How the Internet is governed has been a question of considerable debate since its earliest days. Indeed, how diverse sets of stakeholders collaborate to manage this important global resource has an impact on the nature of the Internet as a trusted global platform for innovation, creativity, and freedom of expression. The Internet is a decentralized network of networks and those who rely on it help to define its policies.
While the Internet evolved from a number of government-funded research projects, individuals from universities and private-sector organizations led most of its early development. Since these early beginnings, management of the Internet and global Internet resources (e.g., the Domain Name System) has relied heavily upon bottom-up coordination and direct participation by those interested in and impacted by related decisions.
Over the years, this decentralized and community-driven management approach has supported the tremendous growth and innovation that has defined Internet’s success and reflects the early design choices of the technical community in the adoption and implementation of Internet standards. By 2005, what had traditionally been referred to as private, bottom-up coordination evolved into the “multistakeholder” model of Internet governance that exists today.
The decentralized nature of the Internet means that no single, centralized authority governs Internet management. Instead, the Internet is governed in a decentralized, collaborative fashion that ensures that issues can be resolved at the level closest to their origin.  In this context, the Internet’s system of decentralized decision-making is similar to the principle of subsidiarity,  in which issues are best handled at the level consistent with where the solution is applied.
The early days of Internet multistakeholder governance
In 2003 and 2005, representatives from governments, the technical community, civil society, and the private sector came together at the United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), where they adopted the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. The Tunis Agenda adopted a working definition for Internet governance:
“… the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.”
This definition recognizes the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder group and emphasizes the importance of collaboration when seeking solutions for the benefit of Internet growth and development; it is also called the multistakeholder model.
The multistakeholder model has proven key to the development of the Internet. In addition to being increasingly adopted at an institutional level by bodies like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe, it has become a quasi-official model for discussions on a variety of issues. In areas such as security, privacy, connectivity, and human rights, it is clear that no single viewpoint can solve borderless and multidimensional issues. Instead, a more collaborative, multistakeholder approach used to tackle global Internet-related issues, such as security ones on spam and botnets, is rapidly becoming a best practice.
Multistakeholder collaboration at the global and local levels
In true collaborative spirit, a diverse set of stakeholders is working closer than ever before to address key Internet issues. This is significant as it establishes a level of inclusiveness that traditional forms of governance do not often demonstrate.
More specifically, in the context of Internet governance, the manifestation of multistakeholder participation has been long proven successful in the form of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) , an annual conference under the auspices of United Nations (UN). The IGF does not have decision-making power, but does have the power to encourage opinions, suggest best practices, shape discussions, and influence Internet policies at a national, regional, and international level. National and regional IGFs have flourished in the past few years and have proven useful in sharing best practices around concrete issues, including spam, the online protection of children, and Internet exchange points. They have also been useful in exposing local and regional stakeholders to Internet-related issues and empowering them with knowledge of Internet-related issues. Moreover, a common outcome of local IGFs is the development of local multistakeholder dialogues that continue after the events themselves.
The multistakeholder model was adopted for the April 2014 NETmundial meeting  that resulted in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement of São Paulo, a nonbinding outcome document of a bottom-up, open, and participatory process involving thousands of stakeholders from around the world.
Internet governance is characterized by a diversity of actors, issues, and processes that interact and overlap across jurisdictions. Effective collaboration in this context needs to overcome a number of challenges.
Navigating decentralized processes
The decentralized structure of the Internet governance ecosystem implies that different issues are addressed in different places and are better resolved at a level closest to their origin,.
One of the challenges of the decentralized approach is that the broad range of global, regional, and local forums in which issues are discussed requires time and resources to follow and participate. In addition to these face-to-face meetings, the multistakeholder discussions between meetings and events are often robust and require time and effort to follow through for meaningful contributions.
Many stakeholder groups address this challenge by coordinating their participation in forums and initiatives. In addition, some initiatives and forums adopt open-information policies and offer avenues for remote participation. The open availability of materials and online discussions plus the possibility of remote participation helps address the challenges presented by the decentralized processes.
