2 who owns the Internet rights. Who owns the Internet? What are the domains?
In patriotic circles one can often hear statements like “all media and communications are controlled by Jews.” Let's try to check the validity of these words using the example of the most promising mass media today - the Internet.
Who owns the Internet portals and services that are most popular in our country, in our region, in the world? Who manages these resources? The information below is not secret at all, it was collected from open sources on the Internet and corresponds to the state of January-February 2011.
Belarus
tut.by
The owner and director, Yuri Zisser, is a Jew, which he does not hide publicly.
open.by(including branches shop.by, all.by, etc.)
The director of the company that owns the site is Andrey Aleksandrovich Ivanov. Apart from this, no information, not a single photograph.
naviny.by
The creator and director of BelaPAN CJSC, which owns the site, is a certain Ales Lipai, who managed to work in the newspaper Znamya Yunosti during the Soviet Union and then became the first journalist in Belarus for Radio Liberty (see below). The appearance is Belarusian, partly even alcoholic. No more information.
onliner.by
The director is Alexander Stelmakh (this is an old Belarusian surname), of Belarusian appearance.
Owner – Vitaly Shuravko, Belarusian species.
svaboda.org(Radio Liberty)
This site is owned by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which is funded by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). BBG, of course, has its own puppet masters, and figuring them out is a separate job. Regarding our topic, we can mention a) the chairman of the BBG, the Jew Walter Isaacson, and b) one of the ordinary members of the directorate, Michael Linton, who also works at the Jewish Television Network and comes from a family that fled Germany during the time of Hitler.
(If instead of svaboda.org you put charter97.org or another rabidly opposition site, the diagnosis will be approximately the same. But opposition sites do not enjoy nationwide popularity and only publish openly biased news materials).
yandex.ru
The system was created mainly by two people:
Ilya Segalovich is a programmer, today the director of Yandex LLC for technology and development, an obvious Jew and by his own admission, the author of the name “Yandex”;
Arkady Volozh is a white man, currently the general director of Yandex LLC. Segalovich, however, claimed in a (possibly fictitious) interview that they were both Jewish.
But these two are more like managers. Most of the assets of Yandex LLC belong to three organizations:
1) investment fund (in other words, moneylenders) ru-Net Holdings, where the director is Leonid Boguslavsky, the son of the Jewish writer Zoya Boguslavskaya;
2) Barings Vostok Capital Partners, the Russian branch of the mysterious international organization Baring Private Equity Partners (BPEP), descended from the English merchant-banking family of the Barings. BPEP is engaged in the purchase of CJSC, LLC (closed assets). The BPEP website does not provide any information about the central leadership of the organization, but only about regional branches;
3) Tiger Management investment fund, which is run by the following people:
Lee Fixel, the CEO, appears to be Jewish and has a number of Jewish friends on Facebook;
Charles Coleman is white, the son of an Anglican priest, married to a not very beautiful girl named Stephanie Erklenz (no evidence of Jewishness was found);
Julian Robertson – white, Church of England;
Joseph Sanberg - no information;
Michael Germino appears to be of Hispanic origin.
rambler.ru
The creator of the system, Dmitry Vitalievich Kryukov, apart from his repulsive, albeit white appearance, does not show any signs of Jewishness.
The current owner, oligarch Vladimir Potanin, is of unknown origin, but there is no evidence of Jewishness.
mail.ru
The portal is owned by the investment fund Digital Sky Technologies / Mail.ru Group, controlled by three financial tycoons:
Yuri Benitsionovich Milner is an obvious Jew and according to the information of the Jewish site sem40.ru;
Grigory Moiseevich Finger is an obvious Jew;
Alisher Burkhanovich Usmanov is an Uzbek, married to the famous Jewish sports coach Irina Viner, i.e. family ties to Jewishness; owner of the English football club Arsenal.
It’s interesting to read about what kind of wealth these people actually own - and this is not only the media, but also real natural resources.
Mail.ru Group maintain personal acquaintances with people on Facebook (see below), and they own 10% of Facebook shares.
livejournal.com
It is owned by the Moscow-based international media company SUP. SUP is owned primarily by two people:
Alexander Leonidovich Mamut is a friend of Yeltsin and Berezovsky, the son of a family of lawyers, a Jew by appearance and according to information from sem40.ru;
Andrew Paulson is white.
Until 2008, Jews Anton Nosik and Eduard Shenderovich also worked in the administration of the SUPA.
Tellingly, SUP bought Livejournal from the company Six Apart, which at the time of the deal was headed by Jew Barak Berkowitz (all according to sem40).
odnoklassniki.ru
The creator and original owner is Popkov Albert Mikhailovich, an obvious Jew.
Now the portal, like mail.ru, belongs to Digital Sky Technologies / Mail.ru Group (see above). Those. Jewish oligarchs.
liveinternet.ru
The creator and owner is German Klimenko. Apart from photographs showing Semitic elements in his appearance, there is no open popular information about his Jewishness.
vkontakte.ru
When VKontakte LLC was established, the company’s assets were distributed as follows:
20% – Pavel Durov – developer, shows no direct signs of Jewishness;
10% – Mikhail Mirilashvili – ex-vice-president of the Congress of Jewish Communities of Russia;
60% – Vyacheslav (Itzhak) Mirilashvili – son of Mikhail;
10% – Lev Leviev, a Jewish billionaire, among other things, the owner of diamond mines in Africa.
As of today, VKontakte has been purchased by the Jewish fund Digital Sky Technologies / Mail.ru Group (see above).
