October 2016 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Mastercard con riconoscimento facciale anche in Italia?

by Alberto Cammozzo

L'app Mastercard Identity Check introduce l'autenticazione attraverso impronta digitale o riconoscimento facciale. Sarebbe stato varato o dovrebbe essere varato anche in Italia. <http://www.inc.com/neil-c-hughes/this-new-form-of-biometric-authentication-…> <http://newsfeeding.net/technology/biometrics/mastercard-introduces-facial-r…> E' installabile da Google Play anche se non suggerita in play in italiano. Non ho ancora provato l'installazione. <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mastercard.identitycheck.…> Ho cercato nel sito del Garante se ci sono verifiche preliminari ma non ho trovato nulla. Non mi risultano nemmeno autorizzazioni in tal senso per attività finanziarie. Qualcuno ne sa qualcosa? grazie e ciao, Alberto

Oct. 6, 2016

Toward a Constructive Technology Criticism

by Enrico Bergamini

Lungo report per il Tow Center for Digital Journalism di Sara M Watson sullo stato dell'arte della critica tecnologica. > In this report, I draw on interviews with journalists and critics, as well > as a broad reading of published work, to assess the current state of > technology coverage and criticism in the popular discourse, and to offer > some thoughts on how to move the critical enterprise forward. I find that > what it means to cover technology is a moving target. Today, the technology > beat focuses less on the technology itself and more on how technology > intersects with and transforms everything readers care about—from politics > to personal relationships. But as technology coverage matures, the > distinctions between reporting and criticism are blurring. Even the most > straightforward reporting plays a role in guiding public attention and > setting agendas. http://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/constructive_technology_criticism.php <http://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/constructive_technology_criticism.php>

Oct. 6, 2016

Internet Policy Review Special Issue 'Doing Internet Governance'

by Antonio Casilli

Via Francesca Musiani (CNRS). Gli articoli sono in accesso libero qui: http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/doing-internet- governance-practices-controversies-infrastructures-and-0 --- This special issue makes an argument for, and illustrates, the applicability of a science and technology studies (STS) informed approach to internet governance research. The conceptual framework put forward in this editorial and the articles composing this issue add to the mainstream internet governance scholarship by unpacking macro questions of politics and power. They do so through the analysis of the mundane and taken-for-granted practices and discourses that constitute the design, regulation, maintenance, and use of both technical and institutional arrangements of internet governance. Together, this body of work calls to rethink how we conceptualise both internet and governance. The issue includes an editorial and 10 articles: - Editorial: Doing internet governance: how science and technology studies inform the study of internet governance Dmitry Epstein, University of Illinois at Chicago, United States Christian Katzenbach, Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Germany Francesca Musiani, CNRS/Université Paris-Sorbonne, France - Disclosing and concealing: internet governance, information control and the management of visibility Mikkel Flyverbom, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark - Beyond “Points of Control”: logics of digital governmentality Romain Badouard, Université de Cergy-Pontoise, France Clément Mabi, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France Guillaume Sire, Université Paris II (Panthéon-Assas), France - Instability and internet design Sandra Braman, Texas A&M University, United States - The problem of future users: how constructing the DNS shaped internet governance Steven Malcic, University of California Santa Barbara, United States - The myth of the decentralised internet Ashwin J. Mathew, University of California, Berkeley, United States - The invisible politics of Bitcoin: governance crisis of a decentralised infrastructure Primavera De Filippi, Harvard University, United States Benjamin Loveluck, Télécom ParisTech (Université Paris-Saclay) and CERSA (CNRS-Paris 2), France - Multistakeholder governance processes as production sites: enhanced cooperation "in the making" Julia Pohle, Berlin Social Science Center (WZB), Germany - Internet governance as 'ideology in practice' – India's 'Free Basics' controversy Anita Gurumurthy, IT for Change, India Nandini Chami, IT for Change, India - What we talk about when we talk about cybersecurity: security in internet governance debates Josephine Wolff, Rochester Institute of Technology, United States - Governing the internet in the privacy arena Carsten Ochs, Universität Kassel, Germany Fabian Pittroff, Universität Kassel, Germany Barbara Büttner, Universität Kassel, Germany Jörn Lamla, Universität Kassel, Germany

