Politics and Law

The organization responsible for managing the assignment of domain names and IP addresses has approved a new plan to allow non-Latin characters in Web extensions.

Known as Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), the system is designed to globalize the Net so regions around the world can use their own local alphabet characters to surf in cyberspace, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, said Friday.

Calling IDNs the "biggest technical change" to the Internet since its birth 40 years ago, ICANN unanimously approved the plan on the final day of its six-day conference in Seoul.

IDNs will allow domain names to be to be written in native character sets, such as Chinese, Arabic, and Greek. In charge of managing domain names, ICANN has argued that IDNs are necessary to expand use of the Web in regions where people don't understand English. Since its inception, the Internet has been limited to the Latin character set used by the U.S. and many other nations.

"The coming introduction of non-Latin characters represents the biggest technical change to the Internet since it was created four decades ago," said ICANN chairman Peter Dengate Thrush in a statement. "Right now Internet address endings are limited to Latin characters--A to Z. But the Fast Track Process is the first step in bringing the 100,000 characters of the languages of the world online for domain names."

To expedite the new plan, ICANN will launch a Fast Track process on November 16. At that time, the organization will begin accepting applications from countries for new top level domains, or Internet extensions, based on each nation's character set.

Initially, the change will apply only to local country codes, such as .kr for Korea and .ru for Russia. Major top level domains (TLDs) such as .com, .net., and .org won't see non-Latin editions just yet. But ICANN is pushing to make progress on these major TLDs and hopes to include them in the IDN system before long.

ICANN had discussed and debated IDNs for years, during which time much testing, development, and global cooperation were needed to jump start the new system.

"This is a culmination of years of work, tests, study and discussion by the ICANN community," said Thrush. "To see this finally start to unfold is to see the beginning of an historic change in the Internet and who uses it."

The Internet may be getting friendlier for a significant chunk of the world. A proposal is up for a vote to let Web addresses use non-English characters.

The proposed change (PDF), known as Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), will allow the use of non-Latin characters in the entire address. Currently, such characters are allowed only in part of the address. IDNs will let people who write in Chinese, Korean, or Arabic use their own languages to surf the Web, and is expected to jump-start Internet use in many regions across the globe.

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which is responsible for managing domain names on the Net, will review the historic, hot-button proposal on Friday at its six-day 36th International Public Meeting in Seoul. If approved, IDNs could kick in as early as mid-2010.

"This is an extremely important meeting for ICANN, since the IDN program is moving one step closer to reshaping the global Internet landscape," ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom said in a statement. "In Seoul, we plan to move forward to the next step in the internationalization of the Internet, which means that eventually people from every corner of the globe will be able to navigate much of the online world using their native language scripts."

IDNs are not a new concept. They've been debated for at least a decade. Some doubted whether such a system could work. But countries like China have taken the lead in pushing for this change.

Of the 1.6 billion Internet users worldwide, more than half use languages with character sets other than Latin. Beckstrom sees the change as necessary, not just now, but for the future as Internet use continues to grow.

One of the challenges behind IDNs has been the use of translation technology to convert one character set to another to deliver the right address. But ICANN seems to have covered that base.

"We're confident that it works because we've been testing it now for a couple of years," Peter Dengate Thrush, chairman of ICANN's board, said in a statement. "And so we're really ready to start rolling it out."

Mozilla and Opera are both unhappy with Microsoft's proposed "ballot screen" to let Windows users in Europe select their default browser, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

Microsoft's proposed browser ballot screen is its attempt to satisfy the antitrust investigation from the European Union over Internet Explorer's dominance in Windows. The screen would present the user with a menu to install other browsers, including Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome, and Safari, and let the user pick one as the default.

Microsoft became open to the concept over the summer as an alternative to removing IE from Windows for the European market.

At the time, the idea appealed to Opera CEO Hakon Wium Lie, who declared, "It's a happy day for us. We certainly think the ballot is good news and think it will give users a genuine choice." But Mozilla Corp. CEO John Lilly adopted a more wait-and-see approach, saying he wanted to see the specifics before reacting.

EU officials asked rival browser makers among others for their input on Microsoft's proposal, sending them questionnaires over the summer, according to the report.

After checking out the ballot screen and the proposal from Microsoft, the European Union for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), which includes Opera Software ASA as one of its members, said it presents too many hurdles for the average user.

