FW: Trusted Community Representatives: ICANN
Forwarded message:Message from Doug Brent. As you know, ICANN (as the IANA functions operator) is working jointly with VeriSign (as the root zone maintainer) in the process of making the root of the DNS more secure through the implementation of DNSSEC. As part of this joint effort with the US Department of Commerce, ICANN will seek on a provisional basis the participation of a number of persons to participate in the root key generation and signing ceremonies. These persons are called Trusted Community Representatives (“TCRs”). The TCRs will be chosen by ICANN based on Statements of Interest from the Internet community. The initial TCR selection will be on a provisional basis, to determine the viability of the approach based upon the first initialization of the Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) and key generation that are scheduled to take place in June of this year. There are two types of TCRs – a “Crypto Officer” and a “Recovery Key Share Holder”. A Crypto Officer participates in activating (enabling) the HSM containing the private half of the DNSSEC root Key Signing Key (KSK) before that module may be used for cryptographic operations. Seven (7) individuals are designated for each ICANN-operated secure KSK facility, with one facility located on the U.S. East Coast and another facility on the U.S. West Coast, for a total of 14 Crypto Officers. It is expected that each TCR will be required to travel to either the US East or West Coast ICANN KSK facility up to four (4) times a year. A Recovery Key Share Holder is responsible for protecting a part of a key used to encrypt backup copies of the HSM contents. Each share holder is responsible for keeping a smart card (in a tamper-evident bag) in a bank safe deposit box accessible by them. Seven (7) individuals are required. After HSM initialization, the share holder is not expected to participate in any scheduled ceremonies, but must be able to travel to an ICANN KSK facility in the US on relatively short notice at any time when requested. Share holders must participate in the annual inventory by providing proof of possession of their smart card. As leaders of the ICANN community, we would like to ask you to help communicate this opportunity to qualified individuals to serve as TCRs. We intend to select individuals that are committed to the security of the DNS and, as much as possible, reflect geographic diversity. Qualified candidates should be knowledgeable about the technical functions for which ICANN has responsibilities. For an individual to be considered, he or she must submit a Statement of Interest following the application procedures that are to be published on the ICANN and http://www.root-dnssec.org/tcr/ websites. Based on these submissions, ICANN will select 21 TCRs along with a reserve list of candidates for use as replacements if needed. For more information about the TCR program and the application and selection process, please visit http://www.root-dnssec.org . TCRs will serve an important function in enhancing the security of the DNS and to the greatest extent possible should reflect the diverse makeup of the ICANN community. Please help us communicate this need. Thank you in advance for your help and consideration. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks,Doug--Doug BrentChief Operating OfficerICANNVoice: +1 310.301.3871Mobile: +1 650.996.4447Fax: +1 310.823.8649 ________________________________________ Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Zain Kenya
Check this out this interesting link http://www.google.com/governmentrequests/ Apparently Google is more government friendly than imagined - it tends to comply with most Government requests to block certain content/services...(this makes me wonder what their beef was with China). So anyway, when Google complies with Govt requests, it means that when users in Kenya search for e.g. kenyan-hate-speech related content they wont see that; but if the same Kenyan does the same search from the US territory, they can see the very hate-speech that has been blocked within the Kenyan territory... mmhhh...talk of technology controlling society. walu.
Cheers John! Thanks for the interesting info. The number of Government requests is quite marveling. And the thought of blocking certain content/services, is certainly an issue of great debate i.e. how it is done and why as well as what value it has and what it means to the nature/use and/or value of the Internet. John K. On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Check this out this interesting link
http://www.google.com/governmentrequests/
Apparently Google is more government friendly than imagined - it tends to comply with most Government requests to block certain content/services...(this makes me wonder what their beef was with China).
So anyway, when Google complies with Govt requests, it means that when users in Kenya search for e.g. kenyan-hate-speech related content they wont see that; but if the same Kenyan does the same search from the US territory, they can see the very hate-speech that has been blocked within the Kenyan territory...
mmhhh...talk of technology controlling society.
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: kabogojn@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kabogojn%40gmail.com
Walu, Let's look at this critically; On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Check this out this interesting link
First of all this is a great move by Google to increase transparency, no?
