Pew's Web@25 Studies

The Pew Research Center has released a series of reports on the history, status, and future of the Internet, in conjunction with the 25th Anniversary of the World Wide Web.

The Web at 25 in the U.S. looked at a range of surveys looking at how the Internet is used by people, and their views of the Internet and the content and services it offers.  Over the 25 years of the Web, internet usage among U.S. adults has grown from 14% to 87%.  90% of those surveyed earlier this year indicated that the Internet has been beneficial for them, while 76% indicated that they thought the Internet had been good for society.  In fact, the Internet is the technology that people are least willing to give up.  In fact, a range of digital and mobile technologies have become an integral, and crucial, part of people's lives.

And while press coverage and political discussions often focus on the more negative aspects of the Web, most users (76%) report that they've been treated well (kind or generous) in their online interactions, two-thirds (67%) felt that online communication has strengthened their relationships with friends and family, more than half (56%) indicate they've witnessed online groups coming together to help people or to solve a community problem.  In contrast, only 25% report ever been treated badly or have ever abandoned a site or service because it's gotten ugly (users attacked or discussions becoming virulent).

Digital Life in 2025 summarizes the predictions of a group of key experts.  Most agreed on the key technological trends - that the Internet will become even more ubiquitous, integrated, and immersive; that the Web will increasingly integrate tags, sensors, apps, and intelligent agents to facilitate people's ability to use online content and services.  They also widely agreed that the digital network economy will disrupt 20th century business models.  This can be beneficial, creating the potential for fostering awareness and understanding, building relationships, and promoting collaboration and social group action.  On the other hand, the same potential can provide opportunities for abuse.  But the biggest threat is the possibility that nations (or other organizations) could co-opt the network, restricting and limiting the Web's potential through imposed regulations and structured access - turning the Internet into an instrument of political and social control rather than an open marketplace.

The choices we make today - our willingness to trade freedom for security, diversity for the safety of conformity, and privacy for convenience - will go a long way to determining what kind of internet we'll have in the future, and whether it remains a social good, or a mechanism for control.

Sources -  What the Internet of 2025 Might Look Like,  WSJ.com
The Web at 25 in the U.S.,  PewResearch Internet Project report
Digital Life in 2025,  Pew Research Internet Project report

France goes after Skype

French telecomm regulators are repeating their demand that Skype register as a "communications operator" under French law.  Registration would impose a range of legal obligations on the network, including developing mechanisms to allow "emergency calls" from non-subscribers, and to provide means of intercepting and recording calls "when legally required." 

   Skype, now owned by Microsoft, has continually responded that its services do not constitute "electronic communications services" as defined under French law, and thus it is not required to register as a provider of such services.  The French regulator, ARCEP, seems to be arguing that providing voice services "implies" it is a public telephone service, and thus it must register and comply with French law.  Including, according to an ARCEP spokesman, compelling it to declare its revenues to local and national tax authorities, and subjecting Skype to paying local taxes.

French telecom and mobile operators have raised concerns that they are losing revenues as consumers switch to various VoIP services (including Skype, Viber, and What's App).  Part of their complaint is that they must bear regulatory burdens and costs (particularly taxes) that other operators have not had to face.  France was also one of the countries pushing for new international Internet governance agreements in last years ITU meetings, as a means of allowing nations a legal foundation for regulating and taxing major global internet firms.  France also recently challenged Google, claiming Google News was anti-competitive by not paying for linking to content from French news sites.  Google allegedly offered to block all French news sites before the issue was quietly resolved.

Source -  French authorities launch Skype probe,  Computer Business Review
France Wants Skype To Pay Tax: Microsoft Says "Screw You,"  Silicon Angle

edit - fixed what had been a run on sentence about France & Google.

Ready for the New Year?

I'm back from a bit of a break, but the ever-evolving world of journalism and media just kept piling up those changes.