According to Sunday's Wall Street Journal (subscription required), ECIS and Opera attorney Thomas Vinje said that selecting another browser requires "the user to confirm and answer threatening and confusing warnings and questions. Microsoft has cunningly found a way to accept the Commission's suggestion of a ballot screen, but to do so in a way that will be entirely ineffective."

In response to an e-mail from CNET, Vinje said that Microsoft's current ballot screen falls short of having any effect on competition since it fails to offer users a seamless and unbiased choice of browser. However, he felt the problem could be fixed with some trivial changes.

He said that despite choosing an alternate browser through the ballot, Internet Explorer would remain turned on and that only an additional procedure would allow the user to deactivate IE. So the ballot screen is simply installing another browser in addition to IE rather than offering users a choice of a single browser.

Adding an alternative browser is unnecessarily complex, according to Vinje. The ballot screen, set up as a Web page in IE, requires many unnecessary clicks, displays threatening warnings, and poses confusing questions before another browser can be downloaded and set up. He believes users will be discouraged from selecting an alternative browser.

The ECIS feels that a powerful, yet trivial change to Microsoft's proposal is needed: the ballot screen must be designed to offer users a seamless choice in which a single click for an alternative browser is sufficient to download and install that browser, without warnings or questions, and without leaving Internet Explorer active and visible.

"Choosing an alternative browser must not be more cumbersome than choosing Internet Explorer," said Vinje, "which can only be accomplished in a real ballot screen application--not in a Web page."

Countering with suggestions
Mozilla has said that a ballot screen is a good step, but as currently proposed, it's not good enough. A blog written August 18 by Mozilla's general counsel, Harvey Anderson, examined Microsoft's specific language and functionality in the ballot screen proposals. Anderson addressed several concerns and countered with his own suggestions.

Anderson praised Microsoft's effort to not include links or shortcuts to IE inside Office 2007 but said it should be expanded to include all Microsoft software. "If Microsoft applications need to launch a browser, they should only launch the user's default browser," he wrote. "The proposal should be modified such that this provision applies to all Microsoft desktop software, and certainly to the already announced Office 2010."

Anderson also expressed concerns about the ballot screen itself, saying IE could automatically become the default browser in a number of scenarios. It could end up as the default if the user ignores the ballot or can't figure out how to use it. It could also wind up the default if the user runs into problems trying to install one of the other browsers. But in this case, his only suggestion was that the ballot require the user to make a choice.

Finally, Anderson said that the ballot doesn't educate the user as to what a Web browser is or how each browser differs. "The ballot should introduce the user to at least a simple definition of what a browser is before offering the user a choice in browsers," he wrote. "It should probably go one step further and explain that the different browsers compete for superiority in the areas of ease of use, security, and customizability. "

Other voices have chimed in to criticize the ballot screen. Mitchell Baker, chair of the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation, detailed her concerns in a blog on August 17. Despite the user's ability to choose a different default browser, Baker said she believes IE would still have the upper hand with a prominent position on the Windows desktop and Taskbar.

"Choosing another browser as a 'default' does NOT mean that the other browser takes the place of IE," stated Baker in her blog. "For example, the IE logo ("shortcut") still remains unchanged on the desktop. The shortcut/logo of the browser the user has selected does not replace this, it is added elsewhere. As a result, the familiar location remains IE, not the user's choice."

Baker also expressed concern that the average nontechnical user may have trouble navigating the different screens required to choose a different browser. She said she believes the ballot screen only helps users download alternative browsers and should be designed to help them install, open, and make other browsers the default. "As proposed, we expect to see many people who want other browsers get lost in the process before they actually succeed in making an alternative browser their main browsing tool," she wrote.

The EU had hoped to wrap up this final phase of its investigation into IE, especially since all parties have agreed at least in principal to the idea of a ballot screen. But the competition could stall final approval if Microsoft is forced to wrestle with the finer points of the complaints.

Vinje believes that Microsoft only superficially accepted the EU's suggested remedy and that the ballot screen as designed does not restore competition. He said the EU will be careful to make sure that any proposed solution would be effective. And in this case, the ECIS would be surprised if Microsoft's proposal were accepted without "significant modifications."

On Tuesday, Microsoft spokesman Kevin Kutz said: "In July, we made a new proposal to address EU competition law issues related to Internet Explorer and interoperability. The Commission welcomed our proposal and announced it would assess its effectiveness. We continue to look forward to the next steps in this process."