Apparently Google is more government friendly than imagined - it tends to comply with most Government requests to block certain content/services...
Secondly, they don't block services IIUC, just contnet. So let's examine the league leader, Brazil, with 291 removal requests. 291 removal requests - 82.5% of removal requests fully or partially complied with. of these 291, 185 are by court order, so of course they "had" to do those (for some value of "had"). So 106 were "voluntary", that is ~36%. When you factor in the AUPs for orkut, blogger and youtube, one can assume that at least some of the rest were violations of those AUPs. - 21 Blogger (court order) - 5 Blogger - 4 Gmail (court order) - 1 Google Suggest - 99 orkut (court order) - 119 orkut - 9 Web Search (court order) - 32 YouTube (court order) - 1 YouTube
(this makes me wonder what their beef was with China).
Beef seemingly was that Google was willing to bend, but China pushed them to the breaking point. Plus the whole hacking thing. I applaud Google for their actions on China.
So anyway, when Google complies with Govt requests, it means that when users in Kenya search for e.g. kenyan-hate-speech related content they wont see that;
The map shows no requests from KE gov't.
but if the same Kenyan does the same search from the US territory, they can see the very hate-speech that has been blocked within the Kenyan territory...
Is this actually the case? If Google removes content, then it's not "blocked" per country is it, it's removed for all. If it was the case, one could easily use a proxy to access Google content blocked to a certain set of IP address ranges.
mmhhh...talk of technology controlling society.
I can't parse this one, sorry. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
mmhhh...talk of technology controlling society.
I can't parse this one, sorry.
I got wind of this in a tweet. Someone tweeted the link as "watch Google watching governments watch Google watching you" But my question is why no data exits from African governments. It certainly is NOT because there is not content out there that is offensive to us! Recently, our attention was called to a blog of guy named Harris Kupperman. adventuresincapitalism.com This fellow had written not just lies about Abidjan and Côte d'Ivoire, but was giving this as professional investment advice. So we hyped up a campaign, among individuals. The blog was posted midnight April 7th and by the next day, the blog was off! I think he got more than his fair share of citizen activists giving him a backlash. I have posted my reply and his reply below. ================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Harris Kupperman <hkuppy@pracap.com> Date: Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:33 PM Subject: RE: Ask Kuppy comment on No Investment Is Worth Dying For.... To: Nnenna <nnenna75@gmail.com> Nnenna, I am writing an investment guide. A how to? I want this to be factually accurate. The events that happened to me were accurate. I seem to have bungled a bit of the history. I took the article down until I could correct it?so your comments are greatly appreciated. Just because someone is elected, that doesn?t mean he?s popular?look at our last president here in the US. I did not realize that Citibank did not have a building there. I did see the logo prominently displayed on at least one building. My main mistake is in regard to the gun shots/damage to the city downtown. I will correct that. It looked run down, but not blown down. My error. Some of the locals had told us the damage was caused by the military and I did not ask specific enough questions about that. I have not been back since November 2007 and I haven?t followed current events as closely as I should have, but my understanding is that things continue to improve and that I was right to go and look there for investments (many have done well) but was inexperienced on Africa and scared thoroughly to be held at gunpoint by semi-official looking people. I do not know if they were officially military/police or some other paramilitary group. Ivory Coast just seemed like semi-organized chaos to me. I?m sure if I spent more time there I would have felt more comfortable, but I was just scared out of town?and I lived for 5 years in New Orleans which is one of the most dangerous places in the world. Thanks for your comments. I am revising the piece. HK From: kuppy@adventuresincapitalism.com [mailto:kuppy@adventuresincapitalism.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 5:36 AM To: kuppy@adventuresincapitalism.com Subject: Ask Kuppy comment on No Investment Is Worth Dying For.... And you wrote this on April 7, 2010? Three years later? Is that the time it took you to find these pictures? I am not Ivorian but I have been here since 1998. So every single 'trouble' I saw. If it is Laurent Gbagbo you refer to as the French-backed President, then you are more than 100% wrong. If you also think he is unpopular, then you did forget that he WON elections. CITIBANK does not have any building in Abidjan. The share the same building opposite Pyramide with Swiss Embassy. Below it is a pharmacy. There is not a single building in Plateau that has gun shots. The only places where guys where shot in 2002 were military buildings. In 2004, there was an incident between the youth and the French army. That happened at hotel Ivoire. There was not any kind of looting around there. Oh, by the way, the Annual Meeting of the African Development Bank is taking place in that hotel later this year. Its renovation is finished. They are now painting the outside. I run a consultancy here. I can say it might not be a smooth as the people would want it, but it is certainly nothing near what you are saying.. I will suggest you delete the blog. Post: No Investment Is Worth Dying For.... ============================================== Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Rue des Jardins, Près de Ste Cecile | Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire (+225) | http://www.nnenna.org | nnenna@nnenna.org Your multi-lingual development and event partners across Africa.