Oct. 6, 2016

Internet Policy Review Special Issue 'Doing Internet Governance'

by Francesca Musiani

Care e cari, ho il piacere di annunciare la pubblicazione di un numero speciale dell'Internet Policy Review intitolato "Doing internet governance: practices, controversies, infrastructures, and institutions" e curato da me, Dmitry Epstein e Christian Katzenbach. Eccone la presentazione: This special issue makes an argument for, and illustrates, the applicability of a science and technology studies (STS) informed approach to internet governance research. The conceptual framework put forward in this editorial and the articles composing this issue add to the mainstream internet governance scholarship by unpacking macro questions of politics and power. They do so through the analysis of the mundane and taken-for-granted practices and discourses that constitute the design, regulation, maintenance, and use of both technical and institutional arrangements of internet governance. Together, this body of work calls to rethink how we conceptualise both internet and governance. The issue includes an editorial and 10 articles: - Editorial: Doing internet governance: how science and technology studies inform the study of internet governance Dmitry Epstein, University of Illinois at Chicago, United States Christian Katzenbach, Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Germany Francesca Musiani, CNRS/Université Paris-Sorbonne, France - Disclosing and concealing: internet governance, information control and the management of visibility Mikkel Flyverbom, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark - Beyond “Points of Control”: logics of digital governmentality Romain Badouard, Université de Cergy-Pontoise, France Clément Mabi, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France Guillaume Sire, Université Paris II (Panthéon-Assas), France - Instability and internet design Sandra Braman, Texas A&M University, United States - The problem of future users: how constructing the DNS shaped internet governance Steven Malcic, University of California Santa Barbara, United States - The myth of the decentralised internet Ashwin J. Mathew, University of California, Berkeley, United States - The invisible politics of Bitcoin: governance crisis of a decentralised infrastructure Primavera De Filippi, Harvard University, United States Benjamin Loveluck, Télécom ParisTech (Université Paris-Saclay) and CERSA (CNRS-Paris 2), France - Multistakeholder governance processes as production sites: enhanced cooperation "in the making" Julia Pohle, Berlin Social Science Center (WZB), Germany - Internet governance as 'ideology in practice' – India's 'Free Basics' controversy Anita Gurumurthy, IT for Change, India Nandini Chami, IT for Change, India - What we talk about when we talk about cybersecurity: security in internet governance debates Josephine Wolff, Rochester Institute of Technology, United States - Governing the internet in the privacy arena Carsten Ochs, Universität Kassel, Germany Fabian Pittroff, Universität Kassel, Germany Barbara Büttner, Universität Kassel, Germany Jörn Lamla, Universität Kassel, Germany Tutti gli articoli sono in open access al seguente indirizzo: http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/doing- internet-governance-practices-controversies-infrastructures-and-0 Cordialmente, Francesca -- Francesca Musiani (ph.d.) associate research professor (*chargée de recherche*), CNRS, ISCC <http://www.iscc.cnrs.fr/> associate researcher, i3, CSI <http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/>, MINES ParisTech vice-chair, CPT <http://iamcr.org/s-wg/section/cp-t>, IAMCR academic editor, @PolicyR <http://policyreview.info/> on the web <http://www.csi.mines-paristech.fr/People/musiani/> | on twitter <https://twitter.com/franmusiani>

Oct. 6, 2016

Coding is not ‘fun’, it’s technically and ethically complex

by Alberto Cammozzo

Programming computers is a piece of cake. Or so the world’s digital-skills gurus would have us believe. From the non-profit Code.org’s promise that ‘Anybody can learn!’ to Apple chief executive Tim Cook’s comment that writing code is ‘fun and interactive’, the art and science of making software is now as accessible as the alphabet. Unfortunately, this rosy portrait bears no relation to reality. For starters, the profile of a programmer’s mind is pretty uncommon. As well as being highly analytical and creative, software developers need almost superhuman focus to manage the complexity of their tasks. Manic attention to detail is a must; slovenliness is verboten. Attaining this level of concentration requires a state of mind called being ‘in the flow’, a quasi-symbiotic relationship between human and machine that improves performance and motivation. Coding isn’t the only job that demands intense focus. But you’d never hear someone say that brain surgery is ‘fun’, or that structural engineering is ‘easy’. When it comes to programming, why do policymakers and technologists pretend otherwise? For one, it helps lure people to the field at a time when software (in the words of the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen) is ‘eating the world’ – and so, by expanding the labour pool, keeps industry ticking over and wages under control. Another reason is that the very word ‘coding’ sounds routine and repetitive, as though there’s some sort of key that developers apply by rote to crack any given problem. It doesn’t help that Hollywood has cast the ‘coder’ as a socially challenged, type-first-think-later hacker, inevitably white and male, with the power to thwart the Nazis or penetrate the CIA. nsisting on the glamour and fun of coding is the wrong way to acquaint kids with computer science. It insults their intelligence and plants the pernicious notion in their heads that you don’t need discipline in order to progress. As anyone with even minimal exposure to making software knows, behind a minute of typing lies an hour of study. It’s better to admit that coding is complicated, technically and ethically. Computers, at the moment, can only execute orders, to varying degrees of sophistication. So it’s up to the developer to be clear: the machine does what you say, not what you mean. More and more ‘decisions’ are being entrusted to software, including life-or-death ones: think self-driving cars; think semi-autonomous weapons; think Facebook and Google making inferences about your marital, psychological or physical status, before selling it to the highest bidder. Yet it’s rarely in the interests of companies and governments to encourage us to probe what’s going on beneath these processes. All of these scenarios are built on exquisitely technical foundations. But we can’t respond to them by answering exclusively technical questions. Programming is not a detail that can be left to ‘technicians’ under the false pretence that their choices will be ‘scientifically neutral’. Societies are too complex: the algorithmic is political. Automation has already dealt a blow to the job security of low-skilled workers in factories and warehouses around the world. White-collar workers are next in line. The digital giants of today run on a fraction of the employees of the industrial giants of yesterday, so the irony of encouraging more people to work as programmers is that they are slowly mobilising themselves out of jobs. In an ever-more intricate and connected world, where software plays a larger and larger role in everyday life, it’s irresponsible to speak of coding as a lightweight activity. Software is not simply lines of code, nor is it blandly technical. In just a few years, understanding programming will be an indispensable part of active citizenship. The idea that coding offers an unproblematic path to social progress and personal enhancement works to the advantage of the growing techno-plutocracy that’s insulating itself behind its own technology. <https://aeon.co/ideas/coding-is-not-fun-it-s-technically-and-ethically-comp…>

