tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/domain-names-2123/articlesDomain names – The Conversation2021-07-26T12:03:24Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1629142021-07-26T12:03:24Z2021-07-26T12:03:24ZFight for control threatens to destabilize and fragment the internet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412936/original/file-20210723-19-1icr46a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4146%2C3047&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">International power plays are a threat to a stable, open internet.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/environment-royalty-free-illustration/487182330">erhui1979/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You try to use your credit card, but it doesn’t work. In fact, no one’s credit card works. You try to go to some news sites to find out why, but you can’t access any of those, either. Neither can anyone else. Panic-buying ensues. People empty ATMs of cash.</p>
<p>This kind of catastrophic pan-internet meltdown is more likely than most people realize.</p>
<p>I direct the <a href="https://cltc.berkeley.edu/internet-atlas">Internet Atlas Project</a> at the University of California, Berkeley. Our goal is to shine a light on long-term risks to the internet. We produce indicators of weak points and bottlenecks that threaten the internet’s stability.</p>
<p>For example, where are <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/undersea-cables">points of fragility in the global connectivity of cables</a>? Physical cables under the sea deliver <a href="https://internethealthreport.org/2019/the-new-investors-in-underwater-sea-cables/">95% of the internet’s voice and data traffic</a>. But some countries, like Tonga, connect to only one other country, making them vulnerable to cable-clipping attacks. </p>
<p>Another example is <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/CDN">content delivery networks</a>, which websites use to make their content readily available to large numbers of internet users. An <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/finiancial-times-new-york-times-bloomberg-news-websites-down-2021-06-08/">outage at the content delivery network Fastly</a> on June 8, 2021, briefly severed access to the websites of Amazon, CNN, PayPal, Reddit, Spotify, The New York Times and the U.K. government.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a screenshot of a web browser showing an error message" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412933/original/file-20210723-17-193n181.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The U.K. government, along with many big-name news organizations and companies, was briefly offline on June 8, 2021, due to an outage at a single company that distributes content for websites.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-photo-illustration-a-screen-displays-a-holding-page-news-photo/1322484485">Leon Neal/Getty Images Europe</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The biggest risks to the global internet</h2>
<p>We take measurements at various layers of the internet’s technological stack, from cables to content delivery networks. With those measurements, we identify weak points in the global internet. And from those weak points, we build theories that help us understand what parts of the internet are at risk of disruption, whom those disruptions will affect and how severely, and predict what would make the internet more resilient.</p>
<p>Currently, the internet is facing twin dangers. On one side, there’s the threat of total consolidation. Power over the internet has been increasingly concentrated primarily in the hands of a few, U.S.-based organizations. On the other side, there’s fragmentation. Attempts to challenge the status quo, particularly by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/how-russia-and-china-are-attempting-to-rewrite-cyberworld-order/2021/03/30/16030226-9190-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html">Russia and China</a>, threaten to destabilize the internet globally.</p>
<p>While there’s no single best path for the internet, our indicators can help policymakers, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, activists and others understand if their interventions are having their intended effect. For whom is the internet becoming more reliable, and for whom is is it becoming more unstable? These are the critical questions. About <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/">3.4 billion people are just now getting online</a> in countries including Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu. What kind of internet will they inherit?</p>
<h2>A US-controlled internet</h2>
<p>Since at least 2015, the core services that power the internet have become increasingly centralized in the hands of U.S. corporations. We estimate that U.S. corporations, nonprofits and government agencies could block <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/how-the-us-could-block-the-internet">a cumulative 96% of content on the global internet</a> in some capacity.</p>
<p><iframe id="pK1ip" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/pK1ip/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The U.S. Department of Justice has <a href="https://doi.org/10.15779%2FZ384Q3M">long used court orders aimed at tech providers</a> to block global access to content that’s illegal in the U.S., such as copyright infringements. But lately, the U.S. federal government has been leveraging its jurisdiction more aggressively. In June, the DOJ used a court order to briefly seize <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/notices-iran-linked-websites-say-they-have-been-seized-by-us-2021-06-22/">an Iranian news site</a> because the department said it was spreading disinformation.</p>
<p>Due to interlocking dependencies on the web, such as content delivery networks, one misstep in applying this technique could take down a key piece of internet infrastructure, making a widespread outage <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/cache-rules-everything-around-me">more likely</a>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, U.S.-based technology companies also risk wreaking havoc. Consider Australia’s recent <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015">spat with Facebook over paying news outlets for their content</a>. At one point, Facebook blocked all news on its platform in Australia. One consequence was that many people in Fiji, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/facebooks-australia-ban-threatens-to-leave-pacific-without-key-news-source">temporarily lost a key news source</a> because they rely on prepaid cellphone plans that feature discounted access to Facebook. As these <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/flashpoints">skirmishes</a> increase in frequency, countries worldwide are likely to suffer disruptions to their internet access.</p>
<h2>A splinternet</h2>
<p>Naturally, not everyone is happy with this U.S.-led internet. <a href="https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/russias-twitter-throttling-may-give-censors-never-before-seen-capabilities/">Russia throttles Twitter traffic</a>. <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/google-project-dragonfly-employees-quitting">China blocks access to Google</a>. </p>
<p>These domestic maneuvers certainly threaten localized meltdowns. India now regularly <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/70-of-global-internet-shutdowns-in-2020-were-in-india-report/articleshow/81321980.cms">shuts down the internet regionally during civil unrest</a>. But, in aggregate, they present a more global threat: <a href="https://medium.com/cltc-bulletin/internet-fragmentation-beyond-free-and-closed-cb8b1dfcd16a">internet frgamentation</a>. A fragmented internet threatens speech, trade and <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/the-consequences-of-a-fragmenting-less-global-internet/">global cooperation in science</a>. </p>
