Archive for the ‘Internet futures’ Category

Sharm Internet Governance Forum Workshops

February 14, 2010

Thanks to the great work of Imagining the Internet, I am happy to be able to post these links to the three workshops I was involved with at IGF 2009, along with summaries and videos. Thanks Janna and team for your excellent work – and thanks also to all the organisers and participants in the various workshops.

Net  Neutrality and Open Internet

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_egypt/network_neutrality.xhtml

Also includes Robert Pepper, VP global technology policy, Cisco; Thomas Lenard, president, Technology Policy Institute; Emmanuel Edet, national ICT Development Agency, Nigeria; Jacquelyn Ruff, VP global policy and regulatory affairs, Verizon, Vladimir Radunovic, DiploFoundation; David Gross, former U.S. information technology ambassador.

Internet Core Values

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_egypt/core_values.xhtml

Also includes Daniel Dardailler, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C); Alun Michael, member of Parliament, United Kingdom; Nathaniel James, director of OneWebDay;  Lynn St. Amour, president/CEO, Internet Society; Markus Kummer, executive director of IGF; Alejandro Pisanty, longtime ICANN and Internet Society leader, National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Transationalisation of the Internet

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_egypt/transnationalization.xhtml

Also includes Wolfgang Kleinwächter, professor of Internet policy, University of Aarhus, Denmark; Robert Kahn, chairman, CEO and president of the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, U.S. and Internet co-founder; Anja Kovacs, IT for Change, India; Jeremy Malcolm, Internet and open source lawyer for Consumers International; Robert Pepper, vice president of global policy and government affairs for Cisco; Janna Anderson, Imagining the Internet, Elon University and Pew Internet Project.

Advertisements

Internet Governance Forum continued

November 1, 2009

This year, the Internet Governance Forum will meet in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, in early November. This is year four of this interesting United Nations sponsored event, and the first to be held in the wake of increased independence for ICANN.

There is a lot on the program – here’s just a summary of some of the sessions I am personally involved in and some preliminary thoughts.

Civil Society meeting – 7pm, November 14. This will be my last civil society meeting as a Co-ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus, the main coordinating body for non government sector input into the forum. It’s been a difficult year in several respects, and I glad to see my term of office come to an end.  The meeting is important, particularly for newcomers to get to meet their colleagues before the meeting proper gets underway.

Workshop on Transnationalisation of Internet Governance – where to from here? 9.30am, November 15. I’m really looking forward to this session right at the start of the meeting proper, which I will be chairing. After expert overview from Drs Wolfgang Kleinwachter (Giganet) and Janna Anderson (Imagining the Internet and Pew Internet Survey), we have a great panel to respond to issues raised, including Dr Jeremy Malcolm, Dr Elena Pavan by remote participation, Robert Pepper from Cisco, and also Robert Kahn, acknowledged by most people as  the co-founder of the Internet with Vint Cerf. We are looking to a good exchange of viewpoints here and with the audience as well – in the wake of increased independence for ICANN and some greater emphasis on the multistakeholder model, what will this mean for areas such as cybercrime, and for other bodies such as ITU?  Many questions here, it should be a great scene-setter.

Workshop on Core Values, November 16, 2pm. I’m looking forward to speaking at this one, with a great range of colleagues. This identification of core values is important – I am certain the technology will continue to change, but what is it that has made the Internet useful that we need to ensure we maintain amidst the changes? This should be an interesting workshop.

Net Neutrality Workshop, 2pm, November 18. I’ll be speaking here with a group with a wide range of interests in this subject, from activists through to network managers and national regulators. Ive written before on the confusion that surrounds this debate – I am looking forward to being able to say a few things from a consumer perspective about what we really need to achieve here.

And apart from these, I am looking forward to seeing old friends and socialising, and getting a chance to see the pyramids en route home (via Beijing of all places).

It will be interesting to see how the meeting goes. IGF has had a great influence on the Internet, bringing together stakeholders from business, government and non governmental organisations, to get a good exchange of viewpoints on where the Internet needs governance structures. To date its achievements have been facilitating a dialogue between all the key players – perhaps that is all it will ever achieve – and if thats the case, it has still been worthwhile.