Here's some highlights -

Nielsen bought out Arbitron (pending DOJ approval), further consolidating the broadcast ratings world.
 - Nielsen/Arbitron Deal Sparks Concerns Over Competition, Supply of Ad Market 'Currencies',  MediaDailyNews

The latest ITU meeting ended without a formal Internet Governance treaty (see earlier posts), but it still seems on a rather contentious track.
  -  WCIT and Internet Governance: Harmless Resolution or Trojan Horse?,  CircleID

A Gannett paper in New York made the wrong kind of headlines by publishing gun permit owners names and addresses in an online searchable map, then doubled down after a wave of criticism from citizens and more ethical journalists.
 -  Where The Journal News went wrong in publishing names, addresses of gun owners,  Poynter

Some digging by the Wall Street Journal found that one of the big Times Square digital billboards rents for $3.6 million a year, and the digital billboards for just one building (One Times Square) generates more than $20 million annually.
  -  Times Square Billboard Costs $3.6 Million a Year,  Digital Outsider

Several major cable MSOs are moving broadband data subscribers to usage-based pricing - putting data limits on standard subscription options and charging users for overages.  Expect heavy opposition from consumers (who increasingly have other service options) and streaming services.
  -  2012 Year In Review: Usage-based broadband launched by Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Suddenlink,  FierceCable

One consumer survey found that 70% of gift-givers planned to purchase tablets for Xmas 2012, helping to feed the rapidly expanding mobile, e-content, and apps markets.
  -  Burn the Books: Make Way for E-Content, IGI-Global

The Season's Re-purposing Idea - The Seattle Times, which has a tradition of publishing "Pictures of the Year" in its weekly print magazine (and as a feature in its online photo galleries), is also making it available as an e-book for iPads.

  -  How the Seattle Times made an iPad book from its best photos of the year,  Poynter

I'll try to expand on a few of these and other news and changes that have piled up. 

ITU Internet Governance Talks Get Heated

Among the agenda items at the current ITU conference was a new treaty giving the ITU control over international Internet governance.  (See Friday's post for details).
  After delegates voted down a U.S.-backed proposal to limit the scope of the treaty Friday, it was announced that an accord had been reached among coalition of several Arab states, Russia, and others, on a proposed amendment that would give local states greater control over the Internet, increase their ability to censor content and monitor and track user's behaviors, and to close down portions of the net if they desire.  While the specific language of the proposed treaty remains secret (for now), leaks and earlier proposals are giving observers concern.

"All of the indicators we have so far is it's something that could be a clear effort to extend the treaty to cover Net governance," said policy counsel Emma Llanso of the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology, which draws funding from Google and other U.S. Internet companies.

"What we're seeing is governments putting forward their visions of the future of the Internet, and if we see a large group of governments form that sees an Internet a lot more locked down and controlled, that's a big concern."

   The U.S. ambassador to the conference has promised not to sign any treaty that increased the ability of other countries to control Internet development and functioning, but is finding some resistance from a number of democratic states who would like to see content producers and commercial Internet services (like Google, Facebook, etc.) fund at least some of the costs of Internet transmission.  (Currently, those are paid primarily by governments or Internet Service Providers (ISPs) - and are passed on to users).
  The rest of the week will see the conference break into small groups to hack out details and proposals prior to the full body reconvening next Monday.

Source -  Internet governance talks in jeopardy as Arab states, Russia ally,  TelecomEngine