<p>It also increases the risk of cyberattacks on core internet infrastructure. In a global internet, attacks on infrastructure hurt everyone, but walled-off national internets would change that calculus. For example, <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/21/65940/russia-wants-to-cut-itself-off-from-the-global-internet-heres-what-that-really-means/">Russia has the capacity to disconnect itself from the rest of the world’s internet</a> while maintaining service domestically. With that capacity, it could <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/cache-bail">attack core global internet infrastructure</a> with less risk of upsetting its domestic population. A sophisticated attack against a U.S. company could trigger a large-scale internet outage.</p>
<h2>The future of the internet</h2>
<p>For much of its history, the internet has been imperfectly, but largely, open. Content could be accessed anywhere, across borders. Perhaps this openness is <a href="https://nickmerrill.substack.com/p/is-internet-centralization-good">because, rather than in spite, of the U.S.’s dominance</a> over the internet.</p>
<p>Whether or not that theory holds, the U.S.’s dominance over the internet is unlikely to persist. The status quo faces challenges from the U.S.’s <a href="https://chinai.substack.com/p/chinai-142-digitalized-public-governance">adversaries</a>, its <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-france-gaia-x-cloud-platform-eu-tech-sovereignty/">historical allies</a> and its <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796160524/apple-declines-doj-request-to-unlock-pensacola-gunmans-phones">own domestic tech companies</a>. Absent action, the world will be left with some mixture of unchecked U.S. power and ad-hoc, decentralized skirmishes.</p>
<p>In this environment, building a stable and transnational internet for future generations is a challenge. It requires delicacy and precision. That’s where work like ours comes into play. To make the internet more stable globally, people need measurements to understand its chokepoints and vulnerabilities. Just as central banks watch measures of inflation and employment when they decide how to set rates, internet governance, too, should rely on indicators, however imperfect.</p>
<p>[<em>Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-understand">Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162914/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Merrill receives funding from The Internet Society and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.</span></em></p>The US is wrestling with the rest of the world for control of the internet. The ‘net as we know it could be a victim of the struggle.Nick Merrill, Research Fellow, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1262732019-11-04T19:02:20Z2019-11-04T19:02:20ZIndia’s social media content removal order is a nail in the coffin of the internet as we know it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300031/original/file-20191104-88372-1j050u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=53%2C44%2C5937%2C3943&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Geo-location technology can be used to block online content within a specified area in the world, thereby allowing for differences in national laws. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In recent weeks, India’s High Court of Delhi put another nail in the coffin of the internet as we currently know it. The court <a href="http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PMS/judgement/23-10-2019/PMS23102019S272019.pdf">granted an order</a> requiring Facebook, Twitter and Google to remove certain content globally, based on that content being defamatory under local law in India.</p>
<p>This decision underlines a worrying trend of a “<a href="https://www.internetjurisdiction.net/Internet-Jurisdiction-Global-Status-Report-2019-Key-Findings_web">race to the bottom</a>” for internet freedom, where the <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/third-dimension-jurisdiction-dan-jerker-b-svantesson/">scope of jurisdiction</a> claimed by the courts is global. </p>
<p>If widely adopted, this may result in a situation where the only content that remains online is that which complies with all the laws of every country in the world.</p>
<h2>Another brick in the wall</h2>
<p>In reaching its decision, the Indian court relied on a string of recent decisions from around the world. For example, it drew from the <a href="https://blog.oup.com/2017/08/supreme-court-canada-state-sovereignty/">Canadian approach in Equustek</a>, where the Supreme Court of Canada ordered Google to remove content globally.</p>
<p>It also referred to a 2017 <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sydney-become-internet-content-blocking-capital-world-svantesson/">Australian case</a> in which the Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled Twitter must globally block any future posting by a specific user.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-goes-full-circle-on-censorship-like-it-or-not-19488">Facebook goes full circle on censorship, like it or not</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The most recent decision referred to was a <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bad-news-internet-europes-top-court-opens-door-global-svantesson/">ruling</a> by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in which the CJEU concluded the EU’s <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32000L0031">e-commerce directive</a> doesn’t prevent courts in EU countries from ordering social media sites to block or remove information worldwide.</p>
<p>Following the CJEU’s decision, several <a href="https://euinternetpolicy.wordpress.com/2019/10/04/the-cjeu-facebook-judgment-on-filtering-with-global-effect-clarifying-some-misunderstandings/">leading</a> <a href="https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2019/global/notice-and-stay-down-orders-and-impact-on-online-platforms#__prclt=pzS67trR">commentators</a> argued that, while much has been made of the CJEU’s apparent green light to global takedown orders, in reality this was just a decision about the dividing line between EU law and national law.</p>
<p>Even if this is true, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/facebook-can-be-ordered-remove-content-worldwide-eu-says/">headlines</a> around the world didn’t communicate such a nuanced outcome. And with the current decision from India, we can see with complete clarity how that case is now being used by foreign courts. This shows how careful courts must be as to the messaging of their judgements.</p>
<p>It’s of course possible to suggest this type of application of an EU law case is a mistake by the Indian court, rather than the CJEU - and there is certainly merit in such an argument. However, the CJEU’s decision was a missed opportunity to clearly communicate a general stance against global orders as being standard.</p>
<h2>A missed opportunity to explain geo-location technologies</h2>
<p>Geo-location technology may be used to block online content within a specified geographical area. This practice caters to a global internet while still respecting differences in laws, and in India’s case could provide an alternative to a global blocking order.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/governments-are-making-fake-news-a-crime-but-it-could-stifle-free-speech-117654">Governments are making fake news a crime – but it could stifle free speech</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, more than once, courts have failed to understand how this technology operates. And at least on this occasion, errors could have been avoided since the court “had specifically directed the defendants to throw some light on how geo-blocking is done and to keep a technical person present in court to seek clarification on geo-blocking”. </p>
<p>The court said none of the internet platforms had given a detailed explanation as to how geo-blocking is done.</p>
<p>As a result, the court clearly misunderstood the impact of geo-blocking: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>If geo-blocking alone is permitted in respect of the entire content, […] the offending information would still […] be accessible from India, […] by accessing the international websites of these platforms.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Where geo-blocking is done <a href="https://script-ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/svantesson.pdf">by reference to domain names</a>, internet users can indeed use another country’s version of the site in question and access the content. This seems to be the situation the court had in mind. </p>