Time to stop talking about net neutrality

February 12, 2009

It’s time we stopped talking about network neutrality and redescribed what we are trying to achieve here. The term has been distorted greatly to become a series of arguments about traffic shaping, network management, carrier profitability, and endless nit-picking technical arguments. This is distorting some important matters about the future of the Internet and only causing confusion. The term has lost its meaning.

And, in fact, there probably never was network neutrality. A few recent postings on the Internet History list have shown that, even in the pre-commercial Internet days of the NSF-Net, engineers were shaping traffic in order to give priority to the interactive telnet application (a precursor to world wide web) over the email and newsgroup traffic. Sensible bandwidth management.

For most of us, the reason for getting involved here was to protect a fundamental principle – the right for users to control which websites they can visit, which access methods, which applications they use, rather than this being forced on them by a carrier or other parties for their commercial gains. If this principle is lost, and we end up with something like a PAY TV model of Internet access where you pay to access certain sites, or content providers pay a premium to get fast access from carriers, something fundamentally important about the Internet will be lost.

The substance here is vitally important, but the terminology has lost its meaning. Perhaps we need to alk about equitable access to carriage for content providers, equitable access to content and applications for end users, and similar principles. It’s important to get this debate back on track.

Normal

0

false

false

false

/* Style Definitions */

table.MsoNormalTable

{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;

mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;

mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;

mso-style-noshow:yes;

mso-style-parent:””;

mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;

mso-para-margin:0cm;

mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;

mso-pagination:widow-orphan;

font-size:10.0pt;

font-family:”Times New Roman”;

mso-ansi-language:#0400;

mso-fareast-language:#0400;

mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Emerging Issues in Internet Governance

December 10, 2008

Below are my edited opening remarks from the Plenary Session on Emerging Issues at Hyderabad, India, December 6 2008

Thank you very much, and good morning, everybody. I think it helps in examining subjects like this to pull ourselves away from our immediate environment and, as best we can, look into the future, and see if we can identify some of the issues and some of the factors that we are going to address. So, to me, the next billion users of the Internet is going to happen, and happen very rapidly. It will be over perhaps by the time we meet again. But the last billion, well, it’s going to take some time. The first billion took 20 years, as was pointed out. I think by the time we get to the last billion, we have some order to difficulties and that might take us out another 20 years.

So in order to do so, I’d like to welcome you all to IGF 2028. The IGF 2028 meeting is taking place in Reykjavik, Iceland. I’ll explain a little bit why we’re there later. I’m participating virtually from Australia for various reasons. And I’m on high-definition conference link from Australia, being able to participate from there. So thank you for the opportunity. The other piece of news I must relate 20 years enhance is, Australia has just beaten India in the cricket for the first time in 20 years. So that is a great thrill for me. Thank you. When I’m talking about the last billion, I should say that we — that there are some people who are, obviously — we’re not talking about the last billion of the world’s population. I think we can leave out everybody who arrived yesterday and/or probably everybody under the age before three. But we do start to pick up at the age of about three or four, as I know from my grandchildren, who hop on the net and play games. So we do have three-and four-year-old users. I guess there are also a number of people who simply don’t want to have anything to do with the Internet. So that’s okay, too, I’m excluding them. I’m including in the last billion people who see there is advantage for their family, for their children, to be connected here and all the advantages that other people have from the Internet, they want them. So they’re in and we’re trying to deal with those.

So let’s get of profile of where they are, as best we can. And let me say that quite a few of this last billion are in developed countries. They are in rural pockets, which have not been connected and are very hard to connect, in countries like Australia it could be the remote indigenous communities. Who are amongst the last billion. So we certainly have pockets still in developing countries. And we have urban poor in developed countries who also will be part of that last billion. But to a large degree, the last billion will be those who are slower in adopting, at this point in time, will still be so. And that will be the case. So there are areas on the planet that will need higher concentration than others in order to bring the equity that does derive from all of us from having access to this thing. Quite a few of the last billion won’t be able to read or write. That won’t be a problem for them because a lot of the uses they will have will be around gaming or around downloading, downloading videos, downloading music, these sort of factors. So that’s not a problem but it is an interesting factor because then the tool for literacy that exists with the Internet becomes a very interesting thing that starts to come to the fore. So these are the things that are happening. And the other factor that comes in with the last billion that’s very interesting for us is multilingual. You ain’t seen nothing yet. But the time we get to the last billion and some of the languages we have to deal with, it starts to become quite complex.