ICQ
The program was developed by the Israeli company Mirabilis. Today the service belongs to Digital Sky Technologies / Mail.ru Group (see above) and is most popular in the CIS all over the world.
The conditional result for portals and services popular in the CIS is 6 out of 8.
google.com/gmail.com/blogger.com
Google Incorporated is a multinational corporation that owns more than a million servers around the world, as well as, among other things, a complex of wind farms and an artificial earth satellite. The corporation is owned by two people:
Lawrence Page comes from a Jewish family from Michigan;
Sergey Brin is the son of Moscow Jews who moved to the United States.
myspace.com
The network is owned by the Australian News Corporation, which, however, is based in the United States. The corporation was founded by the Catholic noble family of Murdoch, who in the 20th century, for unknown reasons, rushed into wild interracial marriages, incl. became related to the Jewish Freud family. However, there are no obvious Jews in the leadership. And perhaps James Murdoch, executive director for Europe and Asia, is married to a certain Katrin Hufschmid, about whom there is no open information. That is, there are no obvious signs of Jewishness among Myspace owners. Although there are enough cries on the Internet about the Jews of both Hufschmid and the entire Murdoch family.
youtube.com
The service was created by a Taiwanese, a white American and a Bangladeshi, but was bought by the Jewish corporation Google in 2006 (see above).
yahoo.com
The portal was founded by Taiwanese Jerry Yang and an American with a rustic Irish appearance, David Filo. The executive director (hired) at Yahoo is a woman, Carol Bartz, but her Jewishness cannot be proven from the available information.
It’s interesting that Yahoo was once sued by several Jewish organizations, accusing the company’s management of “justifying Nazi war crimes.” There were other, not judicial, but kitchen-online accusations of anti-Semitism.
facebook.com
Facebook Incorporated's assets are distributed as follows:
24% – Mark Zuckerberg, from a family of New York Jews, founder of Facebook, chief executive;
10% – Accel Partners investment fund, dispersed throughout the world, without a clear central management/owners; there are enough shady functionaries in it, but there is no reason to assert that the fund as a whole is Jewish;
10% – Digital Sky Technologies (see above), a Jewish oligarchic structure;
6% – Dustin Moskowitz, an obvious Jew, Zuckerberg’s roommate in a university dormitory, co-founder of the corporation;
5% – Eduardo Saverin, from a family of Brazilian Jews, Zuckerberg’s dorm roommate, co-founder;
4% - Sean Parker, white, drug addict, activist for the legalization of marijuana; co-founder;
3% - Chris Hughes, white, Zuckerberg's dorm roommate; homosexual, same-sex marriage activist; co-founder;
(the last two are no joke, check for yourself!);
the remaining 38% is distributed in small shares among various named and unnamed investment funds, ordinary employees of the corporation, and unnamed “famous people.”
The above distribution shows that at least 45% of Facebook belongs to Jews. Although this is not a “controlling stake” yet, considering who created this network and who runs it, we will consider it Jewish.
twitter
Three founders and owners: Jack Dorsey, Evan Williams - white Americans; Isaac Stone is a somewhat obscure figure.
last.fm
Owned by the American CBS Corporation. CBS is majority owned by Jew Sumner Rothstein (who changed his last name to Redstone in his youth).
wikipedia.org
According to official data, Wikipedia and related sites are supported by the non-profit organization Wikimedia Foundation. The organization is governed by a council, whose members are elected and serve for a limited time, i.e. we see a semblance of democracy. The council has a diverse national composition. There is no open evidence about the “Jewish hand”.
Skype
The Skype network is managed by Skype Limited, which is owned by the investment fund Silver Lake Partners. Here are the co-founders of SLP: Glenn Hutchins, Jim Davidson and David Roux. In appearance and in name they are more likely to be white. There is no more personal information in the public domain. True, among the deputy chairmen of the fund there are obvious Jews, but they are hired employees.
AOL Instant Messenger (AIM)
The AIM messaging system is owned by AOL Incorporated. No publications were found on the composition of AOL shareholders, and in the management, which may not own shares, there is only one obvious Jew. What’s more interesting here is that from 2000 to 2009, AOL was one with the Jewish company Time Warner. Overall, we'll give AIM half a point for Jewishness.
The conditional result for world-famous sites and services is 4.5 out of 10.
So, Jews do control a significant portion of online information. Not all portals and services belong to them, but the most popular ones do. Here in Belarus, many people can no longer imagine their life without Google, and everyone’s mailboxes are mostly on gmail, tut.by, mail.ru, yandex.
Websites and services are not just what you see on your screen. These are also servers. All information that we enter on websites, all correspondence, all personal data is stored on servers or at least passes through them. At the same time, a significant, if not most, part of the servers belongs to a closed group of people interacting with each other and united by a national and religious idea - Jews. Do you have any insight into how these people are using all this information of yours? I think no. But let's imagine ourselves in their place.
So, we are representatives of an ambitious and determined people fighting for political and economic dominance in the world. Many people hate us and want to destroy us for religious or geopolitical reasons, and we also have many simple competitors in business. To win, we need to be one step ahead.
And now we have a unique opportunity to read personal data and correspondence, including business, of a huge number of people, among whom there will certainly be our enemies and competitors. In addition, we can, at our discretion, edit the information that all these people see on our sites, and thus put into their heads what is beneficial to us.
We'd have to be complete idiots not to take advantage of this opportunity! In politics and market relations, those who are guided by “honesty” and “decency” inevitably lose. Moreover, our religion instructs us to consider all people of other faiths as animals, lower beings, unworthy of human treatment. We are allowed to break the promises and oaths that we make to people of other faiths.