<p>In contrast, with blocking by geo-location technology, the content is tailored to the user’s location, regardless of which country’s version of the site is accessed. It’s highly unfortunate the court wasn’t made to understand this important distinction.</p>
<h2>Silver linings, and the way onward</h2>
<p>Although the above probably makes clear that I see the Indian court’s decision as a setback, there are also some positive aspects that ought to be highlighted.</p>
<p>In its decision, the court clearly acknowledged the importance of the scope of jurisdiction issue and the implications of global orders.</p>
<p>The court also devoted considerable effort to discussing case law from around the world. This is an important step if we are to see a global harmonisation in approach. That said, I’d like to add that currently harmonisation seems to be taking us in an undesirable direction, with global blocking/removal orders as standard.</p>
<p>Given the court had taken account of the international environment, it’s disappointing, not to say odd, that it didn’t properly engage with the international law issues raised by the defendants. For instance, defendants mentioned the doctrine of comity, which demands courts take the international impact of their decisions into consideration.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/caution-over-the-eus-call-for-global-forgetfulness-from-google-34815">Caution over the EU's call for global forgetfulness from Google</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While the Indian court decision is currently under <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/facebook-appeals-delhi-hc-db-single-bench-order-global-blocking-of-content-baba-ramdev-149354">appeal</a>, there’s no point denying the future of the internet looks bleak when it comes to scope of jurisdiction. </p>
<p>The case discussed here sets an important precedent, not just for India but also the rest of the world. And much is at stake.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126273/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Jerker B. Svantesson was an ARC Future Fellow (project number FT120100583) during 2012-2016. During this period he received funding from the Australian Research Council for a project dealing with the topic of this piece. Professor Svantesson is currently writing a Global Status Report - dealing with, amongst other things, the issue of this piece - on behalf of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network. The views expressed herein are those of the author alone.</span></em></p>The order requires Facebook, Twitter and Google to remove certain content globally, based on it being defamatory under India’s local law.Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Professor, Bond UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1225592019-09-09T13:55:01Z2019-09-09T13:55:01ZHere’s why the internet will always have enough space for all our devices<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/291528/original/file-20190909-109952-winjl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C7360%2C4912&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/wires-connected-network-server-249558610?src=RSTyNrEohyWGk3Muo65mxQ-1-22">Stock image/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It seems that every five years, news emerges that the digital sky is falling in. Back in <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/07/the-internet-is-running-out-of-addresses-but-dont-worry/60242/">2010</a> and <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/internet-now-officially-too-big-ip-addresses-run-out-n386081">2015</a>, rumours spread that the internet would soon run out of IP addresses. Now, the regulator of Europe’s internet domains has <a href="https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/getting-ready-for-ipv4-run-out">predicted</a> that the region’s 1.91m remaining addressees will most likely run out before 2020. </p>
<p>Every computer and smartphone must have an IP address to access the internet. IP is short for Internet Protocol, and like your postcode, it has to be sufficiently unique, as this ensures all connected devices can accurately send and receive data between themselves. This is how the device you’re using is able to view this article. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/291523/original/file-20190909-109952-jdpzmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/291523/original/file-20190909-109952-jdpzmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291523/original/file-20190909-109952-jdpzmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291523/original/file-20190909-109952-jdpzmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291523/original/file-20190909-109952-jdpzmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291523/original/file-20190909-109952-jdpzmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291523/original/file-20190909-109952-jdpzmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An IP address is the unique identifying code for each device accessing the internet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/ip-icon-3-types-color-black-1024076437?src=mzy_Iwzry9IUccMV3nJFKA-1-2">ASAG Studio/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But when IP address were designed in the 1980s – (yes, that long ago) – they thought that making digital addresses <a href="https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/bit-binary-digit">32 numbers long</a> would ensure enough variety for there to be a different address for every electronic device on Earth. A sequence of numbers 32 digits long gives two to the power of 32 combinations, allowing a different internet address for 4.2 billion devices.</p>
<p>Back then, this was more than enough as so few people even knew about the internet. But in 2019, some homes may have as many as 20 IP addresses – one for each electronic device. That includes games consoles, smartphones, smart light bulbs, smart speakers, laptops, smart televisions and so on. These IP addresses are being used up across Europe at a rate of 11 every minute. </p>
<h2>How the internet keeps expanding</h2>
<p>So why am I fairly relaxed about all this? The internet addresses that are running out are “version 4” addresses. Their use increased significantly when the internet was becoming popular for ordinary users from the mid-1990s onwards. But experts recognised over 15 years ago that a better addressing system was needed. The newest one we have is version 6. As you will recall, version 4 addresses are 32 digits long. Version 6 has 128. That gives two to the power of 128 combinations, or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses. This equals 340 <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/undecillion">undecillion</a> potential addresses – a magnificently large number. </p>
<p>Electronic devices are more and more often using the new version 6 addresses, but there are still plenty of devices, web servers and internet communication technologies such as your home router which use the old version 4. It will take a long time to replace, especially considering the number of devices already using the internet.</p>