McTim - my reaction in caps (though am not shouting ;-) on some of your comments. 1: The map shows no requests from KE gov't.- VERY TRUE AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, OTHER THAN THINKING MAYBE THEY ARE NOT AWARE GOOGLE CAN "ASSIST". 2. Is this actually the case? If Google removes content, then it's not "blocked" per country is it, it's removed for all. MUCHERU COULD CLARIFY. BUT BASICALLY I DO NOT THINK GOOGLE REMOVES CONTENT "GLOBALLY" BECAUSE WHAT IS ILLEGAL IN ONE COUNTRY IS NOT NECESSARILY SO IN THE OTHER - THINK HITLER-RELATED CONTENT; THAT'S LARGELY A BIG NO IN GERMANY BUT ELSEWHERE ITS NOT A BIG DEAL. 3. If it was the case, one could easily use a proxy to access Google content blocked to a certain set of IP address ranges. TRUE - BUT YOU ARE TECHIE SO YOU KNOW; HOWEVER 99.999% OF SOCIETY MIGHT NOT AND SO THE "WEAK" CONTROL WILL STILL SERVE THE PURPOSE. mmhhh...talk of technology controlling society. 4.I can't parse this one, sorry. NO PROBLEM - UPDATE YOUR COMPILER ;-) NWAY, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF AN OMNIPRESENT TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS GOOGLE. A TIME IS COMING WHEN MUCHERU AND Co (GOOGLE) WILL CONTROL WHAT YOU READ, SEE AND HEAR. I CAN ONLY ENVY THEIR POSITION. walu. --- On Fri, 4/23/10, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote: From: McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Google Statistics on Government Censorship Requests To: "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Friday, April 23, 2010, 11:26 AM Walu, Let's look at this critically; On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: Check this out this interesting link http://www.google.com/governmentrequests/ First of all this is a great move by Google to increase transparency, no? Apparently Google is more government friendly than imagined - it tends to comply with most Government requests to block certain content/services... Secondly, they don't block services IIUC, just contnet. So let's examine the league leader, Brazil, with 291 removal requests. 291 removal requests 82.5% of removal requests fully or partially complied with. of these 291, 185 are by court order, so of course they "had" to do those (for some value of "had"). So 106 were "voluntary", that is ~36%. When you factor in the AUPs for orkut, blogger and youtube, one can assume that at least some of the rest were violations of those AUPs. 21 Blogger (court order)5 Blogger 4 Gmail (court order)1 Google Suggest99 orkut (court order)119 orkut9 Web Search (court order)32 YouTube (court order)1 YouTube (this makes me wonder what their beef was with China). Beef seemingly was that Google was willing to bend, but China pushed them to the breaking point. Plus the whole hacking thing. I applaud Google for their actions on China. So anyway, when Google complies with Govt requests, it means that when users in Kenya search for e.g. kenyan-hate-speech related content they wont see that; The map shows no requests from KE gov't. but if the same Kenyan does the same search from the US territory, they can see the very hate-speech that has been blocked within the Kenyan territory... Is this actually the case? If Google removes content, then it's not "blocked" per country is it, it's removed for all. If it was the case, one could easily use a proxy to access Google content blocked to a certain set of IP address ranges. mmhhh...talk of technology controlling society. I can't parse this one, sorry. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Walu, see my reax in lower case ;-) On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
McTim - my reaction in caps (though am not shouting ;-) on some of your comments
<snip>
2. Is this actually the case? If Google removes content, then it's not "blocked" per country is it, it's removed for all. MUCHERU COULD CLARIFY. BUT BASICALLY I DO NOT THINK GOOGLE REMOVES CONTENT "GLOBALLY"
Of course they do, if it's a violation of their AUP in one country, its a violation in another. While possible, it's fiendishly difficult to update algorithms on an hourly basis to serve different content and search results to different IP ranges. BECAUSE WHAT IS ILLEGAL IN ONE COUNTRY IS NOT NECESSARILY SO IN THE OTHER - THINK HITLER-RELATED CONTENT; THAT'S LARGELY A BIG NO IN GERMANY BUT ELSEWHERE ITS NOT A BIG DEAL. That's nearly a Godwin!