Let’s talk about the devices we use with the last billion, and very few of them are going to be computers. Most of them are going to be mobile devices. We are going to be in a mobile world. And some of these devices will be mobile phones, some will be what we used to call PDAs and all sorts of smaller devices, but the computer won’t be amongst the dominant devices at that point in time. That raises fairly interesting issues, and we will come back to those as we start to talk about infrastructure and so on. But as I said before, the dominant — some of the dominant media we use at this point in time will not be the dominant Internet media with the last billion. The concentration will be more towards what our kids do, which is the downloading, the texting, the games. All these things come into this space. There’s a ramification of these things with mobile and we will get to it. Let me talk about some of the issues and try and structure this a little bit. And I am not going to paint the whole picture, but perhaps raise some questions and some ideas which are a part of the picture for you to fill in yourself and see how you think we ought to address some of these things.

Now, why are we in Reykjavik, Iceland? We are in Iceland because Iceland is the fastest growing Internet economy on the planet. Iceland, the basket case economically of the great depression of 2008 has jumped ahead because of the major project under way to create the carbon neutral Internet. Iceland’s vast geothermal resources have been put to use, and major server farms — in fact, most server farms in Europe, most major locations in Europe, a lot of government data centers in Europe have all relocated into Reykjavk to get near the geothermal thing. Other areas of the world with good renewable energy resources have also jumped ahead, too. So there is a great new economy and a great number of new possibilities arising from this. Some of the other features that we’ll see is most of us will have our biodegradable mobile phones. We have started with the carbon neutral Internet to start to address the major problems of junk. And I know one of my fellow panelists is going to raise this issue later. In getting to this carbon neutral Internet we have started to create a vastly different architecture and start to really use the way that the Internet works in a vastly different way.

Let’s talk about the infrastructure for this. So you might think that usage will probably be about six times what it would be at the moment. That would be nice. One of the factors that’s interesting to look at is the high end users of Internet bandwidth at this point of time are using 10,000 times the bandwidth of the normal — of the low-end Internet user. So there’s a vast discrepancy. And what is going to happen is more of us are going to move to this bigger group, the 10,000 — 10,000 times normal usage pattern of Internet usage, and this will happen more and more as particularly in developing countries. So I don’t think we will have anything like 6 times. We might be looking at 60,000 times the current capacity is needed. I would say conservatively we are definitely looking at 10,000 times the current capacity by 2028. That has a number of ramifications for the way we do things. I mentioned video. We ever not just talking about the recreational video and YouTube downloads, we are talking medical video, the high-image conferencing which allows me to participate from Australia. These sort of things are all part of this too. This creates a number of issues. One of the issues here is shared infrastructure. Is everybody going to roll out, ever telco, every ISP, going to roll out parallel infrastructure to across every country to try and do this or are we going to look at shared infrastructure models to create efficiency and to create this global network which we need. How are we going to cope with this vastly bigger issue?

And what’s this going to look like? Let me give you a couple of ideas. First of all, we are looking at the mobile Internet to a very large degree. And as I say, the dominant use will be mobile. Now, back in 2008, the mobile device was a strange hybrid. It used non-Internet standards when it connected by voice, but some of them did, but in fact some of them, the cheaper ones went over to what is called Internet standards to use this and then there was Internet standards for dial-up and other standards being introduced and there was quite a bit of mess. Now, I think this eventually, to deal with the expansion of all of this, led rise to the new standards institution which was created in about 2010 which was the IETFTU. The IETFTU looked to harmonize all the standards which were going on in the Internet area and telephony area to create this big globally connected network. The major work of the IETFTU was the workshop which was trying to reduce the number of standards to less than 10,000. And this was consuming a lot of energy as people started to try to get this to a workable number of standards. However, there was the new organization which has just arisen and I ask you to think about how strong it was and this is the III. This is the Internet intersect initiative. This was sort of like the WWW. They figured that the IETFTU were never going to cope. The IETFTU was far too old, far too staid. The IETFTU didn’t get it, and a lot of innovators have moved to the III. The III was looking at a clean-slate approach, and it had taken place, and many of the users were starting to use the III standards and the new III network. The III network had all these wonderful applications and became the platform for innovation because the other platform had got to the stage where innovation was becoming more and more difficult. And some of the people there remembered the thoughts of Robert Kahn at the IGF way back in 2007 who started to say the Internet standards and the Internet standards body are starting to ossify and become not capable of handling new areas of innovation. So that was an interesting fact that came in.