Oct. 6, 2016

'Too big to fail' cloud giants like AWS threaten civilization as we know it • The Register

by Elia Gabriele

un bell'articolo di warning sul medio termine .. mentre l'informatica cala del 10% in europa le vendite di cloud Amazon, Microsoft e Google crescono del 50% (e da soli fanno il 50% del mercato) se cambierà il loro modello di business (p.es. perchè smetteranno di salire in borsa del 30% all'anno) l'impatto sulle aziende che li usano sarà devastante ... ciao g http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/04/cloud_vendors_too_big_to_fail/ 'Too big to fail' cloud giants like AWS threaten civilization as we know it Canalys chief warns traditional hardware skills could die out 4 Oct 2016 at 18:29, Joe Fay<http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/45> Channel Forums The world’s largest cloud players are in danger of becoming too big to fail, the boss of Canalys warned today. This is a problem because the list of potential trip hazards for the likes of Azure, AWS and Google is growing ever longer – and at least one of them is going to stumble and fall, taking customers' off-premises systems with them. With traditional hardware skills in danger of dying out, it’s not like we can do anything about it. The dual warning came in Canalys founder Steve Brazier’s keynote address to the audience of resellers, distributors, and vendors at the firm’s Channel Forums<https://www.canalyschannelsforum.com/emea> bash in Barcelona, which kicked off with a scorecard of channel performance so far this year. Brazier said that traditional sectors had done poorly. EMEA storage revenues were down 5 per cent in the first half of this year, as were server revenues. PCs had plummeted 12 per cent, while smart phones were up 1 per cent, only because of strong sales in Africa. On the upside, sales of hyperconverged systems were up 74 per cent, detachable tablet sales had skyrocketed 150 per cent, and flash storage was up 100 per cent. However, he warned, these were largely accounted for by shifts of revenue from the traditional markets. Just to drive home how channel economics had changed, he said that only three years ago, 25 per cent of server sales were direct, with the balance going through the channel. Now, just 40 per cent went through the channel, with 35 per cent of sales going to the public cloud, and the balance going to managed service providers. The villains in all of this were the major public cloud vendors. Canalys said that AWS had grown 59 per cent, while Azure had grown its revenues a whopping 98 per cent and Google was not far behind with 89 per cent growth. Together those three accounted for over 50 per cent of the public cloud, which grew 50 per cent overall. Brazier said the cloud firms were waging a massive PR war over the benefits of running your business in the cloud, which traditional vendors had yet to truly respond to. In the meantime, he said, Amazon was close to “crossing the chasm” to have its business model considered “established” and not at all flakey<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/25/public_iaas_crisis/>. But, he continued, there were two possible dangers to this breakneck growth. The first was that customers would find themselves increasingly locked in to one of three armed camps. He said that cloud marketplaces had struggled, in part because they were rarely able to offer services from more than one cloud provider. Far more sinister though was the prospect – which may become apparent in two years, or 20 – that these organizations could simply become “too big to fail.” And depending on when this happens, the potential consequences for all businesses could be catastrophic. “If one of these companies goes down, hundreds of thousands of other companies go down too,” Brazier warned. The likes of AWS were potentially vulnerable to financial shocks – a hike in interest rates for example – or a cyber attack that would wreck its business AND those of its customers. They were also subject to a range of other catastrophic risks – for example power grid failures or natural disasters – with the fallout propagated worldwide. He cited AWS’ hiking of its UK prices post-Brexit as an example of how quickly customers could be affected. Of course, the simple answer to this is for companies or service suppliers to build their own infrastructures. However, Brazier had a final sting in the tail, pointing out that young techies were overwhelmingly focused on coding as a career. Hardware engineers were getting increasingly old, as a workforce, and there is a genuine danger, he claimed, of the skill set dying out. It was down to service providers and vendors to “encourage people to go down the hardware route.” Of course, this is all speculative. Brazier also said that established markets were subject to increasing numbers of shocks and unpredictability. It was hard to predict the course of the UK and European market as Brexit takes shape, he said. Then there is the clincher ... Trump in November. ® Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.