<snip>
4.I can't parse this one, sorry. NO PROBLEM - UPDATE YOUR COMPILER ;-) NWAY, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF AN OMNIPRESENT TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS GOOGLE. A TIME IS COMING WHEN MUCHERU AND Co (GOOGLE) WILL CONTROL WHAT YOU READ, SEE AND HEAR. I CAN ONLY ENVY THEIR POSITION.
Only if you choose to use Google services. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Walu and all, before this topic goes stale, check this link: http://unwin.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/google-tracking/ L --- On Fri, 4/23/10, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote: From: McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Google Statistics on Government Censorship Requests To: mleonardo@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Friday, April 23, 2010, 2:52 PM Walu, see my reax in lower case ;-) On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
McTim - my reaction in caps (though am not shouting ;-) on some of your comments
<snip>
2. Is this actually the case? If Google removes content, then it's not "blocked" per country is it, it's removed for all. MUCHERU COULD CLARIFY. BUT BASICALLY I DO NOT THINK GOOGLE REMOVES CONTENT "GLOBALLY"
Of course they do, if it's a violation of their AUP in one country, its a violation in another. While possible, it's fiendishly difficult to update algorithms on an hourly basis to serve different content and search results to different IP ranges. BECAUSE WHAT IS ILLEGAL IN ONE COUNTRY IS NOT NECESSARILY SO IN THE OTHER - THINK HITLER-RELATED CONTENT; THAT'S LARGELY A BIG NO IN GERMANY BUT ELSEWHERE ITS NOT A BIG DEAL. That's nearly a Godwin!
<snip>
4.I can't parse this one, sorry. NO PROBLEM - UPDATE YOUR COMPILER ;-) NWAY, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF AN OMNIPRESENT TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS GOOGLE. A TIME IS COMING WHEN MUCHERU AND Co (GOOGLE) WILL CONTROL WHAT YOU READ, SEE AND HEAR. I CAN ONLY ENVY THEIR POSITION.
Only if you choose to use Google services. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: mleonardo@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mleonardo%40yahoo.com
Leonard, see response inline...
2. Is this actually the case? If Google removes content, then it's not "blocked" per country is it, it's removed for all. MUCHERU COULD CLARIFY. BUT BASICALLY I DO NOT THINK GOOGLE REMOVES CONTENT "GLOBALLY"
While I plan to respond in more detail to your questions, it is important to remember Google mainly indexes content on the web and in almost all cases does not own the website or the content. When such a request is made to Google, the most Google is able to do is remove the website listing from the search index but not the website. Of course this is different in the case where Google owns the platform for example YouTube or Blogger. Requests to remove content come from goverments, users, copy right owners, court orders etc.. It is difficult to give a general answer on how each is dealt with as it is based on several factors primarily driven by the legal and policy situation on the case.
4.I can't parse this one, sorry. NO PROBLEM - UPDATE YOUR COMPILER ;-) NWAY, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF AN OMNIPRESENT TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS GOOGLE. A TIME IS COMING WHEN MUCHERU AND Co (GOOGLE) WILL CONTROL WHAT YOU READ, SEE AND HEAR. I CAN ONLY ENVY THEIR POSITION.