Role of governments
A key conversation surrounding this diverse, decentralized environment is about the role of governments. Governments have important public interest responsibilities, set policies that influence the overall Internet environment, and bring important considerations into discussions. The participation of governments in Internet governance dialogues is crucial.
For example, the Tunis Agenda acknowledges that governments play an important role in the building of a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. Similarly, the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) identified a set of roles and responsibilities for governments ranging from oversight to fostering capacity-building and policy promoting the research and development of technologies and standards.
Two key challenges regarding the role of government are debated in the Tunis Agenda: the need for governments to adapt to the diversity and multiplicity of voices under the multistakeholder model and the understanding of a concept of governance that is not only limited to governments, but it extends to a broad range of stakeholders, including non-state actors.
Some governmental bodies have embraced the multistakeholder model of Internet governance as way to develop effective, collaborative solutions to both global and local Internet challenges. Others remain less comfortable with the multistakeholder approach, however.
Complexity of issues
Internet issues can cross geographic, sectorial, and technological boundaries. Net neutrality and cybersecurity, for example, have economic, social, legal, and technical aspects, and involve actors from multiple jurisdictions. To address these issues effectively, stakeholders must possess a wide range of skills and knowledge, including the ability to collaborate with industry experts, be they policymakers, technologists, businessmen, or civil servants.
Technology evolves quickly, but formal policies and legal procedures can move slowly. In addition, traditional decision-making models, such as voting, may result in decisions that are less suited to the broader set of legitimate and reasonable concerns, particularly those raised by minority interests. The pursuit of consensus ensures that all interested parties are involved in making the kind of decisions that produce effective outcomes.
Consensus building has historically been the foundation for technical governance, as illustrated by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) credo, “We believe in rough consensus and running code”. It is this culture that has enabled the IETF community to keep pace with technological advancements and to produce standards that facilitate the Internet’s growth. Similarly, institutions that deal with issues of public policy, such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), have also adopted consensus as a working method.
Consensus facilitates solutions that meet the diverse needs of the fast-paced Internet environment, and shifts the governance structure from top-down to bottom up.
The following are recommended guiding principles for Internet governance:
1 Open, inclusive, and transparent participation. The participation of interested and informed stakeholders in Internet governance processes, in their respective roles and responsibilities, is necessary to ensure that outcomes are both effective and accepted. It also ensures that interested stakeholders can directly participate in the work and have access to its results.
2 Consensus-based decision making. Policy-making processes should be informed by both practical experience and the individual and collective expertise of a range of stakeholders. Decisions should be reached through accountable processes that are based on consensus.
3 Collective stewardship and empowerment. To ensure the continued security, stability, and resilience of the Internet, governance structures and principles should be developed in an environment of strong cooperation among all stakeholders, each contributing their own skills.
4 Pragmatic and evidence-based approaches. Internet governance discussions, debates, and decisions must be informed by, and depend upon, objective and empirical information.
5 Voluntarism. In the realm of Internet technical policy development, voluntarism means that success is determined by users and the public, rather than a central authority.
6 Permissionless innovation. The remarkable growth of the Internet and the ensuing explosion of innovation and Internet use is a direct result of the open model of Internet connectivity and standards development. Anyone should be able to create a new application on the Internet without having to obtain approval from a central authority. Internet governance arrangement should not constrain or regulate the ability of individuals or organizations to create and use new standards, applications, or services.
Today’s Internet ecosystem is based on the fundamental tenets of the Internet itself, and draws its strength from the involvement of a broad range of players employing open, transparent, and collaborative processes. Cooperation and collaboration remain essential to the Internet’s continued innovation and growth.
The Internet Society has published a number of papers and additional content related to this issue. These are available for free on the Internet Society website.
> Internet Society Internet governance issue page, http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/internet-issues/internet-governance.
> Internet Governance Timeline, http://www.internetsociety.org/igtimeline.