<p>So will longer and longer IP addresses be needed to keep up as the internet expands into new devices? Not quite. New technology can redirect the internet traffic of 16m devices through a single IP address. Chances are, your home router and mobile phone provider are already doing this. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/291525/original/file-20190909-109931-13kaois.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/291525/original/file-20190909-109931-13kaois.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291525/original/file-20190909-109931-13kaois.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291525/original/file-20190909-109931-13kaois.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291525/original/file-20190909-109931-13kaois.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291525/original/file-20190909-109931-13kaois.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/291525/original/file-20190909-109931-13kaois.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The future could allow all kinds of home devices access to the internet – including cat flaps.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fat-scottish-cat-lying-bed-next-585926387?src=UI5_SlabHuPm50B3epm36w-1-3">Osobystist/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That’s the main reason why there’s no particular need to panic when internet authorities announce that addresses are running out. Thanks to technological ingenuity, one single address could now support another 16m, while each of the 16m could be split into another 16m, and so on.</p>
<p>This reminds us of how many devices are probably using the internet at any given <a href="https://www.statista.com/chart/17518/internet-use-one-minute/">moment</a>. Every IP address, every home router could, if it had sufficient processing power, support millions of devices – allowing everything from the cat flap to your fish tank to be connected to the internet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122559/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How can the internet accommodate more and more users every day?Andrew Smith, Senior Lecturer in Networking, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1181862019-06-21T12:57:00Z2019-06-21T12:57:00ZAmazon wins ‘.amazon’ domain name, aggravating South American region and undermining digital commons<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277913/original/file-20190604-69095-1z0xhn3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4432%2C2945&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/may-3-2018-sunnyvale-ca-usa-1083512990?src=ryP9E1G5HHWpcXtYG6Vw-A-1-0">Sundry Photography/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amazon has a new means of dominating the market – one that threatens the economic interests of the people who call the original Amazon home. In May 2019, the online megastore secured the general top-level domain name “.amazon.” Anyone with the internet will recognise these domain types even if they don’t know the term. They’re the endings to website addresses, like “.com,” “.org,” and “.ac.uk.”</p>
<p>The ICANN – the organisation charged with overseeing the internet’s domain names – <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-05-15-en#1.c">gave exclusive rights</a> to the US based company to administer “.amazon” domains, allowing the company to expand its branding opportunities. Businesses have been able to purchase these domain names since 2011, and Amazon’s application has been pending since 2012. </p>
<p>Part of the reason for the delay is because Brazil and Peru <a href="https://gac.icann.org/work-products/public/amazon-br-pe-58086-2012-11-20.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353452622000&api=v2">argued against it</a>. They said granting a private company exclusive rights to the domain would “prevent the use of this domain for purposes of public interest related to the protection, promotion and awareness raising on issues related to the Amazon biome”.</p>
<p>Along with Brazil and Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Suriname and Venezuela belong to the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO). Collectively, the ACTO states <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/mendoza-to-chalaby-marby-05sep18-en.pdf">believe</a> their territorial interests entitle them to be involved in governing “.amazon” domains. </p>
<p>ICANN’s guidance limits the right of corporations to register certain geographic names, but not others. The list they use <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/mendoza-to-chalaby-marby-05sep18-en.pdf">generates absurd results</a>. The Isle of Man receives the highest level of protection in the world, while Scotland receives significantly less. Regions like Mesopotamia and the Amazon receive no protection at all. </p>
<p>Initially, <a href="https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/applicationdetails:downloadapplication/984?t:ac=984">Amazon was unwilling to share the .amazon domains</a> with the ACTO states, arguing that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Because the .amazon registry will be a single entity registry and for purposes which serve Amazon’s strategic business aims, the reserved names cannot be offered to Governments or other official bodies for their own use…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This meant that Brazil could not, for example, use Brazil.amazon to <a href="http://opiniojuris.org/2019/04/19/who-owns-the-amazon-and-how-many-kindles-would-you-pay-for-it/">promote tourism in its poorer and more isolated states</a>. Brazil and Peru successfully argued this was inappropriate to an intergovernmental body that is supposed to influence ICANN decisions. As a result, ICANN denied Amazon’s application. The company appealed this decision to an <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf">independent arbitration panel</a>. In 2017, the panel concluded that ICANN was too deferential to the governments. They ordered ICANN to reconsider the application.</p>
<p>Since 2017, the company and the ACTO states have attempted to negotiate an agreement over the use of the term “.amazon.” When talks broke down, <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/huseman-to-chalaby-17apr19-en.pdf">Amazon suggested compromises</a> that it felt represented the interests of both parties. The company relented on its earlier opposition to sharing “.amazon” names with the ACTO states, granting nine domain names – one for the ACTO organisation and one for each state. </p>
<p>Amazon also promised not to use domain names that are significant for the culture and heritage of the Amazonian region. <a href="http://opiniojuris.org/2019/04/19/who-owns-the-amazon-and-how-many-kindles-would-you-pay-for-it/">The company had previously proposed</a> providing USD$5,000,000 worth of Amazon products and services as compensation to the states, but this offer was not included in the latest proposal.</p>
<p>Before last month’s Board meeting, ACTO asked for the <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/moreira-to-chalaby-18apr19-en.pdf">decision to be postponed</a> so that negotiations could continue. Instead, ICANN’s Board of Directors ended the negotiations and granted the company the exclusive rights to administer the ‘.amazon’ domains in the future.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279135/original/file-20190612-32356-1e4a0tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279135/original/file-20190612-32356-1e4a0tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279135/original/file-20190612-32356-1e4a0tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279135/original/file-20190612-32356-1e4a0tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279135/original/file-20190612-32356-1e4a0tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279135/original/file-20190612-32356-1e4a0tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279135/original/file-20190612-32356-1e4a0tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Amazon region of South America.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/brazil-surrounding-region-seen-earths-orbit-428991244?src=QcnL0oN2_l7-jt-2stjp-w-1-0">Harvepino/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Enclosing the Amazon</h2>
<p>This decision highlights what can happen when domain names like “.amazon” are privatised. ICANN is fulfilling a role previously carried out by the US government, but the arbitration panel’s decision indicates that ICANN is no longer subjected to the oversight of any government. </p>
<p>The inability of states to effectively influence ICANN decisions can have a detrimental impact on human rights and environmental protection. In their resolution outlining <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-05-15-en#1.c">the Amazon decision</a>, there’s no reference to the rights of indigenous peoples in the original Amazon, but these people will still be affected.</p>