Requests for comments from Opera and Mozilla were not immediately returned.

Update 12:15 p.m. PDT: Added comments from attorney Thomas Vinje.

The average Internet download speed in the U.S. is slower than that in 27 other countries, according to a new report by the Communications Workers of America.

Web surfing in the U.S. averages around 5.1 megabits per second (mbps), lagging far behind top-ranked South Korea, where speeds average more than 20 mbps. In 2007, the U.S. download speed was 3.5 mbps, inching up only 1.6 mbps since then. At that rate, notes the report, it will take the U.S. 15 years to catch up with South Korea.

(Credit: Communications Workers of America)

The CWA's 2009 Report on Internet Speeds also compared Internet performance throughout all 50 U.S. states.

The report discovered that Internet users who live in the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic regions enjoy faster speeds than those in the South or West. The five fastest states included Delaware (9.9 mbps), Rhode Island (9.8 mbps), New Jersey (8.9 mbps), Massachusetts (8.6 mbps), and New York (8.4 mbps).

States on the slow end were Mississippi (3.7 mbps), South Carolina (3.6 mbps), Arkansas (3.1 mbps), Idaho (2.6 mbps), and Alaska (2.3 mbps).

"Every American should have affordable access to high-speed Internet, no matter where they live. This is essential to economic growth and will help maintain our global competitiveness," said Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America. "Unfortunately, fragmented government programs and uneven private sector responses to build out Internet access have left a digital divide across the country."

The U.S. is the only country without a national policy to promote high-speed Internet access, noted the report. But that may be about to change.

Signed earlier this year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes a provision for a national broadband plan by spring of next year and grants of $7.2 billion to bring high-speed Internet to rural and remote locations across the country.

That's a step in the right direction, said the CWA. But the organization would like to see more specific improvements.

In the report, the CWA called for such measures as an Internet infrastructure with enough capacity for 10 mbps downstream and 1 mbps upstream by 2010, tax incentives for businesses to provide faster speeds, and grants to provide computers and broadband equipment to low-income households.

The 2009 report was compiled using data from the CWA's latest Speed Matters test, which measures the time it takes to communicate with the nearest server on the Net. Gathered from May 2008 to May 2009, the test tracked the speed of more than 413,000 Internet users.

ICANN has won a major battle over the abusive tactic of domain tasting, said the organization in a report released Wednesday.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is responsible for managing and doling out Internet domain names.

It's not an easy job. And making it harder was a scheme used by some registrars known as domain tasting. Someone would buy up lots of domain names, try them out, and then get rid of the unprofitable ones, all without losing any money. As long as the registrar dumped the domains within the five-day grace period, known as the Add Grace Period (AGP), a full refund was given.

Designed by ICANN to help registrars who made errors in their domain names, the grace period refund was quickly abused by Web sites that populated their domains with lots of ad links that redirected visitors to other sites. It also led to the unavailability of popular names that were scooped up by domain tasters.

In June 2008, ICANN decided to act. The organization stopped refunding the 20-cent annual fee for each registered deleted domain name beyond a certain limit.

But since 20 cents per domain wasn't much of a penalty, ICANN got tougher. The organization began charging registrars $6.75 (the cost of a current .org domain) or higher for each deleted domain beyond a certain limit during the grace period.

In its report, ICANN used the following example to illustrate the policy change:
Someone registers 1,000 domain names and gets rid of 300 of them during the grace period. Under the policy, the registrar is allowed up to 70 deletions. The remaining 230 cost 20 cents each for a total of $46. Plus, each excessive deletion costs the registrar at least $6.75. Dumping 230 domain names rings up a bill of $1,552.50 for a grand total of $1,598.50.

ICANN said the new policy resulted in a 99.7 percent decrease in domain deletions from June 2008 to April 2009.

(Credit: ICANN)

The Chinese government may be waving a white flag in response to all the criticism of its Green Dam filtering software.

Beijing won't force the widespread installation of the Internet filtering program on PCs and other consumer products, China's industry minister, Li Yizhong, said Thursday, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

In June, China said it would require that the Green Dam software be installed on all computers sold in the country by both domestic and foreign manufacturers. Since later that month, China has been delaying a permanent decision on whether to demand the software be preinstalled on all PCs.