> ISOC Internet Governance Event Toolkit, http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/07/isoc-internet-governance-event-toolkit-bringing-discussions-people.
> The History of Internet Governance, http://www.internetsociety.org/history-internet-governance.
> Internet Development and Internet Governance in Africa, http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/internet-development-and-internet-governance-africa.
 For an overview of the entities involved in Internet management, see Internet Ecosystem, http://www.internetsociety.org/who-makes-internet-work-internet-ecosystem.
 Subsidiarity is the principle that decisions should always be taken at the lowest possible level or closest to where they will have their effect. (Cambridge University Press, 2015, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/subsidiarity)
 Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html.
 Despite having stable definitions, the terms Internet governanceand multistakeholderism can be difficult to understand when translated into other languages because they lack an equivalent word. To support full understanding, is recommended that each mention of these terms be accompanied by a description.


This vision has already become a part of the everyday reality in dozens of large and small waste recycling plants around the world. The smart sorting robots, delivered by Finnish company ZenRobotics, pick materials suitable for recycling from a mixed waste stream. Robots can work nearly 24/7 – tirelessly, always quickly and efficiently without breaks. Machine vision sensors identify the material on the conveyor belt and transmit the information to the robots, each of which can sort four different fractions at the same time.
The company started in 2007 with the neurorobotics research group in the Aalto University. In its business, it combines two global megatrends: smart robotics and material recycling. No wonder the company’s solutions are raising interest globally, and it has reached the leading position in its field. The company’s ZenRobotics Heavy Picker robot in particular has no peer anywhere in the world. The Heavy Picker is designed for bulky and heavy waste streams, like construction and demolition waste, picking up objects weighing up to 30 kg.
In 2018, the company launched the ZenRobotics Fast Picker robot, which is designed for picking lighter materials, such as plastic and aluminium.
“We are years ahead of the other robot suppliers in the field in using robots, machine vision and artificial intelligence. We bring automation to waste recycling plants, where materials are still often sorted manually. The plants have received our products enthusiastically, and they can see the financial benefits they bring in the long run,” says Project Manager Keijo Karvinen.
Rationalising component choices
Robotic waste sorting can address many challenges the waste industry is facing. Thus, the demand has increased rapidly, and even though the company is using its whole production capacity, it still needs external partners. The cooperation with Arnon started in 2018.
“Arnon is a major expert player in the field. We can trust that if and when our market explodes and we need a lot of automation switchgear, Arnon can scale its production up accordingly and fulfil our needs,” Karvinen says.
Arnon delivers the automation switchgear of the Fast Picker robots and is responsible for their electrical design.
“We have been happy with the cooperation and the way Arnon communicates with us. We make plans for the future together and think about how we can optimise electrical design or the components. Good planning makes production more efficient. Arnon has helped us to rationalise the component choices for the switchgear and proposed solutions that make their use and maintenance easier.”


Researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology have succeeded in unraveling the genetic basis of two rare congenital diseases in which afflicted persons have no fingerprints. The results will be published in the October 2006 issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.
A team led by Professor Eli Sprecher of the Technion Faculty of Medicine found that both Naegeli syndrome and dermatopathia pigmentosa reticularis (DPR) are caused by a specific defect in the protein known as keratin 14.
The defect induces the body to mark cells in the upper layers of the skin for death. As a result, people with these afflictions lack fingerprints, as well as the ability to perspire normally. They also suffer from thickening of the palms and soles and may have developmental anomalies of the teeth, hair and skin.
Biological samples from Naegeli and DPR patients has been available for more than 20 years, but only recently did Technion graduate student Jennie Lugassy discover that the disease results from the abnormal function of keratin 14. Defects in this protein were known for years to be associated with a number of skin diseases with very different manifestations, so it had never been considered as a cause of Naegeli syndrome and DPR.