Internet at risk of politicization

It's taken a while, but it looks like there's a good chance that the UN, acting through the ITU (International Telecommunications Union), will try to assert regulatory control over the Internet.
  Almost since the globalization of the Internet, a lot of countries and interest groups have complained about the U.S. de facto control of the Internet.  While there's never been any formal regulation of the Internet by the U.S., early internet standards were created in the U.S. and largely funded by Federal research dollars; the U.S. (through the NSF) built and funded the Internet backbone in the U.S. (until 1994, when the backbone was privatized), and many international backbone links were funded wholly or partially with U.S. funds. But the major concern for most of the non-U.S. world was that the U.S. hosted and funded the top level domain name server - the address book for the millions of computers that form the Internet.  The threat that many feared was that the U.S. could unilaterally disconnect (virtually) a country from the net.  (A physical connection might still exist, but removing DNS addresses could make it nearly impossible to find sites and content).
 Early concern and pressures led to the creation of an independent nonprofit organization, ICANN, to take over regulation of the DNS system from what had been an ad hoc group of volunteers.  However, the U.S. still was the primary funder and the contracts included clauses that many interpreted as giving the U.S., through the Department of Commerce (DoC), legal authority to control.  Throughout this period, the U.S. publicly promised that it would never interfere with DNS and ICAAN operations.  These promises were broached in 2006, when the new funding contract and a concurrent memoradum of understanding explicitly granted the U.S. DoC final and unilateral oversight over some ICANN operations.
  Around that time, ICANN undertook to create a revised addressing system and new top-level domain names, as the Internet was expanding so quickly that it was likely to run out of viable addresses within a decade.  In addition, ICANN began to internationalize DNS operations which may have prompted the DoC to release a public statement that it had no interest in giving any outside group, including ICANN, management and control over the authoritative root zone file (the "official" address book).  Around the same time, the UN started hosting meetings to address issues related to the operation and regulation of the Internet - mostly with a specific goal of replacing the U.S. as the dominant authority with an international regulatory authority within the U.N.
  The U.S. had managed to keep these efforts more or less on the back burner, until the U.S. started unilaterally seizing Internet addresses of sites and services (including many not in the U.S.) by removing the seized address from the DNS.  Previously, while the U.S. had always asserted authority over the top-level DNS, it had also promised it would not do so absent some emergency.  In recent years, though, it has regularly and almost routinely interfered in DNS operations, by seizing and removing domain names with minimal legal authority or oversight.

  As a result, the move for the UN to claim regulatory oversight has strengthened, enough so that the U.S.'s motion to delay or stop discussions about regulating the Internet at the current full ITU meeting failed.  As a result, discussions on possible Internet regulations will proceed, and possibly become a part of a revised ITU treaty.
  It seems quite likely that any revised ITU Treaty will include language giving the ITU, or some international body operating under the ITU or UN, regulatory and operational oversight over the global Internet.  There's also a strong consensus about providing a legal framework to facilitate combating criminal activities on the Internet, when the activities cross borders.
  The bigger battles will be over the nature and degree of oversight, particularly related to local control over content and Internet activities. 

The 12-day ITU conference, which began on Monday, largely pits revenue-seeking developing countries and authoritarian regimes that want more control over Internet content against U.S. policymakers and private Net companies that prefer the status quo.

There's also likely to be strong debate over proposals addressing security issues and the potential for information warfare.  Those discussions are likely to pit states trying to remove or lessen the anonymous nature of internet (ostensibly for security purposes) against business and human rights groups concerned that any such changes could also be used for monitoring Internet use and thus repression of internationally recognized human rights to privacy and speech.
   And where there's strong debate, there's the likelihood that deals and trade-offs will be made for support, and further politicization of the Internet.

   As noted previously, the U.S. has lost a lot of its moral authority in that debate - those pushing for more oversight and control can now argue that all they're looking for is the same things that the U.S. has asserted and used in recent years.  Still, groups like the ITU like to operate under the pretext of consensus, so it's unlikely that a revised treaty will be adopted and ratified.  What's likely is that a formal draft will be developed either for ratification by individual countries, or to serve as the basis for continued debate and politicization.

Source -  US fails to win early limit on net controls at global gathering,  TelecomEngine.com

There's nice overviews of issues at:
World War 3.0,  Vanity Fair
The U.N. and the Internet: What to expect, what to fear (FAQ), c/Net

  
 

New Web Index - Sweden, US, UK tops

The World Wide Web Foundation has released a major study of global Internet use.  The million-dollar study, funded by Google, used surveys and existing data from 61 countries around the world. 
The study evaluated countries' performance in three broad areas - Infrastructure, Content and Use, and political, economic, and social impact.  The study's being touted as an "unprecedented look at how Internet use and effectiveness vary across the globe."