...Based on the above, you can be 99% sure that the owners of popular sites draw the MAXIMUM of useful information from our personal data and correspondence.
Let’s be naive and still assume that they are “honest” and do not look at our information. Why, why, how then could such a situation even arise that a certain closed group of people has the opportunity to know everything about us, know our thoughts, know what we are talking about, but at the same time we do not have the opportunity to know what they are talking about ? Did this just happen by itself?
How can website owners extract what they need from our data? Most likely, they simply search in databases using keywords of interest, similar to wiretapping of telephone conversations. What are the keywords? – for example, philosophical, political, commercial or industrial terms. Roughly speaking, “Jew”, “race”, “autonomy”, “credit”, “Orthodoxy”, “PCS”, “turn radius”, in general, anything. With the help of search engines and social networks, you can study the economic trends of states, areas of interest of the population, and their political and philosophical sentiments.
Why is this also about viewing business correspondence? In the case of foreign enterprises, this is unlikely, since people there are accustomed to competition, but what about us? What email do public and private companies use in Belarus? Perhaps some people have central enterprise mailboxes on paid servers like belhost.by, but do most people? And if so, what emails are used for correspondence at lower levels, between departments of different enterprises? Do you think our managers think about Internet security? The author of this article saw with his own eyes how correspondence takes place via mail.ru on a topic close to state secrets. However, this is a separate topic for investigation.
In the 90s, Orthodox fundamentalists foamed at the mouth and shouted things that may seem like the ravings of a madman: “The Jews will have dossiers collected on every goyim in specially designated buildings.” Today we see this seemingly nonsense with our own eyes. The Jews not only have a dossier on every goyim, but these dossiers were created by the goyim themselves! And not just created, but created with great pleasure. For example, vkontakte. People take great pleasure in writing their biographies, listing personal passions and character traits, and posting lots of photographs of themselves, satisfying the need for a sense of self-importance.
What to do with all this? Just as every person and every nation needs their own autonomous space on the planet, it would be nice to have their own “land” online. That is, their own servers, their own closed correspondence systems. Take a look through your phone book: don’t you know a single computer scientist/programmer?
A less painful way is to use paid mail. Even less painful, but also the least sensible, is to use little-known free services based in those regions and countries where they are unlikely to be interested in your information and where Jewry does not have much weight. China, Iran, India, Australia – you continue the list yourself.
August 18th, 2015
Just today I saw a news story with this title: “The United States will retain control of the Internet for another three years” and became interested in this topic, because... In general, I had little idea of these mechanisms. I decided to delve into this topic and tell you something.
Until 1998, the Internet was actually governed by one (!) person - University of South Carolina professor Jon Postel, who died in the midst of a discussion about the principles of creating ICANN. As a result of a compromise between public organizations, the commercial sector and the Clinton administration, it was decided that the Internet would continue to operate on the principles of self-government. Since public self-government has already proven itself to be an effective manager and has allowed the Internet to develop rapidly, the American authorities decided not to control it directly.
ICANN, established as a non-profit public organization, operates under an agreement with the US Department of Commerce. In addition, due to its registration in the State of California, ICANN's activities are subject to US law. The influence of the US government in it is very great, since the Department of Commerce has veto power in any matter. In this regard, concerns have been repeatedly expressed that the government of the United States of America could at any time “turn off” the domain name of any country and make the use of Internet services in that country impossible. For example, “during the Iraq War, the American government repeatedly blocked the functioning of the “.ik” extension belonging to Iraq.”
Since the beginning of its activities, ICANN began to use a distributed domain registration system, which is based on the principle of free access to domain name registries by accredited registrars. This step marked the beginning of the formation of a competitive domain market. Today, there are more than 900 accredited registrars operating in public domain zones, thanks to which the number of registered domains has increased significantly and already exceeds 270 million.
As part of the development of the addressing system, ICANN corporation has consistently expanded the list of generic domains, of which there were only three in 1998 (.com, .net, .org). Since 2001, the corporation has introduced the domain zones .info, .biz, .name, .coop, .museum, .aero, .pro, .travel, .jobs, .cat, .asia, .eu, .mobi, .tel. At the same time, ICANN intends to continue to follow the policy of expanding the address space by creating new top-level domains, including using characters from national alphabets.
ICANN can also be credited with the fact that all decisions made by the corporation are previously discussed with representatives of the Internet community, business and government authorities in various countries. This is necessary to ensure balanced management of the address space, taking into account the opinions of all parties interested in this process. Discussions of ICANN documents today take place in a variety of formats. In particular, before approval, all of them are available for comments on the organization’s website. In addition, the corporation regularly holds international conferences.
At the 33rd ICANN meeting held in Cairo on November 2-7, 2008, a decision was made to allocate the Cyrillic top-level domain “.рф” to Russia. On February 4, 2011, IPv4 addresses began to run out. ICANN has already begun implementing a new series of IPv6 addresses.
Recently, the problem of Internet governance has unexpectedly become one of the most discussed and sought after topics at various international summits and forums. This happened due to the fact that the global nature of the Network cannot but affect the interests of all participants in modern international relations. The rapid development of information technology has given rise to a sharp division of the countries of the world into “information-rich” and “information-poor”. This has also caused serious dissatisfaction on the part of some apparently not the richest countries. For example, countries such as Syria and Cuba have pointed out that the Internet is a tool of the “world behind the scenes”, the activities of which are directed from Washington, and the leader of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, called the existing system of Internet governance “a form of neo-colonialism.”