Oct. 5, 2016

90° Mercoledì di Nexa - 12 ottobre 2016

by Francesco Ruggiero

Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui <http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-88> NEXA 90° Mercoledì di Nexa Mercoledi 12 ottobre 2016, ore 18.00 - 20.00 Politecnico di Torino http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-90 FirstLife un social network georeferenziato per gli urban commons Speakers Guido Boella (Professore ordinario presso il Dipartimento di Informatica dell’Università di Torino) This event will be webcast live: http://nexa.polito.it/upcoming-events Secondo la recente letteratura che ha origine nei lavori del premio Nobel Elinor Ostrom su co-produzione e commons,*anche le città possono essere viste come “commons”*. Una creazione collettiva sia della realtà materiale che di quella culturale fatta dai cittadini e per i cittadini, che si esplica anche in un sistema di gestione da parte dei cittadini: un insieme di pratiche sociali e norme che permettono di preservare le risorse e orientarle per il bene collettivo. Per questo il verbo “commoning” descrive meglio queste realtà del sostantivo “commons”. Le attività di commoning permesse negli spazi urbani si stanno però riducendo: da un lato edifici e piazze sono sempre più gestite da privati, dall’altro il ruolo dell’amministrazione pubblica è limitato dalla crisi e dalla conseguente riduzione dei budget. *Il commoning potrebbe essere invece una soluzione alternativa alle sfide che si presentano nelle città*, delegando ai cittadini la gestione dei commons che vivono giornalmente . Questo porta ad una visione policentrica della governance urbana. Ma la realtà urbana presenta molte differenze rispetto ai tradizionali commons legati alle risorse naturali. In particolare, la disgregazione del tessuto urbano, la dimensione dei gruppi che utilizzano i commons, la difficoltà di comunicazione fra persone che non si conoscono pur utilizzando gli stessi spazi urbani sono l’opposto delle tradizionali premesse per il buon funzionamento del commoning. *Può la tecnologia basata su internet, come auspicato da autori come Christian Iaione e David Bollier, diventare un supporto per il commoning urbano?* Si può riportare a livello locale urbano i meccanismi (passaparola, continuità fra le persone, fiducia reciproca, visibilità delle azioni) che hanno portato al successo i nuovi media che costituiscono il cosiddetto “villaggio globale” di Marshall MacLuhan? Guido Boella presenterà il progetto FirstLife dell’Università di Torino: un nuovo tipo di social network basato su una mappa interattiva che vuole promuovere la collaborazione fra i cittadini nella creazione e gestione degli urban commons. *FirstLife vuole coprire una dimensione della nostra vita non coperta dagli altri social network: le persone come cittadini e non come privati o come professionisti*. Vuole essere un nuovo media che permette di accedere alle informazioni di interesse tramite la mappa temporizzata, piuttosto che tramite hashtag, motori di ricerca o tramite algoritmi sconosciuti che ti chiudono in una filter bubble. Per saperne di più BIOGRAFIE - e informazioni supplementari [ALIPRANDI - BLENGINO] GUIDO BOELLA è Professore ordinario presso il Dipartimento di Informatica dell’Università di Torino. Ha seguito un percorso che lo ha portato dalla laurea in filosofia, al dottorato in informatica sui temi della collaborazione in sistemi multi-agente e, in seguito, alla ricerca in informatica legale e geo-informatica. La sua attività scientifica ha un carattere fortemente interdisciplinare, che investe i campi dei sistemi normativi, dei linguaggi naturali, delle ontologie formali, delle scienze cognitive e dell’intelligenza artificiale. È stato coordinatore scientifico e referente per il Dipartimento di Informatica di numerosi progetti nazionali e internazionali, tra i quali EUcases, ITxLAW, WeGovNow!. Ha realizzato diversi software (powerJava, powerJade, Legal taxonomy syllabus, Eunomos) e partecipato a progetti di trasferimento tecnologico verso le imprese, fondando nel 2010 l’azienda Nomotika. Negli ultimi anni, i suoi interessi e attività si sono estesi ai temi dei social networks e al loro potenziale utilizzo per la gestione dei beni comuni e come strumenti di supporto alla co-produzione dei servizi a scala locale. In qualità di coordinatore scientifico di FirstLife, si occupa dell’inquadramento e della supervisione del lavoro di ricerca legato alla piattaforma, nonché della preparazione di progetti e proposte per una sua applicazione in ambiti che vanno dall’inclusione sociale alle emergenze, dai nuovi sistemi di governance a forme economiche alternative. Letture consigliate e link utili: * The Co-City: Sharing, Collaborating, Cooperating, Commoning in the City <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2708296>, di Christian Iaione * Collective Action and the Urban Commons <%20http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791767>, di Sheila Foster. Che cosa sono il Centro Nexa e i cicli di incontri “Mercoledì di Nexa” e “Nexa Lunch Seminar” Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) è un centro di ricerca indipendente e interdisciplinare che studia Internet e il suo effetto sulla società. Maggiori informazioni all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/about. Durante i “*Mercoledì di Nexa*”, che si tengono *ogni 2° mercoledì del mese* alle *ore 18 in punto*, il Centro Nexa su Internet e Società apre le sue porte non solo agli esperti e a tutti coloro i quali lavorano con Internet, ma anche a semplici appassionati e cittadini. Il ciclo di incontri intende approfondire, con un linguaggio preciso ma divulgativo, i temi legati alla Rete: motori di ricerca, Creative Commons, social networks, open source/software libero, neutralità della rete, libertà di espressione, privacy, file sharing, big e open data, smart cities e molto altro. Al centro di quasi tutti gli incontri un ospite pronto a dialogare con i direttori del Centro Nexa, il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin del Politecnico di Torino e il Prof. Marco Ricolfi dell'Università di Torino, nonché lo staff e i Fellows del Centro Nexa. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa, incluso un elenco di tutti i “Mercoledì” passati, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi. Si segnala inoltre che dal maggio 2012 *ogni 4° mercoledì* del mese *dalle ore 13 alle ore 14* il Centro Nexa organizza anche i "*Nexa Lunch Seminar*". Una lista di tutti i “Lunch Seminar” passati è disponibile all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-seminars. See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa e i Nexa Lunch Seminar, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/events. Weekly Events Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription preferences, please click here <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved> Nexa Center for Internet and Society Newsletter