  Sweden came out on top of the overall rankings, finishing among the top five in almost every measure (the exceptions were in Web Content and Use, due largely to the small amount of Web content in Swedish).  The U.S. dominated the Institutional Infrastructure and Content categories, but trailed a number of Northern European countries in terms of citizen use.  The U.K.'s performance largely mirrored that of the U.S., but with slightly lower rankings.
  The report found a strong correlation between Web Index rank and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita - no surprise there, as GDP is historically found to correlate with telecommunication and media measures.  Looking further, the study found strong GDP correlations with Infrastructure and use,  but only weak links with respect to impact and effectiveness.  That might be a reflection of how impact and effectiveness is measured by the study, which seems to hold up the concept of a collaborative, open, Web as the ideal that measures are compared to.

In the report, (Tim) Berners-Lee explicitly criticizes Internet use that violates open tenets: "When people go on social networking sites today, they often connect with … people who aren't very different from themselves. As a result, they can unknowingly demonize other cultures without even being aware of their own inhumanity."

The Foundation, in releasing the report, acknowledged that the data it relied on was sometimes incomplete, and that measures and methods may change in the future as the Web continues to evolve. It also hopes that this study, as well as future updates, can provide background data and insights that could inform current and future policy debates about the structure and operation of the Internet.

  As there are local and international political moves challenging the Internet's historic open and collaborative structure, I hope the Foundation's successful.  Regretably, I think that most of the current movements towards formalizing and revising Internet structures and operations are driven more by states seeking greater political power and control, rather than concerns over the social and economic benefits of an open Web.

Sources -  Sweden, U.S., U.K. Top First-Ever Web Index, Information Week
Web Index 2012 report, World Wide Web Foundation

House unanimous on Free Internet

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously (414-0) in favor of a resolution directing the American delegation to the coming World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) to direct their efforts in support of maintaining a global Internet free from government control.
  There have been efforts to ask the UN to assert more authority and control over the Internet and its operation through the ITU (International Telecommunications Union).  Drafts of a proposed new treaty to be considered at the upcoming conference would shift Internet governance from its current form to the ITU, while also giving individual countries much greater authority to regulate content and Internet operations within their borders.
  The Senate is expected to pass a similar resolution.

Source -  House votes unanimously for Internet Freedom,  Broadcast Engineering

You might also consider signing and supporting the  Declaration of Internet Freedom
(individuals can also sign/support at this FreePress.net site)

Will the Internet remain free?

There have been moves by various UN-related agencies to try to assume regulatory authority over the Internet for a decade or more.  In the past, the US and saner countries managed to keep these largely at the discussion level, aided by the fact that the U.S. funded key infrastructure components.
  A while back, UNESCO took a swing, hosting a number of Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meetings, culminating in a series of World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) meetings.  The primary impact of most of these was to raise the question of whether the US should be allowed to unilaterally "run" the Internet.  These arguments contributed to the formation of an independent oversight authority (ICANN), who has used the need for a new addressing system (the original one was running out of viable addresses as net usage exploded) to establish new rules and options for domain name and IP addresses to create new operational nexuses outside of the U.S., and thus outside of U.S. control.  And the U.S. didn't help it's case when, after years of pledging that yes, while technically the U.S. could legally exert control - it never would - it suddenly started interfering in a very big and public way.  Under the premise of Intellectual Property Rights enforcement, it started seizing the websites of alleged violators, (as well as the site's content, if hosted on a US server), most of whom were non-US operations, simply because the DNS system was located in the U.S.