Although the Internet is a decentralized network based on the connection of independent computer networks, it does require some degree of coordination. The myth of complete freedom and decentralization of the Network does not stand up to the simplest analysis of the technical features of its creation. Firstly, a significant feature is the problem of assigning domain names or assigning a specific address for each computer or server. Someone must manage the address database and register new domain names, otherwise sending information will turn into a lottery with unpredictable results.
Secondly, there must be a standard by which information is transmitted on the Internet. This standard is usually interpreted as the Internet data transfer protocol TCP/IP. However, the technical standards for information transfer are not limited to the above protocol. They include many additional parameters, such as transmitting a video signal over the Internet. Accordingly, these standards must be developed, accepted and implemented; there is a need for someone who will store them and monitor the compliance of the programs used with the necessary standards.
Thirdly, there is a need to maintain the so-called root servers, which contain databases of Internet addresses and, within milliseconds, determine where data should be sent from and to. There are only 13 root servers, vital for the operation of the entire Internet. As a result of historical development, root servers are owned by government and non-government organizations. From a geographical point of view, today there is a serious disproportion in their location: ten root servers are located in the USA, one each in Amsterdam, Stockholm and Tokyo.
Obviously, the Internet requires less control and regulation than television or radio. For example, registration of domain names is carried out on an application basis. If a name is free, then there are no additional obstacles to registering it, comparable to the need to obtain licenses for television and radio broadcasting. However, some centralized coordination is still required, otherwise the system simply will not function. And this allows us to say that the Internet can be “managed.”
Some European researchers even proposed disconnecting from the American Network and creating their own.
Obviously, this state of affairs could not suit other participants in international relations. Since the organization of ICANN, the question of transferring its functions to an international organization under the auspices of the UN has been raised. The International Telecommunication Union was named as a likely candidate. The most developed countries in the world were among the first to express dissatisfaction with the “dominance” of the United States in this matter. The position of France was especially harsh, as it has repeatedly advocated transferring Internet management to an international organization, saying that a national domain name is an integral part of the country’s sovereignty.
The vast majority of international stakeholders are unhappy with the structure of ICANN's board of directors. For example, until 2002, the global community could delegate no more than two members to the ICANN Board of Directors. Today, in accordance with the current charter of the organization, this opportunity is reserved for 8 members out of 21. However, the complex system for selecting candidates leads to the fact that the board of directors is dominated by representatives of English-speaking countries. Despite the stated goals of “making Internet governance independent of the will of a single nation,” it is clear at most ICANN meetings that “the Internet remains the property of English-speaking countries.”
At the very beginning of the new millennium, international pressure on ICANN's activities was so strong that the US government seriously considered the issue of transferring management of domain name registration to an international organization. The main line of defense for the current situation comes down to the fact that representatives of the American government point out that ICANN represents a new form of coordination of the interests of states, public organizations and business. Moreover, the public status of this organization, according to the American side, helps maintain the political non-partisanship of the Internet. For example, in 2002, the US Federal Communications Commission received an official request from the authorities of communist China, which required clarification about the existence of the domain name “.tw”. Since Chinese authorities do not recognize the existence of Taiwan, they asked to cancel the registration of this domain name. The response of the American authorities was to point out that ICANN is a non-profit organization in which the US government does not have the ability to order, but can only veto. Thus, the United States has discovered an unexpected benefit from this way of organizing Internet governance. On the one hand, work based on public self-government is developing quite successfully, does not require significant expenses and contributes to the spread of American technologies and lifestyle. On the other hand, the US retains some control over these activities.
However, in response to the wishes of the global community, a Governmental Advisory Committee was included in the ICANN governing body system, which is designed to represent and defend the point of view of national governments. However, this committee has only advisory power. Therefore, it is not surprising that with the beginning of the new millennium, the participation of various structures under the auspices of the UN intensified in the problem of Internet governance. This was started by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who in November 2004 announced the creation of a special working group on the problems of the information society, which began preparing to consider the issue of “Internet government”. As a result of the group's activities, a working definition of the concept of “Internet governance” emerged. This definition reduces Internet governance to “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in the performance of their respective roles, of general principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programs to govern the evolution and application of the Internet.” Another very important proposal was the idea of creating a Worldwide Internet Corporation for Assigned Domain Names and Numbers, which could replace the American organization ICANN.
In 2005, as a result of the decision of the Tunis phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, a forum on Internet governance was created. The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society requested the Secretary-General to establish a new forum for policy dialogue to discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance to promote the viability, reliability, security, stability and development of the Internet. In 2006, the working group on problems of the information society was transformed into the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum, and annual international forums on Internet governance began to be held under the auspices of the UN. The Forum's mandate was initially limited to five years, but was subsequently extended by a further five years by decision of the General Assembly (A/RES/65/141) in 2010.
And just today, the US Department of Commerce decided not to transfer the functions of control over critical Internet infrastructure to the community from September 30, 2015 and to extend the contract with the Domain Name and IP Address Management Corporation (ICANN) for a year, writes The Wall Street Journal.
“The government plans to extend its contract with ICANN for one year, until September 30, 2016, with an option to extend it for an additional three years,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce Lawrence Strickling.
The basis for this decision was that the Internet community did not have time to prepare a consolidated proposal for the transfer of ICANN functions to the community by the specified deadline.