Oct. 5, 2016

Annual Conference of LL.M. in Intellectual Property - - 24 ottobre 2016 (ILO)

by Francesco Ruggiero

Gentilissimi, siamo lieti di segnalarvi la conferenza annuale del "Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Intellectual Property" sul tema "3-Dimentional Printing and IP", che si svolgerà lunedì 24 ottobre. Occorre confermare la propria partecipazione all'indirizzo e-mail T.Grassone(a)itcilo.org. Maggiori dettagli sono disponibili qui di seguito e nella locandina in allegato. ***** The International Training Centre of the ILO, the University of Turin and WIPO Academy are pleased to invite you to the Annual Conference of the Master of Laws in Intellectual Property. The Annual Conference will be held at the campus of the International Training Centre of the ILO in Turin, Viale Maestri del Lavoro 10, in Piedmont Conference Hall, on 24th October, from 09:30 a.m. to 13:00. The topic of the Annual Conference will be "3-Dimentional Printing and IP". The Director of the Turin School of Development, Mr. Giuseppe Casale, Ms. Martha Chikowore, Training Office at WIPO Academy in Geneva and Professor Alessandro Cogo, University of Turin, Department of Law, will chair the opening of the Annual Conference. Please confirm your participation by e-mail: T.Grassone(a)itcilo.org. ***** Cordiali saluti,

Oct. 5, 2016

The Internet of Things Sucks So Bad Even ‘Amateurish’ Malware Is Enough | Motherboard

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/internet-of-things-malware-mirai-ddos (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto

by Andrea Glorioso

Caro Andrea, sono ben conscio dell'importanza di questo passaggio, non fosse altro perche` ha occupato, piu` o meno intensamente, svariati anni della mia vita professionale. Il mio punto e` semplicemente che, per quanto importante e meritevole di un brindisi, questo passaggio non puo` e non deve distogliere l'attenzione da altre riforme necessarie affinche` ICANN si confermi *per tutti* come un'opzione davvero sostenibile (e dunque alternativa ad altre che sembrano piu` attraenti per diversi soggetti, come p.e. le Nazioni Unite) dal punto di vista dell'accountability e non solo - questioni su cui, se mi permetti di togliermi un sassolino dalla scarpa, la Commissione Europea ha sempre insistito molto, anche quando farlo non era molto di moda e ha significato attirarsi gli attacchi (a volte molto personali) di diversi attivisti, governi e aziende. Penso di essere gia` iscritto a troppe liste, dunque ti ringrazio ma penso che per quanto riguarda la lista dell'IGF-ITALIA, per questa volta passo. :) A presto, Andrea On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> wrote: > Ciao Andrea, la fine del contratto e’ una tappa importante di un processo > di evoluzione di ICANN, rende indipendenti le funzioni IANA del DNS dalla > supervisione di un solo paese. La questione della giurisdizione di ICANN, > assieme ad altri come il ruolo dei diritti umani nella mission di ICANN, e’ > uno dei temi di discussione del gruppo di lavoro su ICANN Accountability (Work > Stream 2 > <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/launching-work-stream-2-in-helsinki#_ftn1>). > La discussione e’ aperta a tutti, chi voglia partecipare o osservare I > lavori può farlo mandando una email a acct-staff(a)icann.org. > > Credo che questi sarebbero temi di discussione interessanti per l’IGF > Italia, anche considerando il ruolo che gli stakeholder europei stanno > avendo in questo processo (I co-chairs del Working Group su accountability > sono un tedesco e un francese) e la tappa importante del prossimo meeting > di ICANN in Europa, (ICANN58 Copenhagen, 11-16 Marzo). > > Per partecipare alla lista credo basti mandare un email a > 2016(a)igf-italia.it chiedendo di essere aggiunti, fammi sapere se riesci a > iscriverti. > > A presto, > Andrea > > From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso < > andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> > Date: Sunday 2 October 2016 17:40 > > To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> > Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it>, Center Nexa < > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder > programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it> > Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto > > Caro Andrea, > > la fine del contratto tra ICANN e il governo statunitense, per quanto > importante come passaggio, non muove di una virgola la centralità che il > sistema giuridico (e, sospetto, politico) statunitense continuerà ad > esercitare su ICANN, finché quest'ultimo (ultima?) continuerà ad essere una > not-for-profit con sede legale a Marina del Rey, California. > > Bisogna avere ben chiari i termini del problema se lo si vuole risolvere > sul lungo periodo. :) > > P.S.: credo che le mie mail non arrivino sulla lista IGF-Italia, poiché > non vi sono iscritto. > > A presto, > > Andrea > > On Sunday, October 2, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> > wrote: > >> Ciao Andrea, si il caso di Galveston e’ anche secondo me diverso, piu’ >> preoccupante perché usato come ricorso politico alla "11th hour" e se ce ne >> fosse stato bisogno, un esempio in più della necessita di terminare I >> contratto IANA, per rendere indipendente in DNS. >> A presto, >> Andrea >> >> From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso < >> andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> >> Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 23:43 >> To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> >> Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it>, Center Nexa < >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder >> programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it> >> Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto >> >> Caro Andrea, >> >> Grazie per l'articolo. Interessante, anche se francamente un po' >> sbilanciato - la Corte di Giustizia dell'UE non è certo l'unica a >> pronunciarsi su queste materie, per riprendere l'esempio di Uber negli >> Stati Uniti ci sono state molte pronunce e cause in corso sulla natura e >> gli obblighi di servizi similari, ma non vedo Politico stracciarsi le >> vesti... >> >> Poi, per dirsela tutta, trovo più preoccupante che un giudice federale in >> servizio a Galveston in Texas sia chiamato a pronunciarsi su una questione, >> come la transizione IANA, su cui governi e altri stakeholder di mezzo mondo >> hanno lavorato per anni. >> >> Sono d'accordo comunque che il problema fondamentale sia l'incapacità di >> molti legislatori di prendersi le proprie responsabilità in maniera seria. >> >> A presto! >> >> Andrea >> >> On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Ciao Andrea, grazie per l’articolo molto interessante! Credo che gli >>> scenari che prospetta di altre cause contro la decisione di NTIA >>> dipenderanno in gran parte dall’esito delle presidenziali USA. >>> >>> Riguardo il ruolo delle Corti nel policy making della sfera digitale >>> sono d’accordo con la tua analisi, ti giro in allegato un >>> articolo[politico.eu] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.politico.eu_pro_eur…> >>> di Poltico che ho mandato anche alla lista IGF Italia qualche giorno fa. >>> Penso che questo ruolo in estremis delle Corti sia anche un sintomo delle >>> difficolta’ delle nostre istituzioni legislative nell’affrontare questioni >>> di Internet Governance. >>> >>> Sarebbe interessante raccogliere gli spunti della lista NEXA verso un >>> workshop al prossimo IGF Italia a Venezia? Che ne pensate? >>> >>> A presto, >>> Andrea >>> >>> From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso < >>> andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> >>> Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 16:33 >>> To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> >>> Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it>, Center Nexa < >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder >>> programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it> >>> Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto >>> >>> Caro Andrea, >>> >>> Grazie. È stato un processo molto interessante e non senza alcuni >>> connotati da "soap opera", il che non sorprende in questa "silly season" >>> delle elezioni presidenziali statunitensi. :) >>> >>> Per completezza, mi permetto di richiamare la vostra attenzione su >>> questo articolo di Berin Szoka, presidente di TechFreedom, uno dei gruppi >>> che si sono opposti strenuamente alla transizione (più precisamente, >>> TechFreedom e altri hanno suggerito una transizione "a due fasi"). Spero lo >>> troverete interessante. >>> >>> Facendo un passo indietro e analizzando la questione specifica in >>> un'ottica più ampia, a me pare abbastanza chiaro che le Corti (che stiano a >>> Galveston, New York, Strasburgo, Lussemburgo, Roma, o altrove) sono e >>> saranno sempre più chiamate a prendere decisioni con impatti su Internet e >>> la "sfera digitale" che vanno ben al di là dell'oggetto del contendere e >>> con effetti extra-giurisdizionali, a volte globali. Credo sia lecito >>> domandarsi se la "magistratura" (nel senso più ampio e internazionale del >>> termine) sia effettivamente ben preparata a questa responsabilità. So per >>> certo che sia EUROJUST (EU) e il Federal Judicial Center (US) si sono posti >>> questa domanda, e stanno considerando le maniere più appropriate per >>> rafforzare lo scambio di "buone pratiche" a livello transatlantico. >>> >>> Qualcosa su cui, forse, gli amici di NEXA possono fornire buoni spunti? >>> :) >>> >>> +++ >>> >>> https://techpolicycorner.org/court-refuses-to-block-iana-tra >>> nsition-94dff8ff1405#.rx5pckssl[techpolicycorner.org] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> >>> *Court Refuses to Block IANA Transition - But Courts Could Still Reverse >>> Transition* >>> >>> On Wednesday, four state attorneys general sued[docs.techfreedom.org] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__docs.techfreedom.org_St…> in >>> federal court to stop the Department of Commerce from ceding its >>> responsibility over the technical heart of the Internet to ICANN, a >>> California non-profit. >>> >>> Today, after a brief hearing with lawyers on both sides, the judge >>> denied the states’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This >>> means NTIA can proceed with allowing its IANA contract with ICANN to lapse, >>> and also to terminate its Root Zone Management Agreement contract with >>> VeriSign (which requires NTIA to sign off on changes recommended by ICANN >>> to the root zone file, the master database of top level domain names). >>> >>> This ruling does *not*, however, resolve the underlying legal questions >>> raised by the states. Nor does it mean the Transition is a done deal. The >>> judge today merely ruled that the states had not shown “irreparable injury” >>> if these two contracts lapsed. This is, in general, a very high bar. But >>> even more than that, letting the contract lapse does *not* make the >>> Transition permanent: If a court eventually rules that NTIA could not >>> lawfully relinquish its responsibilities, it will essentially be saying >>> that, when the contracts lapsed, control over the Root Zone File remained >>> with NTIA, that ICANN had been exercising control unlawfully in the >>> interim, and that if ICANN would need to negotiate a new contract with NTIA >>> if it wants to continue exercising the IANA functions. >>> >>> This ruling does *not *resolve the underlying legal questions raised by >>> the states >>> >>> Such a declaratory judgment would be easy to enforce: both ICANN and >>> VeriSign are U.S. corporations, and can be enjoined from making any changes >>> to the root without affirmative authorization from NTIA. We will be right >>> back where we started. The contracts, in other words, are a red herring. >>> >>> Now, how likely is this? The states aren’t likely to give up, but even >>> if they do, the House may still join the fight, as could other intervenors. >>> And even if *this*lawsuit fizzles, some other plaintiff could raise the >>> issue in the future — and there’s every reason to think that it will come >>> up in litigation between ICANN and the companies that run top level domains >>> or sell second level domains to consumers. There is no statute of >>> limitations on the issues raised by the plaintiffs. This issue could cast a >>> long shadow over ICANN for years until a court finally rules on the merits. >>> >>> So, how likely is *this particular judge* to rule in favor of the >>> states on the merits? In general, it’s probably safe to assume that denying >>> a TRO indicates skepticism on the merits, but in this case, it’s worth >>> noting that the Judge, in announcing his decision, expressed his >>> uncertainty about the issue (“some really interesting arguments”, “really >>> made me think”, “but someone has to win”, etc.). More fundamentally, this >>> is a really hard case — and what lawyers would call an issue of first >>> impression: raising questions never before answered by a court. >>> >>> Most notably, the hearing apparently did *not* discuss the Ninth >>> Circuit’s 2002 decision in *Kremen v. Network Solutions* >>> [caselaw.findlaw.com] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__caselaw.findlaw.com_us-…> >>> concerning sex.com[sex.com] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sex.com&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1…>, >>> which held that property rights *are* property. Nor did the GAO in its recent >>> report[gao.gov] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gao.gov_assets_680_…> on >>> the issue. If domain names are property rights, surely Top Level Domain >>> names are, too. And if they are, why isn’t the database that manages them >>> (the Root Zone File)? The point is just that this is a hard question, one >>> my colleague Mike Palage first raised[blog.pff.org] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.pff.org_archives_2…> back >>> in 2009 in our work about the then-pending “transition” (to a more relaxed >>> relationship between NTIA and ICANN). >>> >>> The judge may very well change his mind on the merits after considering >>> this issue more fully. And once he rules on the merits, the decision will >>> go to the Fifth Circuit — still a conservative bastion — on appeal. The >>> issue could