Only if you choose to use Google services.
just as we are transparent about our requests from governments, we have done the same with individual data. If you are a registered user of Google services you can be able see in one dashboard the information we hold about you and you have the ability to edit, add or remove the profile entirely. This is aggreegated information from our various platforms etc. Therefore what personal information Google holds about you is mostly opt-in and optional. Mostly opt-in because a username for example is required and not optional. Thanks
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <http://mc/compose?to=kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: mleonardo@yahoo.com <http://mc/compose?to=mleonardo@yahoo.com> Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mleonardo%40yahoo.com
-- Joe Mũcherũ Regional Lead, Sub-Saharan Africa Google Kenya 7th Floor, Purshottam Place Westlands Road P O Box 66217 - 00800 Westlands Nairobi, KENYA +254 20 360 1701 Office +254 20 360 1100 Fax +254 20 360 1000 Switch Board (Regus) +254 722522135 Mobile http://www.google.com This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person. Thanks.
Dear all Brazil is one of the governments that have requested Goggle to censor content. Here are notes taken at the IGF08 Workshop 36 : Strategies to prevent and fight child pornography in developing countries<http://intgovforum.org/cms/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=38> Child pornography in Brazil has grown out of the popularity of social networking. However the main challenge has been issues related to jurisdiction as content is resident in ISPs based in the USA and trans-national ISPs like Yahoo, Microsoft and Google which have branches in strategic markets and have tailored the services for these markets in terms of language and content. Brazil was therefore unable to deal with serious offences related to content – specifically child pornography - committed by Brazilians using Brazilian IP addresses. The government has been able to sign an agreement<http://www.safernet.org.br/site/noticias/google-deal-brazil-fight-child-porn>with Google to fight child pornography on Google's orkut <http://www.orkut.com/About.aspx> social network. The following are consideration taken in drawing up the agreement 1. Which criteria should be used to define the ability of a particular country to legislate over and sanction conducts committed on the internet? - Where the data is located? - International law principles (territoriality or nationality) shall be used to define the sovereignty of a state regarding – cyber space – which is a network of networks - Define some reasonable standard – for example managed by Brazilians and is local content and local language - Access points in Brazil, harmful conduct felt in the country – taken obligation under international law to take offence – country of origin approach would force thousands of users to unfamiliar rules and travel – offence under human rights therefore apply local legislation 1. It is legitimate to enforce the conduct of local office –as it impracticable to send legal request to the US. Kind regards Mwende On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:52 PM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
Walu, see my reax in lower case ;-)
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
McTim - my reaction in caps (though am not shouting ;-) on some of your
comments
<snip>
2. Is this actually the case? If Google removes content, then it's not
"blocked" per country is it, it's removed for all.
MUCHERU COULD CLARIFY. BUT BASICALLY I DO NOT THINK GOOGLE REMOVES CONTENT "GLOBALLY"
Of course they do, if it's a violation of their AUP in one country, its a violation in another.
While possible, it's fiendishly difficult to update algorithms on an hourly basis to serve different content and search results to different IP ranges.
BECAUSE WHAT IS ILLEGAL IN ONE COUNTRY IS NOT NECESSARILY SO IN THE OTHER - THINK HITLER-RELATED CONTENT; THAT'S LARGELY A BIG NO IN GERMANY BUT ELSEWHERE ITS NOT A BIG DEAL.
That's nearly a Godwin!
<snip>
4.I can't parse this one, sorry. NO PROBLEM - UPDATE YOUR COMPILER ;-) NWAY, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF AN OMNIPRESENT TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS GOOGLE. A TIME IS COMING WHEN MUCHERU AND Co (GOOGLE) WILL CONTROL WHAT YOU READ, SEE AND HEAR. I CAN ONLY ENVY THEIR POSITION.
Only if you choose to use Google services.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmail...
participants (8)
-
alice＠apc.org -
John K. Njoroge -
Joseph Mucheru -
Leonard Mware -
McTim -
mwende njiraini -
Nnenna Nwakanma -
Walubengo J