Previously, the US Department of Commerce stated that it would transfer management of critical infrastructure to the global community only according to the multistakeholderism model - taking into account the interests of all participants: the Internet community, business and states. But on the condition that the non-interference of any state or group of states in Internet governance will be guaranteed. At the same time, the US authorities categorically rejected the transfer of control over the Internet to an international organization (for example, the UN or the International Telecommunication Union).
This position of the US Department of Commerce aroused criticism from various countries, including Russia. Doubts have also been expressed that America will hand over control of the Internet within the agreed time frame.
“Unfortunately, the closer we get to September 30, the more we hear rhetoric that humanity is not capable of managing the Internet; there are no other worthy organizations from countries that are capable of taking on such a difficult task. “Only the United States can cope with this,” Nikolai Nikiforov, Minister of Communications and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation, said in an interview with Interfax in June. —<…>They don’t believe that humanity is capable of managing the World Wide Web.”
Nikiforov noted that if the decision on the transfer of control is not made before September 30, then “humanity will not expect the completion of the next government contract with ICANN.” In his opinion, many countries in the world will begin to implement technical and organizational projects that will demonopolize the Internet.
The minister explained the inevitability of such steps on the part of various countries, in particular, by the fact that the US authorities have extended their policy of double standards to include the Internet. “We have already encountered the efficiency of their (US administration) management when domains registered to legal entities or individuals located in Crimea were deleted,” Nikiforov said. “This happened by order of the US administration, despite previous statements from the stands that the Internet is outside of political decisions, outside of government control. This kind of double standard policy is present in many areas, and has now reached the Internet. The Internet is directly controlled by the US government administration."
At the same time, Nikiforov emphasized that the nationalization of the Internet will not affect his work in any way.
In turn, Russian Presidential Assistant Igor Shchegolev said in July that Russia would strengthen the protection of its own interests on the Internet, regardless of what decision the US Department of Commerce made on the transfer of Internet management control functions.
“We will move in this direction regardless of what the September decisions are. On the other hand, not only Russia, but most countries of the world are waiting to see what will happen in September.< . . .>Everyone remains moderately optimistic that the US government will fulfill its promises and let ICANN float freely,” he said.
Previously, Maxim Burtikov, director of external relations for RIPE NCC (European Regional Internet Registry) in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, told Interfax that the Internet community has concerns that by the time the current contract with ICANN expires, the final consolidated proposal for the transfer of powers will not be prepared. “And if such a proposal appears, the NTIA (US National Telecommunications and Information Administration) may not have time to consider it - and will simply extend the contract with ICANN for another period necessary to complete the discussion,” Burtikov said.
Currently, the Internet governance structure consists of several levels. At the top is the NTIA, which determines the terms of the contract to perform the functions of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). The latter is responsible for the IP address space, top-level domains, and the Internet protocols used. Traditionally, ICANN receives this contract.
Back in 2011, NTIA announced a tender to renew the IANA contract. The basis for this was the position of a number of countries on the issue of Internet governance (Russia, China, etc.). In particular, dissatisfaction with the work of ICANN was expressed, and it was proposed to transfer its functions to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
In March 2012, NTIA reported that it had not received proposals that met the requirements of the global Internet community and declared the tender invalid. As a result, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration exceptionally extended ICANN's Internet governance contract by 6 months, and then entered into a new three-year contract with ICANN, which expires on September 30 of this year.
InfoGlaz.rf Link to the article from which this copy was made -The answer to this question is both yes and no. Technically, this is an articulation of network elements, but in fact it is a separate world and an instrument of influence, without which it is impossible to live and work normally today. At least in developed and developing countries. It is best to think of Internet governance as the collective writing of the “rules of the game.”
Then in the future (though not as soon as we would like) the system will look like this:
- independent technology regulator (now ICANN and its ilk), which is self-funded by providing certain services, for example, charging fees for the distribution of domain names. Also at the technological level, IP addresses are distributed, data transfer protocols are defined;
- the most important element that is now completely missing is some kind of analogue of a unified legislative power at the global level. Now the development of requirements and restrictions is happening from the bottom up - each government acts as strictly as it sees fit, the interests of other players are not taken into account.
Basically we are talking about restrictions in terms of content and resource blocking. A recent example is that in Thailand, making an offensive statement against the ruling royal family is considered a criminal offense (they give 15 years for such an action). Over the past couple of months, players such as Facebook and YouTube, at the request of the country's authorities, have blocked more than 3 thousand pages with statements of this kind. The most interesting thing is this: now the blocking is happening at the country level, but the Thai authorities have begun blackmail - if all such pages are not blocked, then companies will not be allowed to conduct commercial activities in the national Internet segment of the country. Imagine if each country has its own law prohibiting insults to anyone (the authorities will, of course, specify the untouchables)? By the way, there is no news yet about the corresponding actions of social networks. Cleaning is carried out at the level of local providers. Besides, what is even considered an insult?
So interaction and the development of common criteria are absolutely necessary. If we evaluate the current laws, then we can consider them to be the most adequate so far (now most countries do not hesitate and block by IP address), and the reasons for blocking correspond to the articles of almost all criminal codes for many years - drugs, child pornography, terrorism and other horrors.
Moreover, restrictions must be assigned taking into account the interests of all “residents” of the Network, that is, the civil and business community must also have the right to vote. Actually, now.
Yuriy Kargapolov, member of the Coordination Council of the Ukrainian Network Information Center, which administers the Cyrillic domain zone. UKR.
