International Internet . . .or not?

Since the dawn of the internet,domain names have been dominated by Latin characters. This has severely restricted internet accessibility to those that are not familiar with and did not know how to convert their domain names into Latin characters. Recently, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has made a decision to allow domain names to be registered with non-Latin characters. It is generally believed that when Latin characters dominated domain names, that it restricted non-English speakers' access to the internet. Many are hailing ICANN's decision as an internationalization of the internet. Domain names will soon be allowed in Arabic, Chinese and Russian characters. Andrey Vorobiev, the RU-Center public relations department manager, is quoted as saying : "Now that all countries can write their URL addresses in their own languages, this decision is an important step for the internationalization of the Internet. The days have passed when people who don't understand Latin alphabet cannot use the Internet"(Tong, X. 2009). Currently, these changes are affecting local country codes (.ru for Russia), and over time top level domain names (.com, .net, .org) will be affected as well. China and Thailand are beginning to introduce workarounds that will allow people to access websites in their own language (BBC News). I think the main question becomes: how will this affect internet accessibility for webpages in different countries? How will this affect people that do not speak Russian, Chinese, and Arabic, and do not have keyboards with these characters?

I think it is ironic that this change is coming after the US government loosened its control over ICANN a month ago. ICANN was initially developed by the US government as a non-profit corporation to oversee a large variety of Internet related tasks. Last month, ICANN signed an agreement that gives it autonomy and puts it under the scrutiny of the "internet community" (BBC News). It seems interesting that now that ICANN is not dominated by English speakers and is taking the needs of the internet community into account, that it is choosing to make the internet more accessible for non-English speakers.

Sources:
Internet Addresses Set for Change (2009, October 30). Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk
Tong, X. (2009, November 5). Russian expert: Non-Latin character names key to Internet internationalization. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://news.xinhuanet.com
Whitney, L. (2009, October 30). ICANN approves non-Latin domain Names. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://news.cnet.com

Democracy on the Internet?

We all love Democracy right? Its one of those things you love without fully understanding what it is, like freedom or hot dogs. So what does it mean when the Council of Europe starts calling for more democracy on the web? This week the Council of Europe will be holding the 2009 Internet Governance Forum in Egypt. While it would be beyond the scope of this blog to point out the irony of holding a forum on e-democracy in a country with a sham democratic system of government, it would behoove us to discuss what e-democracy is.

The internet is recognized to be the means by which everything comes to pass. It can be said that a large number of people in the world effectively live on the internet. Their financial transactions, social interaction, entertainment, learning and working are all done on the internet. So like every aspect of human life, the internet needs to be controlled and it needs to be done in a way that will jive with current governmental/ economic setups, so what else but a democracy?

What does this mean? Are we voting on internet content? e-democracy, according to the Council of Europe, means equal access to content and equal opportunity to produce content. The internet then is an extension of "freedom of expression" or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" The country of France went so far as to decide that internet access is a fundamental human right. But will the internet become intrinsically linked to our understanding of democracy?

So what do you think? Is the internet a fundamental human right? What does democracy on the web mean to you? Is democracy the best way to govern the web? Should national governments decide how the internet should be run? Should only national governments with democratic systems be allowed to decide? What about China, who currently hosts the highest number of internet users in the world? What should they talk about at the 2009 Internet Governance Forum?

What Do You Know About Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality can be broadly defined as the" idea that the government should mandate that ISP's act as dumb pipes;"(Singel,2009) allowing internet traffic to flow freely without regard to what is contained in the data packets. There have been many opponents to this idea, people that want to see the internet broken into a tiered service where some websites or services are given a priority. The ALA and the FCC both believe that creating a tiered service would greatly hamper businesses and democracy. In a nutshell, opponents of network neutrality believe that companies should be allowed to pay a fee that would allow their websites to become more readily available on the Internet. As of September 2009, the FCC has instituted rules that ensure that the internet remains a neutral and free flowing network. The main opponents of these rules have been Comcast, Verizon and AT&T. Companies like Comcast want to restrict and slow down internet traffic based on the type of traffic. Thankfully the FCC has decided that they not only want to support Net Neutrality but they are also going to expand the rules to include portable devices/ data connections. Before September, there were no official rules that protected net neutrality; instead there were four guiding principles: "network operators cannot prevent users from accessing lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non harmful devices to the network" (Reardon, 2009). If you are interested in viewing the FCC commission meeting click on the link below:
http://www.fcc.gov/openmeetings/ocm-09-29-2009.html#full



Sources:
Reardon, M. (2009) Amazon, Facebook, and Google back FCC on Net Neutrality. www.news.cnet.com
Singel, R. (2009) FCC Backs Net Neutrality-And Then Some www.wired.com

Private Libraries?

I once visited the Huntington Gardens in Pasadena, California. It is a beautiful setting featuring not only the gardens, but also art collections and a library. But could I visit the library? No. I was not a faculty member or a doctoral student or a scholar. I simply wanted to look.


Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I did not actually try to make my way into the library. I had checked the requirements on the website and discovered that I did not meet the criteria. (I wonder if they would now make an exception for a LIS student.)


So why this odd mix of emotions in my head? I didn’t have any desire to see anything in particular, I didn’t have research to do – I was just a curious man with a desire to see a beautiful building and its collection. As a private library, The Huntington is free to create its own rules for admittance. It just seems odd that it should be titled a library. Libraries now have the connotation that they are institutions which are free and accessible to all. Would a name change to “The Huntington Collection” make it less appealing to me?


The name Huntington Library was most likely applied to the collection when it was still the private library of Henry Huntington; however, the semantic value of the word library makes me believe that I should have the right to visit. Change it to The Huntington Collection, and I am more willing to accept that access may be restricted. Change the name to The Huntington Archives and I then see accessibility as open, but I would also accept that parts of the collection may be restricted. I find it fascinating the amount of power that simple words can have!