According to Sprecher, this new discovery was made possible by efforts initiated more than 20 years ago by former Professors Gabriele Richard (now with GeneDx, Inc. in Gaithersburg, Md.) and Peter Itin (University Hospital in Basel, Switzerland). The pair assembled an extraordinarily large group of individuals affected with these rare diseases; 25 individuals from five extended families from Switzerland, the United States and the United Kingdom participated in the study.
The researchers are now trying to understand the exact connection between the unusual features of the disease – such as the absence of fingerprints – and enhanced programmed cell death. According to Sprecher, the data from such research could have implications for many skin disorders.
Source: American Technion Society
Explore further: 'Pain sensing' gene discovery could help in development of new methods of pain relief


Tips to Prevent Falls
According to the CDC, one out of three adults aged 65 or older fall each year, but less than half talk to their healthcare providers about it. Falls can lead to multiple injuries including bruising, fractures, lacerations and concussions, with some even leading to death.
According to the American Family Physician Journal, a single fall does not always indicate a major problem. Patients should be evaluated if having recurrent falls (more than two falls in a six-month period).
One fall can lead to someone having a fear of falling which ultimately can cause decreased mobility and lead to potential further risk for falling.
Risk factors for falling include:
- Loss of sensation in your feet
- Poor vision or visual loss
- Balance disorders
- Weak muscles in your legs
- Neurological conditions (i.e. Stroke, Parkinson’s Disease)
- Side effects from medication
- Poor management of assistive device (i.e. walker, cane, etc.)
- Cognitive impairment
- Low blood pressure
Ways to decrease your risk for falling:
- Remove rugs and clutter in your home
- Get your eyes checked regularly
- Ask your doctor or pharmacist to review your medications
- Exercise regularly
- Get a prescription to be evaluated by a physical therapist
If you have fallen or have a fear of falling, talk to your doctor about it.
If you are walking around holding onto someone or holding onto furniture or walls, you are at a risk for falling. Also, you could harm someone else if you are holding onto them for support.
You may benefit from a physical therapy evaluation and potential treatment to improve balance and decrease your risk for falling. Don’t wait; schedule an appointment with your doctor or primary care physician.


How Much Portfolio Consist Of Crypto Reddit – What is Cryptocurrency? Put simply, Cryptocurrency is digital cash that can be utilized in location of conventional currency. Generally, the word Cryptocurrency originates from the Greek word Crypto which indicates coin and Currency. In essence, Cryptocurrency is simply as old as Blockchains. However, the difference between Cryptocurrency and Blockchains is that there is no centralization or journal system in place. In essence, Cryptocurrency is an open source procedure based on peer-to Peer deal innovations that can be carried out on a distributed computer system network.
One particular method in which the Ethereum Project is trying to solve the issue of smart agreements is through the Foundation. The Ethereum Foundation was developed with the objective of developing software application services around wise contract performance. The Foundation has actually launched its open source libraries under an open license.
What does this mean for the broader community interested in participating in the advancement and execution of wise contracts on the Ethereum platform? For beginners, the major difference in between the Bitcoin Project and the Ethereum Project is that the former does not have a governing board and therefore is open to factors from all strolls of life. The Ethereum Project enjoys a much more regulated environment. Anyone wanting to contribute to the job must adhere to a code of conduct.
As for the jobs underlying the Ethereum Platform, they are both striving to supply users with a brand-new way to take part in the decentralized exchange. The major differences between the two are that the Bitcoin procedure does not utilize the Proof Of Consensus (POC) procedure that the Ethereum Project utilizes.
On the other hand, the Ethereum Project has taken an aggressive approach to scale the network while also tackling scalability problems. In contrast to the Satoshi Roundtable, which focused on increasing the block size, the Ethereum Project will be able to execute enhancements to the UTX protocol that increase transaction speed and decrease charges.