  In one of the most publicized cases, the U.S. seized the MegaUpload site and all of its content, on the argument that a few users might be engaged in illegal file-sharing.  To date, legal users of the remote hosting service have been unable to regain access to their own files, the hosting site has asked for court permission to delete all the files, and the government has floated the idea of charging legal users to re-acquire their own files, but only after proving in Court that all files in their area were legal copies.  The U.S. has gone from hand-off sponsor of an open Internet, to egregious Internet Bully(see earlier post)- giving support for shifting Internet governance elsewhere.
  Now, a more serious attempt to wrest control of the Internet is surfacing at another UN-related agency, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).  The ITU has a World Conference coming up in December, and sources indicate that there forces seeking to use existing telecommunication regulations to place control of the Internet within the ITU.  A leaked copy of the planning document used by governments to prepare for the meeting "show that many ITU member states want to use international agreements to regulate the Internet by crowding out bottom-up institutions, imposing charges for international communication, and controlling the content that consumers can access online," according to one scholar whose website is hosting a copy of the document.

The broadest proposal in the draft materials is an initiative by China to give countries authority over "the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way"—in short, to legitimize full government control. The Internet Society, which represents the engineers around the world who keep the Internet functioning, says this proposal "would require member states to take on a very active and inappropriate role in patrolling" the Internet.
Several proposals would give the U.N. power to regulate online content for the first time, under the guise of protecting against computer malware or spam. Russia and some Arab countries want to be able to inspect private communications such as email. Russia and Iran propose new rules to measure Internet traffic along national borders and bill the originator of the traffic, as with international phone calls. That would result in new fees to local governments and less access to traffic from U.S. "originating" companies such as Google, Facebook and Apple. A similar idea has the support of European telecommunications companies, even though the Internet's global packet switching makes national tolls an anachronistic idea.

  Perhaps also unsurprising, but disappointing, is the weak responses and reactions to these restrictive proposals by the Obama administration, given its own authoritarian approach to violating the underlying tenets of an open Internet when it conflicts with its own interests.  Congress, at least, seems to be taking the issue seriously, with full bipartisan agreement that a government (or ITU) top-down approach would be a threat to the developing Internet Economy and a mechanism for regimes to restrict content they disliked.  At one of the hearings addressing the issue, Vint Cerf, Internet pioneer and spokesman for Google, stated that ITU-focused governance of the Internet would be "potentially disastrous."

  Meanwhile, apologists at the NY Times want to frame this as a debate over "mere money," and falsely state that there are no proposals to change how the current oversight group (ICANN) operates (he apparently didn't get to the proposal for replacing ICANN, or doesn't consider creating a new authority a "change").  Rather, he takes at face value a proclamation that it's not about "internet governance", because that phrase doesn't appear, even though every proposal in the document would clearly and directly affect how the Internet would be regulated and governed.
  The NYTimes argument might have been better, if they'd bothered to check with any of the myriad public interest groups concerned about the openness and freedom of speech the Internet provides. Those folks, and those who know the technology, are pretty concerned about some of the specific proposals (including the ones "merely about money") and the potential disruption of internet operations and services, as well as being concerned with the significant threat of censorship of "inappropriate" information from both internal and external sources.  Better yet, they could consider what might happen if a regime unfriendly to the NY Times took issue with some of their online content, and used the pretext of "simple internet regulation" to seize their site, servers, and all of the information they contained.

   On the positive side, international bodies like the IGF, WSIS, and ITU tend to work slowly, seeking consensus, so perhaps the threat isn't imminent.  Still, there are some very big players behind many of the proposals, and those countries are actively seeking sufficient support to achieve their goals.  While perhaps not immanent, that doesn't mean the threat of achieving their goal of greater regulatory oversight over content and communications isn't real - or that there aren't serious potential consequences.  I'd be less worried if this administration took a more forceful approach in opposition to at least the more consequential proposals, and wasn't actively trying to frame the issue of international regulation of the internet as being merely about "money" or combating internet fraud or piracy.  It'd be nice if they also used words like "openness", "free speech", or privacy.  After all, that's what the U.S. is supposed to stand for.