So, should private libraries like The Huntington be called libraries? I don’t know that it is a very sensitive topic or even something that anyone would devote a great deal of time arguing. As a linguist, I find issues of meaning to be very interesting and I often wonder if I am alone in my curiosity.


I’ll get into that library some day.

Finland Rules!

My favorite foreign nation has always had a leading role in technological advancement. Finland has quietly progressed on the technology front for years with very little fanfare. I moved to Finland 10 years ago. Before arriving in the country, I had no idea that the Finns were in the forefront of the revolution. I didn't even realize that Nokia is a Finnish company - it certainly sounds Japanese. I see that as one of Finland's main appeals. It is like Japan without the bright lights and self-cleaning toilets. And the latest news out of Finland adds another layer of excitement.

Finland has passed a law making broadband Internet access a legal right of all citizens. By July 2010, all citizens will have a guaranteed right to a 1Mb broadband connection. Naturally a country with only 5 million people will have an easier time implementing such a policy. In the US with our population of 300 million, a guaranteed right to Internet access is pretty unlikely.

Critics may argue that Internet access is no more a right than a car or a nice pair of shoes. I agree. It is not an inalienable right which should be added to various constitutions; however, when the access becomes easier to grant, when many parts of the country already have the infrastructure in place and when most of the population is savvy enough to take advantage of the service, then I don't see the harm.

When I lived in Finland, close to 90% of people had cell phones. Again, this was 10 years ago. That number may seem common now, but 10 years ago in the US, cell phones were still an expensive novelty. Finland seems to silently test ideas and set trends. Perhaps in 10 years, guaranteed broadband laws will not be breaking news.

NTIA announces first states to receive funding for broadband mapping

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) recently announced the first states to receive funds for a broadband mapping program. California, Indiana, North Carolina and Vermont will all receive the funds as part of the Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP).

The plan is to bring grants to each state and territory of the US, as well as the District of Columbia. These four states had the best applications and NTIA is reviewing the rest. The awarded funds will be used to build a national broadband map which will be useful in several ways:

The national broadband map will publicly display the geographic areas where broadband service is available; the technology used to provide the service; the speeds of the service; and broadband service availability at public schools, libraries, hospitals, colleges, universities, and public buildings.

Part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed earlier this year, BTOP will be implemented by the Federal Communications Commission in consultation with the NTIA. By February 17, 2010, the FCC must develop a plan to bring broadband capability to everyone in the United States.

Goals of the BTOP are to:

1. Close the broadband gap in America, focusing in particular on ensuring that unserved and underserved areas – whether rural, urban or in between – have access to modern communications services and the benefits those services offer for education, high-value jobs, quality health care and more.

2. Bring the maximum broadband benefits possible to our schools, libraries, community centers, and medical centers, as well as to our most vulnerable populations and geographic areas.

3. Improve broadband service for public safety users.

4. Help stimulate broadband demand, economic growth, and job creation.

Part of the plan is to create a Broadband Map, which will be publicly accessible, and regularly updated. The deadline for the map is February 17, 2011, and officials expect to have an early version of the map up by February 2010. The map will enable the general public to learn where and what quality of broadband is available, and help businesses decide where to invest.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $4.7 billion for the project.

In a press release from the White House, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said, “The Commerce Department’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program will reach the last frontiers of America’s information landscape, and the investments it makes in inner-city neighborhoods and rural communities will spur innovation and pave the way for private capital to follow.”

More awards will be announced throughout the fall.

These programs will help increase access to information for all Americans, whether it will enable them to use broadband in their homes or provide access at public libraries. Hopefully the program stays on track and once the plan is developed, it can be acted upon.

Facts on Broadband:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/highspeedinternet.html

See what projects have been proposed:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/applications/search.cfm

Bless you Tom Curley!

     The CEO of the Associated Press testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee recently about the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) and it's monsterous collection of loopholes that it contains.  His first point, which comes to no surprise to me, is that the Office of Government Information Services(OGIS), established by the Open Government Act of 2007 to ensure that agencies compliance to FOIA, is overworked and underfunded. Side note:  It took almost two years to get OGIS up and running.

     It is no secret that Federal agencies have fought every step of the way to keep information out of public eyes.  If there is one truth in Washington it is: If you can't kill the bill, put tons of loopholes in it, and if that doesn't work, ignore it and hope no one enforces it.  I already knew that the FOIA contained a list of exemptions that allowed certain kinds of information to be kept from the public despite any FOIA requests that may come through. Curley, however, notes that there are even more loopholes that appear to be in the works (I'll let him speak for himself here):

"I’d like to focus in my remaining few minutes on the fourth and final point -- that so-called b(3) amendments to legislation are severely undermining FOIA’s ability to preserve the public’s access to government activities and information.

As you know, b(3)s are provisions embedded in other laws that put certain very specific kinds of information beyond FOIA’s reach. They are often inserted with little or no discussion and no public notice, and they now constitute a very large black hole in our open records law. The Sunshine in Government Initiative found about 250 b(3)’s on the books, and about 140 of these show up in agency denial letters in any given year.

In many cases these special exemptions protect information already covered under one or more of the other exemptions in FOIA’s section B. In other cases they are creating whole new categories of information not subject to disclosure."

Black hole indeed..

     Yes, I understand that there are some rare times when information should be protected, but what's the point of claiming to have a transparent government when the law supporting it is shot full of holes?  It's lip service pure and simple.  Nonetheless, it's nice to see that members of the press are not giving up on making our multi-headed behemoth of a Federal Government more transparent, even while agencies and politicians cry and scream, albeit behind closed doors.  This is far to important of an issue to let up now.