The Internet does not belong to anyone. The Internet should not belong to anyone. If we consider the version according to which the Internet belongs to the Americans, then it must be stated that Americans do not consider themselves the rulers of the Internet, at least their internet-community, but their political “wants” are another matter.
The Internet does not belong to anyone.
From a technical point of view, today the technical policies of Internet governance are in no way dependent on any entity related to the Internet. But from an administrative point of view, not everything is so simple and unambiguous. For example, theoretically, the State Department has influence on decision-making on the operation of the network. But this is only theoretical. If this theory is translated into practice, then a huge piece will be broken off from the moral weight of America as such. But, let’s put it this way: “disabling” the Internet in a certain territory, defined by the borders of a state, depends on many factors. There is, of course, the State Department factor. But if the policies for passing and routing Internet traffic are in hands that may be influenced by government structures, then in the case of particularly “outstanding” situations, even the local government can limit access to the Internet for users of the country, although this will not be 100% filtering . The most advanced users will have access to external network resources.
Andrey Yarantsev, top manager of Wargaming
The Internet belongs to all humanity. The Internet is a number of networks voluntarily connected to each other. This particular community of networks (in fact, the name Internet itself was born from here) does not belong to anyone, but there are a number of organizations that regulate the operation of certain services/network protocols. All these ICANN, ietf, w3c and so on. And there are government organizations (such as Roskomnadzor or the Great Firewall of China) that look after their regional segment of the Internet through telecoms.
In principle, I am happy with everything in the current situation (the Internet belongs to all of humanity), although, of course, the freedom of communication that existed in the 90s no longer exists. But any state will inevitably try to regulate/shape/firewall its networks, because this is part of state security.
Anatoly Streltsov, professor, deputy director of the Institute of Information Security Problems of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov
The Internet is a global commons. It all depends on whose point of view this issue is being considered, and what is meant by the Internet. From the point of view of American specialists, it seems to me that the Internet is their invention, which was given to other countries to use. From my point of view, the Internet is a global property and does not belong to anyone in particular.
Kirill Voloshin, entrepreneur, co-owner of the portalTUT. BY
The Internet, like Antarctica, cannot belong to anyone. In my opinion, the question is from the series, who owns the air or Antarctica? Yes, there are countries that play first fiddle in the processes of managing and developing the Network. There are those who fence off their segments from the rest of the world or filter part of the international web. But I peacefully believe that, like Antarctica, for which countries in the 20th century concluded an agreement to use it in the interests of all humanity, the Internet today cannot belong to anyone - neither corporations nor countries.
If we look from a technical, infrastructural point of view, I think it is correct to compare the Internet with highways - it connects different states, but a specific country is responsible for the serviceability of the “coverage” and “wires” on its territory for the general benefit.
The Internet does not belong to anyone. Even America. I try to follow the process of transition of control from the US Department of Commerce to multi-stakeholders. So the Americans own (at the moment) the technical component of domain management. And that's formal. But for me this is not the Internet. The Internet does not belong to anyone.
Alexander Arsenov, Belarusian journalist
Judging by indirect signs, the Internet does not belong to anyone. Although there is no direct evidence of this and any Masonic conspiracy can be invented, there were many cases when the “owner of the Internet” had to take action. From the removal of a harmless photo of Barbra Streisand’s cottage to Navalny’s not so harmless investigations about the cottages of Putin’s entourage. From Assange and Snowden to pirated torrents or child porn. The more you demand that your bad photo be removed from the Internet, the more the Internet replicates it.
Judging by indirect signs, the Internet does not belong to anyone. You could say that the Internet belongs to those who can turn it off. But the problem is that there is no universal “switch”, such is the structure of the Web. Unless individual states can turn off the Internet within their borders or not let in the “external” Internet. But so far only North Korea has done this - for other countries, whose citizens have already managed to “taste” it, it is too dangerous. More than once there have been cases when, during mass protests in cities and entire countries, the Internet was turned off, but the protests did not subside, but rather intensified. And the more civilized and peaceful the country, the greater the danger that hipsters will not like communicating in person and will start burning tires.
Even if you are not afraid of a boarding school riot, not all countries have a “switch.” Even if Trump comes to power in the United States and decides to shut down the Internet, too many companies provide Internet access. Some will drag out the process, others will not agree, and while the matter drags on, there will be angry hipsters with tires. Only countries like Belarus have a “switch”, where the external channel is controlled by three companies, 2.5 of which are state-owned. In Russia, they say, they tried their own “switch”, but it did not work due to the large number of small providers, legal and not very external channels.
Runet will not belong to Russia.
It is clearly not profitable for business to turn off the Internet. And giants like Google don’t have much power in it - Google doesn’t really get through the Great Firewall of China. But the Chinese Internet does not belong to China, but to the Chinese (potentially evil hipsters with tires) and Chinese companies (they will also be evil if they lose a significant part of their profits). And the Chinese break through the firewall if they want. Another thing is how much there is such desire.
Even if Russia builds its own firewall, it will not hide the cottages of Putin’s entourage from those who want to look at them, but will only reduce their number, increasing negative moods in society. Runet will not belong to Russia.
Alexander Ocheretny, journalist/editor
The Internet is an ocean, only an information one. The Internet should not belong to anyone. This is an ocean, only informational. Like any ocean, there is everything here - harmful, useful, poisonous, colorful, sweet, and so on and so forth. The ocean belongs to no one and belongs to everyone. You can use it for free, or you can use it for money. You can do crawl, you can do breaststroke, you can do it on a yacht, you can do it on an aircraft carrier. You can simply enjoy the ocean, or you can extract money from it if you know how.