So what does our governance look like in 2028? Well, it would defy all known management logic if the current structures in their current form were able to cope. They won’t. By 2028, things will have been changed. Things will be moving very fast. I think the new motto which, because of the pace of all of this adoption, will be if it’s about to break, fix it. And that will be the dominant motto by which we start to look at the emerging governance models. One of the interesting questions around this is going to be jurisdiction. It will still be an issue. And we are living in lawyers’ paradise. Internet is the lawyers’ paradise where various countries all think they have jurisdiction of various thoughts over the same domain name. Where privacy issues and sort of issues as to who should do what are all out there. We have industry self-regulatory regimes start to go spring up, but governments are also, in their own way, setting up their regimes. Do we have an industry self-regulatory regime dealing with most of these issues or do we have a government regime separately? What is the structure that is going to deal with these tremendous emerging issues around intellectual property and privacy and individual rights and human rights and the content that’s offensive in one country but not offensive in another. How are we going to deal with all of those. So as I say, I think we are in lawyers’ paradise as we start to deal with these jurisdiction issues.

That’s about it, I think. I hope 2028 provokes you to start to think. If I just summarize that very quickly, the areas where I think we have issues is how we deal with climate change and environment issues, how we deal with infrastructure, how we deal with access, how we deal with ossification and standards and how we deal with governments as we go forward. Very interesting, and I hope I provoked some thinking.

Intervention in Hyderabad following Chinese Govt comments on root zone

December 10, 2008

What follows is my comments at the Hyderabad meeting of the Internet Governance Forum following the Chinese Government’s comments as regards the root zone authorisation role continued by the US Government .

I again want to take up the comments from the government of China, and to say thank you very much for those comments.  And it is not only governments that will agree with what you’re talking about.
Many of us feel that the root zone authorization process should be changed.  And I think you’ll find support from that broadly in civil society, you’ll find support for that in many other cases as well.
But adding to that, I think we should thank the U.S. government for the role it played taking on this role in the beginning of the Internet.
There was a time when this function was necessary.  There was a time when if this function had not existed, takeover by business would have been something that would have been not in the best interests of the growth of this.  So there should be thanks to the U.S. for the role, the legacy role, I must say, that they did carry when the Internet was very young and needed such a role.
I’m in the country of Mahatma Gandhi, and I do know what Mahatma Gandhi would say about a foreign government continuing to carry a role when things have grown up and we want to do it differently now.  Where there will be difference is what should happen instead of this unilateral control mechanism.
Most of us in civil society would like to see this carried on as a — perhaps a function of ICANN, which gives us reasonable multistakeholder input.
So, in fact, we can look at that particular function as absolutely unnecessary.
If ICANN has made a decision, having consulted on a multistakeholder basis, there is no need for any authority to override that decision, because everybody has been consulted.
So, yes, I would definitely agree with the government of China, this is an issue.  We should discuss it.  Change is necessary.  But I would see the change is to abandon the legacy function.  It is no longer needed.
Thank you very much.

The Transboundary Internet – coping with new realities

November 17, 2008

At the Internet Governance Forum meeting in Hyderabad I will be chairing a workshop entitled – “The Transboundary Internet – Jurisdiction, Control, and Sovereignty”. I am delighted to be working with very knowledgeable panelists here including.

  • Meryem Marzouki – European Digital Rights (EDRI), Europe & National Centre
    for Scientific Research (CNRS) – Univ. Pierre et Marie Curie, France
  • Philippe Boillat- Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe
  • James Love – Director, Knowledge Ecology International
  • Bret Fausett – Intellectual Property and Internet attorney, Adorno Yoss
  • William J. Drake – Centre for International Governance, Graduate Institute of
    International and Development Studies – Geneva
  • Rishi Jaitly, South Asia Government Affairs Manager, Google Inc.