According to the Wall Street Journal story, Li said that the intention was for the software to be installed voluntarily by individuals or their parents. He stressed that the program is intended to protect children from pornography and other harmful content and that attempts to politicize the issue or "attack China's Internet management system" are fanciful and irresponsible, the Journal reported.

China will still move forward with installing Green Dam in schools and Internet cafes across the country.

Since China announced the requirement of Green Dam, the software had been criticized on several fronts, putting pressure on the Chinese government to re-examine its decision.

In addition to protecting children from pornography, the filter was seen as a further attempt at censoring content objectionable to the Chinese government, also creating potential trade barriers and other headaches for PC manufacturers.

Experts also said the program is poorly developed and unsafe and would leave PCs vulnerable to hackers. One exploit popped up in late June that would allow attacks on computers outfitted with Green Dam.

In a reversal on Friday, Microsoft said it is now open to allowing users in Europe to select competing browsers in Windows 7.

Essentially, Microsoft is offering to put into Windows a way for consumers to easily install a rival to Internet Explorer. PC makers, as they can today, could still install a rival browser and could also disable Internet Explorer, if they choose.

"Under our new proposal, among other things, European consumers who buy a new Windows PC with Internet Explorer set as their default browser would be shown a 'ballot screen' from which they could, if they wished, easily install competing browsers from the Web," Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said in a statement.

As first reported by CNET News earlier this month, Microsoft had hoped to comply with Europe's objections to the inclusion of a browser in Windows simply by removing the browser entirely from Windows 7. However, the European Union indicated that such a move might not satisfy its concerns.

Despite the rise of open source within the federal government, Mozilla's Firefox has yet to gain an official nod from the Department of State, at least according to a recent question-and-answer session that Secretary Hillary Clinton and Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy hosted last week, with an ironic back-and-forth on Firefox kicked off by government employee Jim Finkle:

Finkle: Can you please let the staff use an alternative Web browser called Firefox? I just--(applause)--I just moved to the State Department from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and was surprised that State doesn't use this browser. It was approved for the entire intelligence community, so I don't understand why State can't use it. It's a much safer program. Thank you. (Applause.)

Clinton: Well, apparently, there's a lot of support for this suggestion. (Laughter.) I don't know the answer. Pat, do you know the answer? (Laughter.)

Kennedy: The answer is, at the moment, it's an expense question. We can --

Finkle: It's free. (Laughter.)

Kennedy: Nothing is free. (Laughter.) It's a question of the resources to manage multiple systems. It is something we're looking at. And thanks to the secretary, there is a significant increase in the 2010 budget request that's pending for what is called the Capital Investment Fund, by which we fund our information technology operations. With the secretary's continuing pushing, we're hoping to get that increase in the Capital Investment Fund. And with those additional resources, we will be able to add multiple programs to it.

Yes, you're correct; it's free, but it has to be administered, the patches have to be loaded. It may seem small, but when you're running a worldwide operation and trying to push, as the secretary rightly said, out fobs and other devices, you're caught in the terrible bind of triage of trying to get the most out that you can, but knowing you can't do everything at once.

Under Secretary Kennedy makes a good point: deploying Firefox isn't free, in terms of administration. But then, nothing is, including Internet Explorer. The real question is whether Firefox is easier and more cost-effective to support than IE. Mozilla has made some recent moves to make it such. We'll see if the government is listening.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

Microsoft has had "preliminary talks" with European Union officials with the hopes of settling several regulatory probes, according to a Bloomberg report.

According to the report, Microsoft is aiming to settle the matters before EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes steps down at the end of the year. One issue is the EU's well-publicized concern over the bundling of Internet Explorer into Windows, while the other pertains to Office software, Bloomberg said.

The EU earlier this year issued a preliminary finding that the inclusion of a browser in the operating system violated European antitrust law and has been exploring a variety of potential remedies, including forcing Microsoft to distribute rival browsers with its operating system.

Last month, CNET News reported that Microsoft was planning to ship Windows 7 in Europe only in versions that had the browser feature removed, aiming to sidestep regulatory action. However, both the EU and rivals issued concern over that approach.

As for the Office inquiry, Microsoft has said it was opened in January 2008 and resulted from complaints filed by a trade association of Microsoft's competitors.

An EU spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report of settlement talks and a Microsoft representative declined to comment. Both Microsoft and an EU spokesman declined to comment in the Bloomberg report.