Maxim Maglyas, brand manager at Mail.ru Games
The Internet, as an infrastructure, belongs to a number of large corporations. The Internet, as an infrastructure, belongs to a number of large corporations. Trunk lines, cables, hardware, that's all. Well, however, not just one, acting as a monopolist, but still several. However, if we consider the word belongs in the context of “who can destroy the Internet,” then these are precisely the very corporations that own the infrastructure.
If we consider the Internet as an ecosystem, then it essentially does not belong to anyone and everyone at once. Whoever is able to use this ecosystem here and now for their own purposes, be it Google or streamer Karina, owns the Internet. And it doesn’t matter whether the count is for hours or for many years. This is just a platform with its own rules of the game, and constantly changing ones. The one who is able to comply with them or foresee their changes (or act as a lever for their changes) is, in fact, the current master of the situation.
Many entrepreneurs have websites, but do not know that ownership of the site must be confirmed in a certain way. You will read about what to do to avoid losing your own website in this article.
Website- a set of independent materials, presented in an objective form and systematized in such a way that these materials can be posted on the Internet.
Website- a result of intellectual activity that can be used by its owner at his own discretion, in any way that does not contradict the law.
Due to the fact that the site cannot be touched or any physical actions performed with it, not everyone realizes that the site is property and can be owned by citizens and legal entities, and that any operations can be carried out with the site to sell or pledge it , donation and any other use. That is why, when creating and registering rights to a site, entrepreneurs make a huge number of mistakes, which then prevent them from using this site.
Now we will try to look at these errors and find out what you need to know when ordering, designing or purchasing a website.
The site is a system
It’s worth starting with the fact that a website is not only a complex of texts, pictures and code. A website is a complex system that will not work unless you purchase a domain name and host the site on either a dedicated server or shared hosting.
Hosting- This is a way to host a website on the Internet. Once the site is hosted on the server, Internet users will access it by typing the domain name into the browser.
Domain- this is the name of the site, its address on the Internet. As a rule, it looks like this: http://www.site.ru/. A domain can be located in different territorial zones. For Russia, this is the ru and su zone, however, there are no obstacles to registering a domain name in the com, net, org, info, etc. zones.
A free domain can be purchased from its registrar, and a busy domain can be purchased from the domain owner, a legal entity or an individual. By purchasing a domain name, you will acquire rights to administer it and will be able to “link” the domain to your website.
So who is the owner of the site?
Exactly the domain name administrator is considered the owner of the site, can perform any actions with the site and, importantly, - is responsible for the content posted on the site: texts, pictures, audio, video materials, etc.
If the site contains pornography, extremist statements, stolen texts or other prohibited information, the owner of the domain name will bear liability established by the legislation of that country. whose zone the domain belongs to.
Thus, it turns out that the site owner is not so much the one who ordered the development of the site, but the one who who is the domain name registered to?. And this is where the fun begins.
The fact is that when purchasing or developing a website, entrepreneurs pay a lot of attention to its content, its appearance and ease of use. They conclude an agreement on the transfer of exclusive rights to all materials used on the site, however, they completely forget that the first thing they need to do is register a domain name, and only then everything else. So it turns out that the domain, as a rule, turns out to be registered not to the company, and not even to its owner, but only to the employee who communicated with the webmaster and dealt with all organizational issues regarding the order and purchase of the site.
Thus, in many cases it turns out that the owner of the site is actually is not a company, A her employee, who can quit and get a domain name. Of course, you can change the domain and move the site to a new address, however, clients will not know this, coming to the old address and thus losing contact with the entrepreneur.
A few simple rules to become a website owner
Therefore, when purchasing or ordering a website, you need to consider the following simple information:
- 1.
Before ordering a website, you need to come up with a domain name and register it either in the name of an entrepreneur, or in the name of a legal entity, or in the name of the owner of the company.
- 2.
When registering a domain, you must indicate real passport data or company details, in no case making mistakes or typos.
- 3.
When ordering a website, it is necessary to conclude agreements with all persons who participated in its creation: designers, programmers, artists, copywriters, optimizers, etc. and so on. The contract must indicate that the exclusive right to these materials belongs to you, i.e. the owner of the site's domain name.
- 4.
After creating a site, its owner must have access (logins and passwords) to the site’s administrative panel, to the database server, to the hosting administrative panel, and to the domain name administrator account. If webmasters or other persons are familiar with this information, then after the complete transfer of the site, it is advisable to change the passwords.
Following these rules will help you secure your site and subsequently perform any actions with it - sell, donate, exchange, place advertisements and do whatever you want with the site, without fear that for some reason beyond your control you will be able to lose it or lose access to it.
Developing an offensive against foreign agent media, State Duma deputies began their new parliamentary season by adopting in the first reading on January 24 a bill amending the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which provides for differentiated sanctions for violating the procedure for the activities of foreign agent media. Another newly minted bill will oblige users of social networks, such as Facebook, when reprinting on their pages materials and messages from the media of a foreign agent, to make special links, as stated by Deputy Speaker of the State Duma Pyotr Tolstoy.
IS THE INTERNET EVIL OR GOOD?
Remember how previously, in order to win the revolution, it was necessary to establish control over the mail, telephone and telegraph. Now in the age of scientific progress, control over the World Wide Web is becoming relevant. Security services in all countries of the world claim that terrorists and leaders of various sects recruit their supporters on the Internet, and drug lords sell poisonous death through it. And, they will add, “color revolutions” are planned and then carried out using the Internet. There are also groups on the Internet that encourage children to commit suicide.