go all the way to the Supreme Court, especially if there is a >>> Trump Administration. >>> >>> This ain’t over til a court (or more than one) rules on the merits. >>> >>> Open Legal Concerns >>> >>> To summarize, here are the concerns raised by the states: >>> >>> 1. The U.S. government has long exercised exclusive control over who >>> may edit the Root Zone File that ties together the Internet, and that >>> abandoning this *government property right *requires Congressional >>> authorization; >>> 2. Absent a firm guarantee that ICANN will protect *free speech*, >>> converting what has been a public forum into a private one would violate >>> the First Amendment; >>> 3. NTIA violated *administrative law *by failing to build an >>> adequate record and respond to public comment on the matter; >>> 4. NTIA lacks *statutory authority *to cede responsibility over the >>> Domain Name System; and >>> 5. By failing to secure U.S. ownership of *.GOV, *NTIA is tortiously >>> interfering with the contracts that states hold for their .GOV domain names. >>> >>> The Path Not Taken >>> >>> Here’s the approach to the issue I urged[nytimes.com] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> >>> in *The New York Times *earlier this week: >>> >>> We should break the transition into two phases. >>> >>> *Phase 1*: No government, including ours, should meddle in editing the >>> master database that of top level domain names. The Commerce Department >>> should quickly negotiate a new contract that ends direct U.S. involvement, >>> but retains the ability to reassert that role if necessary. Importantly, >>> this would temporarily preserve what’s always been the most important check >>> on ICANN: Commerce’s right to rebid the transition contract if ICANN >>> misbehaves. >>> >>> *Phase 2*: Commerce shouldn’t end the new contract until after a trial >>> period for the new governance model, all accountability measures and other >>> reforms are implemented, and ICANN multistakeholder community is satisfied >>> with the reforms. >>> >>> I’ve warned all along that having a U.S. court block the transition, or >>> reverse it after the fact, would be the worst case scenario in terms of >>> international backlash, and in poisoning the well for a bipartisan >>> Congressional solution that puts a post-Transition ICANN on the soundest >>> footing possible. I’ve never wanted this issue to become fodder for yet >>> another partisan battle — rather than a debate over the merits. And yet, >>> here we are — as the result of the Administration angrily dismissing honest >>> concerns about the legality of doing the Transition without Congressional >>> approval, and about the ability of multistakeholder community to >>> effectively govern ICANN. >>> Further Reading >>> >>> See our other work on the IANA transition, including: >>> >>> - Essays by Szóka[nytimes.com] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> >>> and Brett Schaefer[nytimes.com] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> >>> in *The New York Times*’ Room for Debate >>> - Berin Szòka’s testimony[techpolicycorner.org] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_s…> before >>> the Senate Judiciary Committee on the transition >>> - Our white paper[techfreedom.org] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_post_15…> on >>> the concerns that must be addressed before the IANA transition >>> - Coalition letter[techpolicycorner.org] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> >>> urging Congress to temporarily block the IANA transition >>> >>> *About TechFreedom* >>> >>> TechFreedom[techfreedom.org] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_&d=DQMF…> >>> is a non-profit, non-partisan technology policy think tank. We work to >>> chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where >>> technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology. >>> >>> And, in case you were wondering, no one has given TechFreedom a dime to >>> work on this issue. We have raised concerns because we actually believe >>> them, not because someone paid us to. >>> >>> On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> mi scuso per il cross-posting, inoltro qui un messaggio inviato alla >>>> lista IGF Italia 2016. (Per chi fosse interessato a partecipare alla >>>> preparazione dell’IGF Italia 2016, Venezia 14-15 Novembre, può iscriversi >>>> mandando una email a 2016(a)IGF-ITALIA.IT) >>>> >>>> Salve a tutti, la transizione delle supervisione USA sulle funzioni >>>> IANA di ICANN (la gestione delle risorse critiche del sistema DNS di >>>> Internet) e’ completata. >>>> >>>> Qui sotto il comunicato stampa del Dipartimento del Commercio USA >>>> (NTIA), e a seguire un articolo[bbc.co.uk] >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bbc.co.uk_news_tech…> >>>> interessante della bbc che racconta il processo storico alla base di >>>> questo risultato. Chi e’ interessato a saperne di più non esiti a >>>> contattarmi. >>>> >>>> Saluti e buon we! >>>> Andrea Beccalli >>>> >>>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assista >>>> nt-secretary-strickling-iana-functions-contract[ntia.doc.gov] >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ntia.doc.gov_press-…> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: >>>> October 01, 2016 >>>> News Media Contact: >>>> Juliana Gruenwald >>>> >>>> Statement from Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information >>>> and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling: >>>> >>>> The federal court in Galveston, Texas denied the plaintiffs' >>>> application for declaratory and injunctive relief. As of October 1, >>>> 2016, the IANA functions contract has expired. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep >>> it in mind. >>> Twitter: @andreaglorioso >>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> >>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro[ >>> linkedin.com] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep >> it in mind. >> Twitter: @andreaglorioso >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro[ >> linkedin.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…> >> > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep > it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk= > tab_pro[linkedin.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…> > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

Oct. 3, 2016