<p>Under <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/van-ho-doyle-to-chalaby-22apr19-en.pdf">international human rights law</a>, the indigenous peoples in the region should have been consulted. Exclusive use of “.amazon” will deprive them of using it for economic opportunities in their historical lands, such as eco-tourism. <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/van-ho-doyle-to-chalaby-22apr19-en.pdf">We raised this in a letter to ICANN</a> before the Board’s decision. The Board does not appear to have considered these issues, and a response from ICANN acknowledged receipt of the letter but didn’t address the substantive concerns over the rights of indigenous peoples. Amazon, meanwhile, <a href="https://press.aboutamazon.com/press-releases">has not issued a press statement</a> on the subject since the ICANN decision.</p>
<p>At its inception, the internet was a great equaliser. It meant large and small businesses could compete with one another on a level playing field. ICANN has been entrusted with administering the internet and protecting it. That means protecting its broader purpose in society. ICANN appears to have forgotten that part of its role. It now charges <a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf">costs USD$185,000</a> for a top-level domain name like “.amazon”. It’s not surprising that a company whose 2018 profits were <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/15/amazon-tax-bill-2018-no-taxes-despite-billions-profit">reportedly USD$11.2 billion</a> – for which it paid no federal taxes – was able to purchase the domain before an indigenous community in Brazil. </p>
<p>The implications for the future of the internet are troubling. What was a global commons may become an exclusive field where those who have the most can acquire more. Those who have the least meanwhile lose even the right to use the name of their homeland.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118186/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tara Van Ho does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Who has the right to use an Amazon domain name? The people who live there or a company with the same name?Tara Van Ho, Lecturer in Law and Human Rights, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/661272016-10-05T04:55:09Z2016-10-05T04:55:09ZHappy 30th anniversary to .au domains – what comes next?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140425/original/image-20161005-15886-xajvld.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Web addresses from Shutterstock.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This year marks the 30th anniversary of Australian domain names – websites ending in .au. As of June this year, <a href="https://www.ausregistry.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/BTD_Issue_8.pdf">more than three million such domains have been registered</a>. This is a lot for a country of only 24 million people, but especially notable when you think there were only a few hundred thousand domain names as recently as 2002. </p>
<p>This explosion in registrations is the result of the constant evolution of our system – changes that have not only opened domains up to more and more people, but will set us up for the fourth decade of Australian websites. </p>
<h2>It began with one man</h2>
<p>The story of .au, Australia’s Top Level Domain (TLD), really began in March 1986. It was then that University of Melbourne network administrator, Kevin Robert Elz – known to most as Robert Elz – was given authority to administer Australian domain name registration. Elz set the rules for the system and held this authority from 1986 through the 1990s.</p>
<p>There were a couple of different phases during Elz’s tenure. The first ten years were marked by slow growth and informal management. But from 1996 there was a boom in demand as the internet rapidly became a central part of our lives and businesses jumped on board. </p>
<p>1996 was the beginning of the commercial domain name industry in Australia. The boom in demand for Australian domain names led Elz to delegate responsibility for Australian second-level domains (2LDs). In her <a href="http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415668132/">book on the domain name registration system</a>, academic and lawyer Jenny Ng writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In October 1996 Elz granted a five-year licence to administer com.au to his employer, the University of Melbourne through Melbourne IT Ltd.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>After this, registering a domain was no longer free.</p>
<h2>A formal system</h2>
<p>As commercial players moved in, more formal management of the Australian domain name system (DNS) was established. In 1997 the Australian Domain Name Administration (ADNA) was created, and in April 1999 its role was transferred to the .au Domain Administration (<a href="https://www.auda.org.au/">auDA</a>). </p>
<p>In December 2000 the Australian Government <a href="https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda">formally endorsed</a> auDA as the appropriate body to hold the delegation of authority for .au. In 2002, new policies and a new registry, operated by AusRegistry, came into operation. With this, the contemporary Australian domain name system (DNS) came into being.</p>
<p>Reliable data are not available for the early years, but when the first registry was launched in 2002, there were <a href="https://www.ausregistry.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/BTD_Issue_8.pdf">282,632 domains</a>, which grew to 500,000 domain names in 2005, and 710,428 on 30 June 2006. We surpassed a million domains registered by 2007 and three million in 2016; about 87% of these are .com.au. </p>
<p>This growth was facilitated by relaxation of the previous rules as a result of successive policy review panels.</p>
<h2>Evolution of Australian policy</h2>
<p>Domain name policies during the first 10-15 years reflected the beliefs and assumptions of the Internet’s pioneers. One guiding principle was that no one should be able to gain an undeserved advantage over other participants. So it was only possible for a registrant to register one domain name, and it was not possible to register a generic term (such as a common noun) or a place name. The principle of “first come, first served” was enshrined; there was no hierarchy of entitlement to a particular name.</p>
<p>Since the first formal policy was developed and implemented in 2002, most of these restrictions have been abolished, and the Australian DNS has followed the path of evolution in other countries, albeit more slowly.</p>
<p>Some fundamental principles remain: first come, first served; the requirement that the registrant for an Australian domain name must be Australian; provisions to reduce abusive practices; and a requirement for a link between the registrant and the name registered. As a result, the Australian DNS is <a href="https://www.ausregistry.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/BTD_Issue_8.pdf">regarded</a> as relatively well-administered, trusted and stable. But we aren’t done yet.</p>
<h2>Direct registration: the next step</h2>
<p>In August 2015 I <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-change-in-australias-web-rules-would-open-up-the-au-space-46203">wrote</a> about the work of the 2015 Name Panel established by auDA to review domain name policy and propose changes to the board of .auDA. Policy change proposals are adopted by a consensus of each panel, and the panels must be broadly representative of the industry and domain name users.</p>
<p>The panel made one major recommendation: in addition to registering second-level domains (like .com.au, .edu.au, and .net.au), Australians should also be able to register directly (such as example.au). Both the UK and New Zealand have already made this change.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.auda.org.au/assets/pdf/2015npp-final-report.pdf">final report</a> of the Panel was presented to the auDA Board in December 2015. The <a href="https://www.auda.org.au/policies/panels-and-committees/2015-names-policy-panel/">Names Policy 2015 website</a> includes the text of all non-confidential submissions, panel minutes, and other panel documents; there was also a minority report by four of the 23 panel members.</p>