Our rationale was stated as follows.

“The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the Bahamas, selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded by a registrar located in the USA
because it appeared to break the US embargo against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another landmark case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale of nazi memorabilia, but apart from these high profile content cases there are many examples in other areas such as privacy, consumer issues, cybercrime, and intellectual property”.

Let’s mention another example. The Pakistan government ordered a block on offensive content published on YouTube, headquartered in USA, for material by a Dutch politician publicising cartoons from a Danish newspaper which were offensive to many Islamic people. The way the block was implemented took all of You Tube’s global content off line for two hours. I won’t go into the technicalities, but the overkill was recitified and something more locally suitable implemented.

But questions remain as to how such issues should be dealt with. This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing national jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where multiple normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical, contractual, and behavioral
regulations. Through practical case studies, this workshop will look at the implications of various approaches to resolving these issues and the implications for Internet governance, international law, national sovereignty, democracy, and human rights and fundamental freedoms. It should be an interesting
session!

The workshop also explores the implications for Internet governance where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues, and how default unilateral action in the absence of structural alternatives can lead to de facto Internet governance.

All inputs and thoughts welcome! Some detailed discussion of this area is long overdue and it would be good to see attention paid to how we should address these sorts of issues.

Ian Peter as Co-ordinator of Internet Governance Caucus

August 22, 2008

In August 2008 Ian Peter was elected as a Co-ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus, an international alliance of non government organisations and individuals involved with the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (www.intgovforum.org). He joins Parminder Singh of ICT4Change in India as co-coordinator.

Mobile growth outpaces Internet

April 15, 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/

2008/02/22/AR2008022202283.html

From essentially zero, we’ve passed a watershed of more than 3.3 billion active cellphones on a planet of some 6.6 billion humans in about 26 years.

This is the fastest global diffusion of any technology in human history — faster even than the polio vaccine.

“We knew this was going to happen a few years ago. And we know how it will end,” says Eric Schmidt, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Google. “It will end with 5 billion out of the 6” with cellphones. “A reasonable prediction is 4 billion in the next few years — the current proposal is 4 billion by 2010. And then the final billion or so within a few years thereafter.

“Eventually there will be more cellphone users than people who read and write. I think if you get that right, then everything else becomes obvious.”

“It’s the technology most adapted to the essence of the human species — sociability,” says Arthur Molella, director of the Smithsonian’s Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. “It’s the ultimate tool to find each other. It’s wonderful technology for being human.”

Maybe. But do our mobiles now render us unprecedentedly free? Or permanently tethered?

Too much information?

April 15, 2008

IDC have published an update on the size of the digital universe. The full report can be found from http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080312-study-

amount-of-digital-info-global-storage-capacity.html

Here’s a summary

The digital universe in 2007 — at 2.25 x 1021 bits (281 exabytes or 281 billion gigabytes) — was 10% bigger than we thought. The resizing comes as a result of faster growth in cameras, digital TV shipments, and better understanding of information replication.

• By 2011, the digital universe will be 10 times the size it was in 2006.

• As forecast, the amount of information created, captured, or replicated exceeded available storage for the first time in 2007. Not all information created and transmitted gets stored, but by 2011, almost half of the digital universe will not have a permanent home.

• Fast-growing corners of the digital universe include those related to digital TV, surveillance cameras, Internet access in emerging countries, sensor-based applications, datacenters supporting “cloud computing,” and social networks.

• The diversity of the digital universe can be seen in the variability of file sizes, from 6 gigabyte movies on DVD to 128-bit signals from RFID tags. Because of the growth of VoIP, sensors, and RFID, the number of electronic information “containers” — files, images, packets, tag contents — is growing 50% faster than the number of gigabytes. The information created in 2011 will be contained in more than 20 quadrillion — 20 million billion — of such containers, a tremendous management challenge for both businesses and consumers.

• Of that portion of the digital universe created by individuals, less than half can be accounted for by user activities — pictures taken, phone calls made, emails sent — while the rest constitutes a digital “shadow” — surveillance photos, Web search histories, financial transaction journals, mailing lists, and so on.

