can the internet remain self-governing ?
Post on 22-Jan-2016
61 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Can the Internet RemainCan the Internet Remain Self-Governing ? Self-Governing ?
Keith Mitchellkeith@linx.net
Executive Chairman, London Internet Exchange
Re-Engineering the Internet, 26th Jan 1998
OverviewOverview
• Introduction
• Some History
• Experiences in the UK
• Conclusions
Relevant Relevant OrganisationsOrganisations
• Speaker is member of:– NOMINET UK Council of Management– Internet Watch Foundation Policy and
Management Boards– RIPE NCC Executive Board
• 30-40% of time in past 2 years on regulatory/governance issues
Areas of InterestAreas of Interest
• Illegal & restricted content
• Telecoms and competition regulation
• Infrastructure governance:– Physical = IP address space– Virtual = Domain Name space
• Intellectual Property
• Crime, fraud, hacking
• “Spam” = unsolicited advertising
Governance & Governance & RegulationRegulation
• 1997’s additions to Internet vocabulary
• Governance:– Who is in control ?– Who is accountable ?
• Regulation:– Who enforces control ?– Who is subject to control ?
HistoryHistory
• Internet bodies have been created where need arises:– De-facto by those involved– US Federal government (e.g. NSF)
• “Top Level” of governance by e.g.– IAB, IESG, Internet Society, IANA
• Technology and standards by IETF• Operations by: IEPG, NANOG, RIPE,
APNG
Past HistoryPast History
• Authorities for a long time took no interest in the Internet:– Has been largely outside traditional
telecoms licencing regimes– Ignorance and conservatism towards
technology– Top-down imposition of
inappropriate technology
Recent HistoryRecent History
• Authorities have woken up:– Massive growth in use– Subsuming other telecoms
technology– Importance to commerce– Opportunity and money attract
exploitation and crime– Over-positive & over-negative media
hype
UK ExperiencesUK Experiences
• Initial concept of LINX in Oct 94 did not include any regulatory involvement
• ISPA set up early 96 to promote code of practice for ISPs
• NOMINET set up mid 96 to manage .uk domain name space
• IWF set up end 96 to deal with illegal content
LINX ExperiencesLINX Experiences
• LINX is UK national Internet Exchange Point
• Represents 43 largest UK ISPs• Involving physical infrastructure
organisation in regulatory activities highly controversial
• Solution is that non-core activities must be formally defined and have strong consensus
LINX & RegulationLINX & Regulation
• Funding, and policy & management oversight of IWF
• Defines “good practice” (BCP), but only mandatory requirements concern IXP
• Tries to encourage open peering and competition between ISPs
• Becoming involved in network abuse– Spam, resource theft
• Channel of communication between ISPs and regulators
Telecoms RegulationTelecoms Regulation
• Regulators:– Oftel (UK), DG-XIII (EU), FCC (US)
• Tension between:– Former PTTs– Licenced telco ISPs– Unlicenced independent ISPs
• Where does Internet fit into existing voice-originated regulation models ?
Telecoms RegulationTelecoms Regulation
• Regulators can have very fixed view of world
• Having licence can be both problem and advantage for ISPs
• UK regulator has built-in bias towards licence holders
• They don’t always use or understand Internet technology !-(
Internet Watch FoundationInternet Watch Foundation
• Voluntary funding from large ISPs directly, and small/medium via associations
• Operates hot-line for reporting illegal material
• Working on content rating schemes
• ISPs supporting IWF have defence against prosecution for customer actions
Internet Watch FoundationInternet Watch Foundation
• ISP industry appoints members to Management Board
• Public interest represented by Policy Board
• Illegal content reported to ISPs and to Police NCIS
• Liaison with UK Government and EU Commission
Content RegulationContent Regulation Future Issues Future Issues
• Convergence with other media and potentially their regulators ?– ITC, BBFC, ICSTS, VSC
• Would be nice to get some support from content industry and not just ISPs
• Need similar bodies in other countries to deal with problem at source
• Impact of planned Human Rights Bill ?
DNS GovernanceDNS Governance
• Hottest and most complicated Internet governance issue at present
• IAHC, POC, PAB, CORE, CENTR etc. etc.
• Others better qualified to talk about this than speaker (Stream 1)
• Will summarise NOMINET UK governance
NOMINET UKNOMINET UK• Set up to improve on mess of
unsuccessful attempt to run .uk namespace on voluntary distributed basis– “naming committee”
• Same legal entity type as LINX, ISPA, IWF– Not-for-profit– Company Limited by Guarantee– Member consortium
NOMINET UKNOMINET UK
• Membership open to all• Anyone can buy domains direct• Members can buy at discount• Voting rights proportional to domain
consumption– accountability to end-users via market
• Benign attributes needed for a natural monopoly
Address SpaceAddress Space
• Top-level is IANA• Delegates space and authority to
– RIPE NCC, APNIC, ARIN
• RIPE NCC currently moving from academic/ research-sponsored home (TERENA) to independent member-derived autonomy
• ARIN has taken over from InterNIC for American address space
Conclusions - Conclusions - IndustryIndustry
• Authorities want identifiable bodies to take responsibility
• Don’t go “QUANGO”-mad !• Market-based solutions friendlier than
bureaucracies where possible• Bottom-up accountability to end-users• Democracy is good, but not always for
doing engineering
Conclusions - LegalConclusions - Legal
• Internet is not so different from “real world”
• Evolve and improve existing laws
• Avoid panic legislation
• Legislators need help and education
ConclusionsConclusions
• Self-regulation can work, and is often better than imposed solution
• ISPs need incentives before they will self-regulate
• Still experimenting, but lessons have been learned from good & bad examples
top related