<p>The auDA Board considered and <a href="https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/board-meetings/2016/15-february-2016-board-meeting-minutes/">accepted</a> the final report in February 2016 and in <a href="https://www.auda.org.au/about-auda/our-org/board-meetings/2016/18-april-2016-board-meeting-minutes/">April</a> agreed to <a href="https://www.auda.org.au/news/auda-to-introduce-direct-registrations-in-au/">implement</a> the recommendation. Australians will soon be able to register domains directly.</p>
<p>Against this backdrop, auDA will soon consider the best way to manage one of its largest policy changes. This is the move from the strict hierarchy of names which has prevailed for thirty years using a TLD and 2LDs, to a dual system which permits both direct and second-level registrations. The changes will set a direction for the fourth decade of .au.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66127/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Derek Whitehead is a member of auDA and has previously chaired auDA policy panels. </span></em></p>This year marks the 30th birthday of .au domains. We’ve come a long way but there’s big change ahead.Derek Whitehead, Adjunct professor, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/462032015-08-18T20:26:16Z2015-08-18T20:26:16ZA change in Australia’s web rules would open up the .au space<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92194/original/image-20150818-5083-1jbvfpa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What comes next in an Australian domain name could be up to you.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Maram</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you want to register an Australian web address, your options may be about to change due to a review of domain name policy that is currently underway.</p>
<p>The Australian domain name system (DNS) has been managed by .au Domain Administration (<a href="http://www.auda.org.au/">auDA</a>) since 2001, and it now oversees more than three million names <a href="https://www.ausregistry.com.au/australias-au-domain-celebrates-3-million-registrations">registered</a>.</p>
<p>The Australian DNS is already distinctive for a number of reasons. The registrant must be Australian. Names are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis – there is no hierarchy of rights. Registration for the sole purpose of resale is also not permitted, unlike most other top level domains (TLDs). </p>
<p>The domain name system (DNS) is also considered a public good, with its stability and effectiveness fundamental to the proper functioning of the internet. In Australia, a relatively high level of regulation exists and is accepted, and there are no plans to change this.</p>
<h2>Time for change?</h2>
<p>However, auDA is currently engaged in a <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/policies/panels-and-committees/">consultative process</a> to consider changes to the DNS system itself. Anyone can provide a submission or comments along the way. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/policies/panels-and-committees/2015-names-policy-panel/">2015 Names Panel</a> is today issuing its draft recommendations. The main recommendation is that, in principle, Australians should be able to register domain names directly under .au (such as myname.au, or abc.au, or westpac.au).</p>
<p>This has not been possible before. Currently, the .au country code is considered the top level domain (ccTLD) for Australia. As a part of the current scheme, all sites must also be registered under second level domain name (2LDs). Some 2LDs are “open”, thus available to members of the public, such as .com.au, .net.au and org.au. And some are “closed”, meaning they’re restricted to certain sectors, such as .edu.au and .gov.au.</p>
<p>The proposed change would leave the existing 2LDs in place, and add a new option of registering directly under .au for any Australian entity.</p>
<p>Australia has strong <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/policies/">rules</a> on what name can be registered, and would continue these under the proposed new scheme. To register directly, you would need to be eligible to register a domain under the existing 2LD rules, and if necessary provide evidence of eligibility. The existing rules would also apply to the kind of name that could be registered – you can’t have any name you want.</p>
<h2>Why the need to change?</h2>
<p>The main reason the panel has recommended this change is that direct registrations would create more options. They include names that are shorter, more appealing and more memorable. They would make the domain name system simpler and easier to use.</p>
<p>Moreover, the proposed change would open a wide range of new choices for registrants. For some they would be better options. For example, the panel thinks it would be simpler for people to obtain an acceptable Australian domain name.</p>
<p>Those against this change, such as the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (<a href="http://accan.org.au/">ACCAN</a>), <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/assets/pdf/sub-accan4.pdf">argue</a>) that we now have an orderly, logical hierarchy of names, and many new registrations would just be new versions of the same name, registered for defensive reasons.</p>
<p>The main value added, some say, would be revenue for the domain name industry in selling more domain names. It is also argued that the change would be confusing for users, and less clear than what we have in the exist hierarchy of domain names.</p>
<h2>It’s all about you</h2>
<p>One of the issues that has been widely discussed is that of the use of the DNS by individuals who are not commercial enterprises (.com.au and .net.au) or non-profit organisations (.org.au and .asn.au). </p>
<p>Individuals can have a <a href="https://www.ausregistry.com.au/domains/what-is-a-idau">.id.au</a> domain name, but although this 2LD has been simplified and heavily promoted, only 16,000 people currently use it. </p>
<p>There has been an increase in the number of people registering different types of domain names for individual use, but there has been a decrease in the number of id.au domain names being registered. The proposed changes will hopefully encourage individuals to readily obtain a desirable Australian domain name.</p>
<p>Many other Australian entities might find the new names attractive, too.</p>
<p>The timing of this proposal has been influenced by events outside Australia. Most comparable jurisdictions have already made this change. Most recently, <a href="https://dnc.org.nz/story/more-options-nz">New Zealand</a> and the <a href="http://www.dotuklaunch.uk/">United Kingdom</a> adopted direct registration through consultative processes.</p>
<p>The context is a dramatic increase in the number of <a href="http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db">global top level domains</a>, and hundreds of new TLDs have come into being since 2014, and continue to do so. The panel’s terms of reference specifically mention direct registration and were framed with these developments in mind.</p>
<p>As Australian internet users gain a better understanding of the DNS and become used to seeing many different types of domain name, they may be more receptive to, and demanding of, changes in the .au domain.</p>