The major distinction between the 2 platforms comes from the operational system that the 2 groups employ. The decentralized element of the Linux Foundation and the Bitcoin Unlimited Association represent a standard design of governance that puts an emphasis on strong neighborhood involvement and the promo of agreement. By contrast, the ethereal structure is devoted to constructing a system that is versatile enough to accommodate changes and add new functions as the requirements of the users and the market change. This model of governance has actually been adopted by numerous distributed application groups as a way of handling their jobs.
The significant distinction in between the 2 platforms originates from the truth that the Bitcoin community is mostly self-sufficient, while the Ethereum Project anticipates the participation of miners to support its advancement. By contrast, the Ethereum network is open to contributors who will contribute code to the Ethereum software application stack, forming what is referred to as “code forks “. This feature increases the level of involvement desired by the neighborhood. This design also varies from the Byzantine Fault model that was adopted by the Byzantine algorithm when it was utilized in forex trading.
As with any other open source innovation, much controversy surrounds the relationship between the Linux Foundation and the Ethereum Project. The Facebook group is supporting the work of the Ethereum Project by offering their own framework and producing applications that incorporate with it.
Just put, Cryptocurrency is digital money that can be utilized in place of conventional currency. Essentially, the word Cryptocurrency comes from the Greek word Crypto which suggests coin and Currency. In essence, Cryptocurrency is simply as old as Blockchains. The distinction between Cryptocurrency and Blockchains is that there is no centralization or journal system in place. In essence, Cryptocurrency is an open source procedure based on peer-to Peer deal innovations that can be performed on a distributed computer system network. How Much Portfolio Consist Of Crypto Reddit


We live in a democracy. We have the opportunity to freely elect the people who will represent us at every level of government, from township trustees to representatives and senators. Even though we do this at every level, the elected representatives who are closest to us, and who are most likely to share our concerns for our communities are our local officials – township trustees, borough councilperson, and county commissioners. These people are often our neighbors and friends and we elect them because we know that they will have the best interests of the health and safety of our communities at heart. We may agree or disagree on national or world issues, but we trust that these representatives will work to keep out communities safe locally.
So what happens when a community is threatened with some kind of environmental damage? What happens when a large, out of state corporation decides that one of our communities is an ideal place to dump the toxic waster from their factories, or store the contaminated water that comes back out of their fracked natural gas wells? The dangers are obvious and well documented – smell, contamination of drinking water sources, increased danger for our local fire fighters and first responders, damage to agriculture, increased health problems for all people nearby. What can our trusted local representatives do to protect our communities from these dangers? NOTHING!
That's right – NOTHING! Yes, these elected leaders can challenge the permit, making sure that all the details are correct, but if the details are not correct, the corporation can fix the errors and resubmit the permit application which is pretty sure to be approved. Depending on the existing zoning ordinances local officials may be able to shift the location of some corporate installation slightly. But there is no action that local officials like township trustees or county commissioners can take that will in any way prevent the state and/or federal government from issuing the desired permit. NONE!
In fact, the state and federal regulation processes that are supposed to assure clean air, clean water, and safe communities are all actually set up to assure that corporations get the permits they need to do the business they want, whether it is harmful to their neighbors or not. Whenever a new law is passed by the legislative branch (state or national), offices of the executive branch go to work writing the detailed requirements that a corporation must meet to carry out its business. However, the government staff of these offices may not be knowledgeable about the work of many corporations and so they call on representatives of the companies to explain their version of what the risks and benefits are and what is a reasonable way of carrying out their business. In other words, the very corporations that will be regulated get the chance to recommend how the regulations will be written and enforced. The fox is guarding the henhouse!
There are a few places where elected community leaders have tried to fight back. Sometimes they have won the first round because corporations are so sure of receiving their permits that they are sloppy in their preparation. But when the corporation comes back with all the paperwork properly filled out, the permit for whatever environmentally damaging activity is sure to be granted. In the regulatory process, the so-called “property rights” of an outside corporation will be more highly valued than your community's rights to clean air and water.
Are there any ways for communities to protect themselves against outside corporations whose work damages our lives, our safety and our comfort? This article will be continued next week.