict control.
In March 2003 the Cuban regime launched a wave of arrests during which 27 independent journalists were imprisoned. Among them was poet and journalist Raúl Rivero. The charge sheet against him explicitly cited his work with an Internet site "aiming to overthrow the Cuban revolution". Most of the sentences of the 27 who were imprisoned referred to their use of the Internet : posting articles about foreign online publications or simply visiting forbidden sites.
Tens of thousands of Cubans however continue to pirate the ETECSA telephone network to access the Web. These illegal connections to the Internet are a window of freedom in a country where no independent media is tolerated.
In December 2003, the Cuban authorities announced that they would track down these "pirate" users. A government decree instructed ETECSA "to use all necessary technical means to detect and block access to the Internet" for unauthorised people. To put it bluntly, the Cuban authorities demand that your partner company monitors the Internet and helps police track down Cuban Internet-users who are getting round the official ban. The telecommunications operator thus becomes a party to the repression of the Internet. This decree moreover could lead to a new wave of arrests, this time against Cuban Internet "pirates".
As shareholders of 29,3% of ETECSA, which has a monopoly on Cuban Internet, Telecom Italia is directly involved with the company's actions.

more news: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/01/21/cuba.internet.reut/

http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y04/jan04/19e10.htm


http://www.a42.com/book/print/30

UN Control of the Internet??? Ha!

Brilliant! Let the UN take over the domain name registry. What a terrific idea! Why didn't somebody think of this sooner?

Who do we think should chair the newly-formed "Committee on Internet Affairs"??? (Paid for, of course, with US funds)

Let's run through the list, shall we?

1. The US - No, that's who we're trying to take this away from, remember?

2. France - Well, I think it would be a safe bet to say that "francesucks.net" would be removed quite swiftly.

3. China - Hmmm. That'd be interesting. I really do like reading CNN.com in the morning, oh well, I guess we'll all have to live with Xinhua.com, the Chinese government-run news firm because we wouldn't be able to access any free media ever again.

4. Iran - Hey? Why shouldn't they be allowed to chair the Internet Commission? They were allowed to chair the commissions on Weapons of Mass Destruction! Is Cnet.com too un-Islamic for the clerics? If it is, it'd need to be taken down.

5. The EU - I know that they're not an UN member (but they should be, face it people, the EU is a country) but let's be hypothetical. I know that the IRS has failed in trying to draw blood from a stone, but maybe the European Commission would find a way to fine the internet for being a monopoly! Now THAT would be something.

How to ruin the internet

The UN ruins almost everything it gets its hands on. There's almost nothing that they've touched that they haven't completely destroyed or made worse. Kofi and his simpering lick-spittles can sod off first if he thinks people will stand by and let him bureaucratize the internet. What's he afraid of? That he no longer had control of the exchange of information or editors to put the proper "spin" on information. I usually dismiss as paranoid people who see the UN as coniving to create a global dictatorship, but if there ever was a reason for their forcible expulsion from the country, their attempt to take over the internet, definitely is it.

IP Addresses - Myth vs Reality

It's very strange that although IP addresses barely rated a mention in New York, this journalist has chosen to raise the topic, and dig up some very outdated misconceptions about China vs USA.

In such cases I feel obliged to issue a correction.

The fact is that there was never any division of IP addresses among countries. Addresses have always been allocated wherever there is a demand, and naturally during the early Internet years, this demand occurred in developed countries (especially USA).

Further, early allocation policies were lax in the extreme, allowing huge address blocks to be allocated to relatively small needs. This was due not to conscious design, but simply to the lack of any expectation that the net would grow to today's size.

Today's allocation system, involving Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) has operated for over 10 years, and has introduced demonstrable fairness and responsibility into the prior system.

Address allocations today are done much more carefully, but addresses are still readily available for any demonstrated need as defined by a set of uniform public policies. Indeed, China is a leading recipient of IP addresses today, and the total allocations to China now exceed 45 million addresses. The figure of 9 million is at least 3 years old.

If anybody would like more information on these issues, I and other RIR personnel are more than happy to assist. I issue this invitation especially to journalists and editors, who have a responsibility to check their facts before going to press.

Paul Wilson
Director General
APNIC
http://www.apnic.net

IP Addresses - Myth vs Reality

As Paul notes, IP addresses are not delegated to countries. At the same time, as part of an attempt to understand how many addresses we will need to bring the populations of various countries online, I have put together a spreadsheet from RIR data showing a geo-political breakdown. This was submitted as part of the documentation for the UN summit, and is posted at:
http://www.nav6tf.org/RIR_eNations/e-nations.pdf
http://www.nav6tf.org/RIR_eNations/e-nations-graph.pdf

The document shows how many addresses are required using the current HD-ratio (RFC 3194) metrics, to provide just one address shared by 3 people, with a goal that 20% of the population for each country would then have access.

It needs to be noted that I am still working with the RIR's and IANA to resolve a few remaining inconsistencies in the raw data, and that allocations are a continuing process. This means the numbers presented are subject to change without notice.

Tony Hain