Sources  -  Crovitz: The U.N.'s Internet Power Grab, Wall Street Journal
Congress United Against ITU-Centric Net Governance, Multichannel News
Planning document at WCITLeaks.orghttp://wcitleaks.org/ site (other drafts and responses are also available)
Attempted debunking by the NY Times
Megaupload Files Remain in Limbo, Online Media Daily

Threats to the Net

With the recent debates about proposed anti-piracy regulation, multiplying instances of hacking and viruses, and concerns about various government disruptions of parts of the Internet, this seems to be a good time to consider just how stable and survivable the Internet is, and what are the major potential threats lurking in the shadows.
  Mary Jander, writing for Internet Evolution blog, provides a good start, outlining five major threats -

1. Snarled software - a lot of the code behind the programs supporting the Internet are open, collaborative, and heavily revised and rewritten over time.  Much is a mass of undocumented revisions and additions, developed by people more concerned with openness, redundancy, and survivability than security.  While many feel that this is a strength, others worry that the amalgam of contributions might slow down operations, and might hide exploitable weaknesses.
2. Outdated addressing -  As with other addressable systems experiencing explosive growth, an system for creating and assigning unique addresses originally thought to be more than sufficient, the Internet is running out of valid IP addresses.  This problem was anticipated years ago, and ICANN (the more or less official body overseeing the Internet) has developed solutions by expanding from IP4 to IP6 address system (basically adding digits to the address string).  This should work for a while, but it's possible that at some not-so-distant point in the future, more digits will need to be added.  In the meantime, there is the issue of how do you switch (or how do you update the millions of bits of programs and codes that deal with those addresses.
     If that wasn't bad enough, ICANN has also opened up the choices for the related alphabetical domain names - including authorizing the use of non-ASCII character sets and languages.  How will legacy keyboards and programs cope with the expanded naming and address options?
3. Weakness at the Core - Individuals access the Internet almost exclusively through ISPs.  And while they've so far been pretty well-behaved, there's been increasing use of data caps and intentional slowdowns as ISPs have attempted to deal with increased demand and data flows.  ISPs are also under increasing pressures from states to monitor data flows, to restrict access and transmission of certain types of data, and to reveal their customers' private information to authorities.
4. Hackers and Criminals - From individuals to loose collectives like Anonymous, to state-sponsored information warfare, the threat is real and continuing.  To date, the redundancy and survivability designed into the Internet, and fear of the real consequences of widespread collapse, has generally limited long-term damage.  But researchers know that the Internet is vulnerable, even as they work to make it less so.
5. The Threat from Space - A spate of recent major solar flares has reminded people of the possible consequences that a major electromagnetic pulse can do to any electronic device or telecommunication network.  One EMP from a massive solar flare created worldwide disruptions in the telegraph system in 1859; with the most basic and limited electronic network.  Some experts fear a similar event today would cause trillions of dollars of damage to sensitive electronics.  While you can harden electronics to be less susceptible to EMP damage, the cost of that approach (and particularly the need to apply it to millions of pieces of electronics) means that we'll just have to take our chances on this one.

 The threats are real, if not dire at this point.  And, as Jander points out, knowing about them has led to continuing efforts to find solutions, or at least ways of limiting the damage resulting from these threats.  Still, as she points out,

"none of the structural revisions to the Internet can fix its fundamental lack of effective governance. Absent collaboration and support for global consistency, the World Wide Web could devolve into a dreadful 'Outernet,' where privacy is nonexistent and service providers hold users in thrall."

  Vigilance from the Internet community, particularly with regard to policies and approaches that could further damage core Internet structures, wouldn't hurt either.

Source - Ticking Time Bombs: The Internet's Weakest Links,  Internet Evolution

The U.S. as Internet Bully.

For the last decade or more, internet activists, organizations, and governments have expressed concerns about the possibility of the U.S being able to control the Internet, based on the location of the primary root files and governing Global Domain Name System in the U.S. (which funded the early system, and remains a primary source of operating funds).  Until 2009, the U.S. repeatedly and very publicly promised, at all levels and in every international meeting where "U.S. control of the internet" was discussed, that it would never interfere with the operations of the Interrnet's infrastructure, or the operation of the Global Domain Name System.