<p>You won’t be able to register anythingyouwant.au; there will still be rules on what you can and can’t register, and we will continue to have a regulated .au, which is relatively safe. But if the panel recommendations are accepted, there will be a lot more choice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46203/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Derek Whitehead Chairs the current 2015 Names Panel on behalf of auDA. He is a member of auDA.</span></em></p>The rules that govern what Australian web address people can register could be changed to allow more personalised .au domain names.Derek Whitehead, Adjunct professor, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/260692014-05-01T05:14:48Z2014-05-01T05:14:48ZSmall businesses get a shot at the big time with .London<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/47456/original/6x6ygdpn-1398876674.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bright lights, dot London.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Panorama_of_City_of_London_during_The_Shard%E2%80%99s_opening_laser_show.jpg">Alexander Kachkaev</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The launch of the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/10793813/First-dot-London-web-addresses-go-live.html">.London domain name</a> has been accompanied by a great deal of hype but the change is more than just cosmetic. This is a real opportunity for smaller organisations to make their mark in the cut-throat world of online business.</p>
<p>As of this week, businesses based in London have a three-month head start over others to get a .London address. After that, the URL will be available to businesses anywhere. So far 100,000 have registered, and they are wise to do so.</p>
<p>The .London domain name is one of a range of new options being brought in by <a href="https://theconversation.com/domain-name-expansion-signals-political-shift-of-the-internet-22865">ICANN and IANA</a>, the organisations that take care of the system. Names such as .company .club .marketing .technology .coffee .holiday and locations like .London .Berlin are set to change the face of the internet but they are also a powerful tool for building brands.</p>
<p>It’s all part of a wider shift towards the digital economy, branding online and address space commercialisation. There has been a significant push in Europe recently to get businesses to digitise in order to generate growth and jobs and changes like the new domain names can really help. Regional identity is a powerful force at times, particularly as businesses of one type or another cluster in one area. Berlin, Silicon Valley and London are all emerging as technology hubs and could benefit from a domain name identity.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4kRiGVh22_U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Connected cities are a new phenomenon of our time, it’s not restricted to social networks and free public wifi but a major shift in thinking about how digitisation in housing, planning and development, health, traffic and emergency services, commercial industry and citizens play a part in economic growth. </p>
<p>Digital infrastructure, data and technologies are a <a href="http://www.citygrowthcommission.com/event/expert-seminar-technology-and-digital-for-growth/">vital part</a> of this because a step change can happen when information technology improves productivity, helps you to sell products or enables you to provide a better service.</p>
<h2>What’s in a digital name?</h2>
<p>Businesses need better broadband and connectivity to offer digital services such as apps or online purchasing but they also need an awareness of the goods and services that are already on offer in their area so that they remain competitive. </p>
<p>The challenge is for digital businesses to get themselves discovered and to work effectively through websites, mobiles and tablets while connecting to the physical world in which their customers actually live.</p>
<p>The digital world still has to reach buyers and sellers and to legitimise original sources of these products and services. Having a URL that sets them apart but also places them in a physical location can be a better way to enhance their brand presence when you’re trying to bridge the digital and physical divide.</p>
<p>Large companies such Google and Amazon entered the market early and dominate our online lives as a result. When we want to buy something, we think Amazon and when we want an online service, Google is often the first place we look. But now is the time for smaller businesses to take them on and win a place in the hearts of consumers. With a recognisable URL for their business, they have more chance of sticking in a customer’s head, which increases their chances of being the first port of call when that user searches online for a product.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26069/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Skilton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The launch of the .London domain name has been accompanied by a great deal of hype but the change is more than just cosmetic. This is a real opportunity for smaller organisations to make their mark in…Mark Skilton, Professor of Practice, Warwick Business School, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/228652014-02-07T00:12:30Z2014-02-07T00:12:30ZDomain name expansion signals political shift of the internet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40911/original/wgm5g2j7-1391691535.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mark your territory now. It's about to kick off online.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">the justified sinner</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>More than 1,000 new generic top-level domain names – the part of an internet address that comes after the “dot” – are being rolled out by the <a href="http://www.icann.org">International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers</a>. It’s a move that will change how the internet as we know it looks and feels and has significant political implications to boot.</p>
<p>Country code top-level domains are the two-character suffixes that denote a nation, such as .fr, .de and .co.uk. All the others are known as generic top-level domains. It is this category that is set to expand dramatically over the next few months.</p>
<p>The generic name system has grown slowly. We started with seven (.com, .org, .gov, .int, .mil, .edu, and .arpa) and ICANN has introduced only a handful more ever since, including .biz and .info.</p>
<p>This latest batch of additions is much wider and follows an <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18dec09-en.htm">open call for proposals</a>. One of the most significant changes in this round will be the addition of generics in non-Latin characters. For the first time, we’ll start to see internet addresses ending in Arabic or Chinese scripts.</p>
<p><a href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/benefits-risks">Much of the debate surrounding the proliferation of generic top-level domains</a> surrounds whether they will help or hurt internet navigation. Even with existing domain names, it can be hard enough to remember if the website you are looking for ends with a .com. a .org or a country code. Now there will be thousands of potential suffixes to choose from and to remember.</p>
<p>And although businesses can now choose all kinds of different domain names, such as .gifts, .flights or .buzz, they will have to pay to register each of them. At the moment, many businesses purchase both the .org and .com versions of their names and forward traffic from one to the other. This is often done to prevent others from buying up the alternative names and is seen as a necessary expenditure. However, purchasing thousands of names to lock up a trade name may be prohibitively expensive for small businesses.</p>
<p>On the other hand, supporters of generic expansion hope that a proliferation of names, which previously had been limited by arbitrary convention, will lead to falling prices, lowering the cost for casual registrants if not for large corporate users.</p>
<h2>Online territories</h2>
<p>The explosion of generic top level domains is the latest phase in a series of attempts to define the relationship between the space of the internet and that of the sovereign state. When the internet system was first designed, it was assumed that a simple system would suffice. Country codes were added as an afterthought and internet governance officials anticipated that these would receive little use. They saw the internet as a global space for civil society that would transcend state boundaries.</p>
<p>In fact, although the early internet was a global system, it was heavily dominated by the United States. The US had its own country code in the form of .US but it was hardly used. Websites were much more frequently registered under the .com and it came to be seen as the US domain. Outside the US, users accordingly flocked to their own country codes.</p>