There are also malicious viruses that can be launched into an enemy’s network and block the operation of airports, banks, railways... Experts say that now more than 130 countries are experimenting in the field of cyber warfare. The President of Russia, speaking at the FSB board, said that approximately 70 million cyber attacks are carried out on Russian state resources per year. Let us warn you right away: in this article we will not consider accusations of Russian hackers interfering in the American elections. This topic requires separate material.
Internet supporters will reasonably argue that any new product can be used for good or evil. Remember the Strugatskys’ book “It’s Hard to Be a God”? There, the meat grinder was used as a torture machine, crushing the fingers of Don Reba's opponents. By the way, the revolutions of the past somehow managed without social networks - Facebook, LiveJournal and Odnoklassniki. And catching terrorists in any guise is the task of law enforcement officers, not IT specialists. In addition, it is through the exchange of information over the Internet that close cooperation between law enforcement agencies from all over the world has become possible.
In short, without leaving Russia, you can get an education either at Oxford or at the University of Massachusetts. Statistics say: almost 2/3 of education in the world is already carried out remotely. The discussion about whether the Internet is evil or good, we think, will continue until something more comprehensive and effective is invented. But one thing is already clear: today, whoever owns the Internet controls the minds of billions. In fact, we are talking about the possibility of influence (evil or good) on all of humanity. It is known that there are about four billion Internet users in the world today. And this number is growing every minute.
There are about four billion Internet users in the world today. And every minute this number is growing
BAN OR NOT?
However, whether the Internet is good or evil does not matter to many officials. In order not to worry about anything, it is better to prohibit it. Everything that is possible and what is not. For starters, they classified data on the property of a number of high-ranking officials, giving the FSO new powers. The adopted document states that it is possible to classify the personal data of protected persons and information about their family members.
A bill amending the FSO Law was submitted to the State Duma by the president in February of this year and initially did not provide for anything like that. But by the second reading, clause 14.1 appeared in the document: “...processing of personal data of objects of state protection and members of their families is carried out with their consent and (or) with the consent of state security authorities, with the exception of personal data subject to publication or mandatory disclosure under federal laws "
This means that from all public registers - traffic police, Rosreestr, Unified State Register of Legal Entities, FSSP, Federal Tax Service, etc. - any information about traitors of the Investigative Committee, both Houses of Parliament, the Supreme and Constitutional Courts and members of their families can be excluded. At the legislative level, there is no definition of a family member, so the law can be applied arbitrarily, excluding information from public registers even about cousins of high-ranking officials. This greatly reduces the scope for anti-corruption monitoring of high-ranking officials. Maybe it was intended that way?
.jpg)
THE DOUBLE HOLE IS FOR YOU, NOT THE MESSENGERS
On January 1, 2018, the law on the regulation of instant messengers comes into force, obliging users to be identified by phone number and to refuse to exchange messages if this condition is not met. Messenger is a program, mobile application or web service for instant messaging.
The market of instant messengers for smartphones and tablets has today been conquered by powerful and practically free WhatsApp and Viber, with which Pavel Durov’s Telegram is still trying unsuccessfully to compete. The law imposes an obligation on services, within 24 hours, at the request of the authorities, to limit the user’s ability to transmit electronic messages containing information prohibited in Russia.
According to the document, the organizers of instant messengers will have to enter into agreements with telecom operators, which will allow the user’s identity to be determined by phone number. Messengers will also have to limit the sending of messages at the request of government authorities. The government must determine the procedure for such a restriction.
The head of the relevant State Duma Committee on Information Policy, Information Technologies and Communications, Leonid Levin, explained to reporters: “The introduced regulation provides for sanctions only against messenger operators if they contribute to breaking the law. There are no plans for any fines or direct bans against users.” Access to the instant messengers themselves can only be limited by a court decision.
Let us note that the law has a significant flaw. The fact is that preventive prevention of “bad” mailings by the messenger is unrealistic, since for this you need to at least know the content of the mailings. And the messages are encrypted and cannot be read by instant messengers. But what’s important here is not the result, but the simulation of active work on the topic “How could something go wrong?” And from July 1, 2018, the Yarovaya Law will oblige everyone (mobile operators, Internet resources, instant messengers, social networks) to store all their clients’ traffic (conversation recordings, correspondence contents) for six months for the possible provision of information to the competent authorities.
AND THE CHERRY ON THE CAKE - INTERNET BRICS
The Russian Security Council instructed the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to work on creating their own Internet based on BRICS. This Internet, spanning Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, will have a system of redundant root domain name servers (DNS). It will be independent from the control of international organizations and capable of serving the requests of users of the BRICS countries in case of failures or targeted impacts.
In addition, the Council of the Russian Federation issued instructions to ministries and departments to ensure the production of Russian telecommunications equipment and its priority use in government agencies and state-owned companies.
What is the reason for this decision? As stated at the Security Council, a serious threat to Russia’s security is the increased capabilities of Western countries to conduct offensive operations in the information space and the readiness to use them.
The role of the United States, which controls the global network, was especially emphasized. Internet experts were skeptical about the possibility of putting the idea of a “parallel Internet” into practice. But the task of depriving the United States of Internet advantages is clear. And somehow it will be resolved.
Conclusion: no one will deny that any country needs to ensure information security within its information space.
But it is not difficult to guess that if the World Wide Web is divided into countries, then the whole point of this technology will collapse. Its strength, its progressive character lies precisely in the fact that it unites humanity.
Alexandra Selezneva