  That all changed with the Obama administration and a program run out of Customs Enforcement concerned with intellectual property theft (online IP piracy, and online trafficking in counterfeit products). "Operation In Our Sites" decided to combat IP theft by seizing the domain names of firms suspected of trafficking in counterfeit goods or pirated entertainment content.  That is, by actively and purposefully interfering in the operation of the Global Domain Name System and validating every fear about the big bad rogue U.S. manipulating the Internet for its own purposes.  And not once, but more than 700 times (so far).  All in spite of mounting evidence that those actions have been uniformly ineffective in actually stopping (or even slowing down) IP theft.
  The folks behind the program further raised the stakes with the high profile seizure last week of the domain name of Bodog.com, a Canadian sports-wagering site with no direct presence in the U.S.  Not only was it not a U.S. firm, and it's website not registered or operated in the U.S, but it was not alleged to have violated IP law, or to be engaged in IP theft actions.  The seizure seems to be the result of an arguement that it was engaged in online sports betting - activity that is legal in Canada and other countries where Bodog offers that service, but not in the U.S. (where it does not offer the services prohibited by U,S, law).  So it seems like the U.S. authorities felt it was proper to take action because a foreign firm offered services that were legal where offered (outside the U.S.), but not legal in the U.S., where the service was not available.  Further, in defending the action, a Customs Enforcement spokesman asserted that the U.S. had the right to seize any .com, .net, or .org domain name it wanted to, merely because the company that runs those servers is located in the U.S.
 An internet infrastructure watchdog group protested the cavalier attitude behind such an assertion, saying  that the “ramifications of this are no less than chilling and every single organization branded or operating under .com, .net, .org, .biz etc. needs to ask themselves about their vulnerability to the whims of U.S. federal and state lawmakers.”
  ICANN, an internet nonprofit charged with oversight of the Global Domain Name System has publicly limited its reaction to statements that they aren't involved, but have also acted in recent years to authorize a large number of additional domain names, which would be run by other organizations outside the U.S., and not subject to such actions.  Over the years, ICANN has been battling efforts to further remove the U.S. from any role in the oversight or control of Internet infrastructure.  There has been a concerted effort by the UN to shift Internet governance to a UN agency, beginning with a 2005 Working Group report concluding that "no single country should have a preeminent role in international internet governance."  A series of international meetings were held to develop proposals - efforts that were stalled in large part because of renewed promises by the U.S. that it would take a "hands-off" approach.  I was at some related meetings, and the concerns and threats to shift control are real and substantial.  With these actions by the U.S., with the blatant breaking of years of promises of benign intent, any credible opposition to removing U.S. involvement in Internet governance vanishes.  Look for a renewed movement to shift governance to a UN agency.
  In a Wired.com piece, David Kravets wonders whether these recent seizures will encourage more Internet firms to move their sites and registrations offshore, or even encourage Internet firms to move themselves overseas - in a global Internet environment there is no real need to be in the U.S., and increasing risk to remain.  Or will

the U.S. government’s big-footing over dot-com domains in the name of fighting copyright ... add more weight to the arguments of those who want to put the U.N. in charge of the internet’s naming system. While that’s not inevitably a bad thing, it could lead to a world where any .com might be seizable by any country, including Russia, Libya and Iran.

   Telecomm and online regulation and legal maneuvering tends to be short-sighted and problematic, because it is often done by people who don't consider the implications of their actions, and/or don't understand the technologies and markets they seek to control or influence.  Here, it's all in play - an incredibly and extremely short-sighted effort that will not only have virtually no shot at actually achieving its stated goals and purpose, but has a real chance of resulting in significant and long-lasting harm to the U.S. Internet industry - and a very real chance of destabilizing and perhaps even destroying the Internet as an open-access system.
  How can we let this happen?

Source -  If It Ends in .Com, It's .Seizable,  Wired.com

edit track - cleaned up some language in the early sections (7 March)