<p>This move coincided with an attempt to shift internet governance from the relatively informal arena of US-dominated users to a more formal, intergovernmental organisation in which US and corporate dominance would be somewhat muted. The failure of this effort has been echoed in the changing uses of country code top level domains. Some of the most successful and widely used internet suffixes are country-specific domains that have been marketed out as generics by the nations that own them. Take the Polynesian island Tuvalu, for example, which spotted the potential of its .tv domain and sold it to television stations around the world.</p>
<h2>When is a domain name not a domain?</h2>
<p>The proliferation of generic top-level domains marks a further disassociation of the internet from the space of sovereign states. As administrators of the country code system debated on a case-by-case basis whether to include states with contested sovereignty, such as <a href="http://archive.icann.org/en/general/ps-report-22mar00.htm">Palestine (.ps)</a>, generics started to be used as an alternative, including .asia and .cat (for Catalonia).</p>
<p>These two generics have operated in very different ways. Where .asia is open to anyone willing to pay the registration price, .cat requires a genuine association with Catalonia.</p>
<p>What they both do, however, is blur the distinction between spatial and non-spatial referents. Before Catalonia worked out that it could use a generic as though it were a country code, using a spatial referent as a domain name was largely the preserve of sovereign states. Now generics are encroaching into the realm of countries, suggesting that there is room for the internet to map onto the physical world in a way that bypasses the sovereign, territorial state.</p>
<p>With new domains like <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/scot">.scot</a> now entering the fray, this blurring of the line continues. We are likely to see even more generic top-level domains serving as markers of territorial space. There is already talk of how .scot may influence the debate over independence from the UK and the introduction of non-Latin domains creates similar opportunities all over the world. </p>
<p>If the internet represents the world’s future, then it is one in which spatial variation will continue to prevail, but in which state sovereignty will be increasingly tested at its margins.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22865/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Steinberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>More than 1,000 new generic top-level domain names – the part of an internet address that comes after the “dot” – are being rolled out by the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. It’s…Philip Steinberg, Professor of Political Geography; Director, IBRU: Durham University's Centre for Borders Research, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/49062012-01-12T03:43:34Z2012-01-12T03:43:34ZBeyond .com … an online world where anything.goes?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34017/original/q5jsyqrj-1383039890.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is a custom domain name worthy of your attention and love?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">nanic_</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At 11 o'clock this morning (Melbourne time), the
<a href="http://www.icann.org/">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)</a> <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan12-en.htm">started accepting applications</a> for custom <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/">top-level domain (TLD)</a> names.</p>
<p>Simply put, this means web addresses will no longer have to end with suffixes such as .com, .net or .org. It will now be possible to purchase domain names such as .food, .beer, .sydney or, well, anything you like really.</p>
<p>The introduction of new internet address suffixes will allow industries, businesses, and individuals to register unique web addresses to reflect their brand or values. Importantly, it will also allow applicants to <a href="https://theconversation.com/bored-by-org-and-com-the-world-is-your-oyster-1940">register TLDs in any language</a>; not just English.</p>
<p>But there’s a catch.</p>
<p>It costs US$185,000 to apply for a custom TLD, with an ongoing fee of US$25,000 per year for a minimum of ten years. ICANN has been criticised for these costs and rightly so – the internet is fully automated (meaning very little work for ICANN at all) and these costs are little more than exploitation.</p>
<p>It’s not clear what ICANN will do with this additional income, but they have indicated that <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan12-en.htm">US$2 million has been set aside</a> to assist needy applicants – applicants from developing countries, for example.</p>
<p>But let’s put this into perspective: with needy applicants receiving a discount of US$138,000 on their application cost (US$47,000 vs. US$185,000), the seed fund will support less than 15 needy custom TLD applicants across the entire world.</p>
<p>So how popular will custom TLDs be?</p>
<p>Well, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/11/22/web-braced-for-1000-new-top-level-domains-a-year/">some experts are predicting</a> we could see more than 1,000 TLDs being introduced every year.</p>
<p>I’m inclined to think that the initial take-up will be slow, with the costs being prohibitively expensive for all but the largest organisations. Smaller companies will probably wait for the costs to drop before applying for their own TLD.</p>
<p>Over time, businesses will probably start making room for TLDs in their marketing budgets. With a TLD, an organisation could implement internet addresses in a logical structure that fits the organisation or a product range. For instance, car manufacturer Holden could purchase the .holden TLD and create the commodore.holden and cruze.holden addresses.</p>
<p>But it’s search engines that are likely to see the greatest benefit from the introduction of custom TLDs.</p>
<p>Say I’m looking to buy a new car and I want to check out Holden’s range. Do I go to holden.com or cars.holden? The simple solution is to use a search engine as my home page and type “holden cars” into the search box.</p>
<p>Of course, this is what happens already, but search engines will see the introduction of new TLDs as an opportunity to start charging for TLD ranking.</p>
<p>The algorithms that underpin search engines such as Google or Bing are weighted, based on criteria such as payments for keywords or ranking priority. To ensure a new TLD is ranked above .com, .net or the TLD of a rival company, businesses will need to factor in an additional annual payment.</p>
<p>Assuming the costs drop as time passes, the introduction of custom TLDs is likely to be a big step forward for the internet, for online business, and for how we interact with internet-connected devices in the future.</p>
<p>Imagine a future where speech-enabled, internet-connected devices are more commonplace and further developed. Rather than having to type “http://www.holden.com.au” into my device, I will be able to simply say “Holden” and, given that Holden would then own the .holden TLD, my speech-enabled device would take me straight to their site based on my voice command.</p>
<p>But that vision is still a little while off and the first custom TLDs won’t be in use until 2013. Until then, it will be interesting to see just how many organisations are willing to pay the hefty US$185,000 price tag for their own customised slice of the web.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4906/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark A Gregory does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>At 11 o'clock this morning (Melbourne time), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) started accepting applications for custom top-level domain (TLD) names. Simply put, this means…Mark A Gregory, Senior Lecturer in Electrical and Computer Engineering, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.