Russia and China submitted to UNO an offer to tighten up the Internet control. USA accused Russia in authoritarianism.

Russia, China and a number of other countries have submitted to ITU an offer to tighten up the international Internet control, to deprive American companies of monopoly on IP addresses and domains.

The matter is to allow ONU countries to distribute and remove registered IP addresses and domain names.

At recent time the main Internet regulators are several American non-government organizations, they are IETF, W3C and ICANN.

According to “Vzglyad.ru” the USA and Google in response accused Russia of authoritarianism. Also UK, Canada. Australia and a number of Europe countries are against this initiative. Particularly, Moscow was accused of introduction of censorship. A member of State Duma of Information Policy and Technologies Robert Shlegel explained that Internet Censorship and the Internet and domain delegation governance are different things.

“Disputes about Internet censorship are very funny, because every country has an opportunity to limit Network access by the Parliament or executive power decision. If you, for example offer an Internet service you can block the access to certain resources, and you can a lot of other things, but it doesn’t refer to domain delegation” - he said.

We remind that on December 3 in Dubai on the ITU conference Russia submitted a number of offers according internationalization of Internet, that caused a sharp criticism from USA, EU and Google.

Liked this post? Why not to Subscribe to Hide IP Soft by Email for FREE

Internet censorship in Central Asia

It is hard to find a site that will irritates politicians of a Central Asia more than Fergana.ru. Working abroad Fergana reports such themes that local Media is not able. This reports concerns everything from Uzbekistan president corruption system to nationalistic ideas of the lieder of the “ Ata-Jurt” party in Kyrgyzstan and tortures in Tajikistan jails.



Just for this reason the Fergana site is blocked in 4 countries:  Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan. According to the chief editor Diniil Kislov point of view the aim of the government is to block the access to the Internet resource proves that “ Fergana” publishes a truth.

Daniil Kislov tells how Fergana became one of the leading informational resources in Central Asia in the interview with the “ Voice of America”.

Erica Marat: How popular are you in Central Asia, where Fergana is officially prohibited?

Daniil Kislov: Despite the fact that our site is blocked  the audience is big because nowadays due to the Internet options and even if you’re not a specialist it is easy to avoid a site’s blocking. It is a pity that government authorities of the Central Asia countries do not understand that it is practically impossible to block smth in The Internet.

A number of people who read our site through the proksi - servers or other programs is a half of all our readers.  

We always give our readers the alternative ways to get access to our site. For example they can read it through Facebook or Google Reader.

E.M.: Politicians of Kyrgyzstan and other countries accused Fergada of being aimed at setting undermining or destabilization of the situation in the region. What do you think about this?

D.K.: Everybody, even parliament deputies have their own opinion. But it would be better if the decision to block sites is procedurally correct. After blocking our site (6 month ago) we were trying to explain to the authorities of Kyrgyzstan that this measures are illegal and if they want to block us than the general prosecutors should take a legal action. Then a court based on some expertize should proves that the site contradicts the extremism law and only after this they have the right to block it.

But for some unknown reasons our site was blocked without the court decision. So that is why we applied to the Bishkek inter-regional court.


So today Kyrgyzstan will have an interesting issue against blocking that can  shows the situation in the country (and what the society and a court think about unconditioned censorship in the Internet - author’s example).
E.M.: Does that mean that other 3 countries of Central Asia that blocked Fergana blocked this site by the court decision?

D.K.: Of course not. The difference is that in these countries are another mechanism. It is legal there to block sites without any court decision but just after some authorities directions to the Internet providers. So Kyrgyzstan is a good way to fight legally with blocking because it is possible to apply to a court.


Liked this post? Why not to Subscribe to Hide IP Soft by Email for FREE