• The enterprise share of the digital universe is widely skewed by industry, having little relationship to GDP or IT spending. The finance industry, for instance, accounts for almost 20% of worldwide IT spending but only 6% of the digital universe. Meanwhile, media, entertainment, and communications industries will account for 10 times their share of the digital universe in 2011 as their share of worldwide gross economic output.

• The picture related to the source and governance of digital information remains intact: Approximately 70% of the digital universe is created by individuals, but enterprises areresponsible for the security, privacy, reliability, and compliance of 85%.

To deal with this explosion of the digital universe in size and complexity, IT organizations will face three main imperatives:

One. They will need to transform their existing relationships with the business units. It will take all competent hands in an organization to deal with information creation, storage, management, security, retention, and disposal in an enterprise. Dealing with the digital universe is not a technical problem alone.

Two. They will need to spearhead the development of Organization wide policies for information governance: information security, information retention, data access, and compliance.

Three. They will need to rush new tools and standards into the organization, from storage optimization, unstructured data search, and database analytics to resource pooling (virtualization) and management and security tools. All will be required to make the information infrastructure as flexible, adaptable, and scalable as possible.

Not quite the global Internet we thought we had

March 13, 2008

This has appeared in a few places now, reposted here as well. Internet governance still has a few issues to address! A British citizen, living in Spain, with his Internet server in the Bahamas, is subject to censorship by US authorities?

By Joel Hruska | Published: March 07, 2008 – 04:36PM CT

The United States has often presented itself as the guardian of Internet free speech. China may censor the Internet, and otherwise-civilized nations such as Germany or France may attempt to block what they view as unacceptable material, but the United States of America likes to think of itself as a place that doesn’t censor people online… unless you happen to own a foreign travel business that offers trips to Cuba. Under such circumstances, as Steve Marshall discovered, all bets are off.

Steve Marshall is a British citizen living in Spain. For the past decade, he has operated an online travel agency that specializes in selling trips to Cuba to various European nationals. Marshall operated a number of Cuban-specific web sites, including several that focused specifically on the literary and historical aspects of Cuba, and maintained them in English, French, and Spanish. The Internet Archive has some of Marshall’s web material on file. The sites themselves don’t appear to have been particularly well-designed—both Flash and text ads abound—but there’s no evidence that Marshall failed to provide the services he advertised.

According to the Department of the Treasury, however, Marshall and his business helped Americans evade the US embargo against Cuba. A 2004 DoT (Department of the Treasury) press release stated: “This travel provider is not only a generator of resources that the Cuban regime uses to oppress its people, but it also facilitates the evasion of U.S. sanction policy.” The PR goes on to assert that Tour and Marketing International Ltd. (Marshall’s company) advertised itself as the number one agency for American travelers, claimed it could serve any traveler, and insisted that Americans interested in traveling to Cuba use the company’s online payment system.

Marshall’s domain name registrar, eNom, is based in the US. It apparently didn’t learn that his company had been blacklisted for two and a half years. When it did, however, the registrar promptly shut down Marshall’s sites without notification and has since refused to release the domain names to him. Marshall has since rebuilt his business using a European registrar and the .net rather than the .com suffix, but his experience raises troubling questions.

As previously noted, Marshall is a British citizen operating a business from Spain, with servers located in the Bahamas. He does not claim that no Americans ever visited Cuba, but he has stated that he was uninterested in marketing his services to the US. In this case, the Department of the Treasury was able to shut down his business without notification or negotiation of any sort. Even if he wanted to appeal the decision, Marshall has no organization to which he can appeal, save his registrar, which can simply claim to have been following government orders.

If the US intends to continue presenting itself as the guardian of Internet rights, situations like this require a bit more delicacy. By effectively shutting down Marshall’s business, the United States has committed the censorship it condemns in other nations. Even worse, the Department of Treasury effectively shut down an international business without any type of due process. Both France and Germany followed a court process when investigating Yahoo for alleged improprieties, and the company in question (Yahoo) had the opportunity to respond to the charges in a court of law. Marshall was afforded no such luxury.

While the Internet may be global in nature, foreign companies may very well limit their use of US registrars and hosting services out of concern that activities targeted at other countries could be shut down here.