Internet Governance: A Centroid of Multistakeholder Interests
Internet Governance: A Centroid of Multistakeholder Interests
Responses - Stakeholder Academic & Technical Community
Vint Cerf, Google
Abstract
No one is in charge of the Internet. An Internet with a centralized control center would hinder its innovation and democratic liberty. The diversity of players in the Internet universe demands a multistakeholder approach to governance in the most general sense of the word.
Inhaltsverzeichnis |
Internet Governance: A Centroid of Multistakeholder Interests
Setting Global Internet Governance in Historic Context
This essay has to be among the best on this topic I have ever read. It draws on historical frameworks for perspective and promotes the need for and benefits of a different model of governance for the global Internet. In his reference to the Westphalian Treaty of 1648, de La Chapelle draws attention to the geographic and national character of this agreement and, in this context, Cardinal Jules de Mazarin’s calls for an agreement also based on economic recovery and fair trade are worthy of mention. This notion of common interest strikes me as relevant to the question of Internet Governance as well. As de La Chapelle points out, the Internet has a non-national character to it (e.g., IP addresses are NOT bound to national borders by design, but, rather, are indicators of topological connectedness among independently operated networks).
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) lasting from 2003–2005 drew remarkable attention to the Internet as an example of a global infrastructure that could lead to (or has already led to) a growing information society. Perhaps it is not surprising that the WSIS led immediately to the question, “Who is in charge of the Internet?” The government delegates to WSIS were somewhat alarmed by the explanation that “no one is in charge, it is a distributed system with highly distributed responsibilities.” Many were incredulous that such a massive and apparently interoperable system did not have some form of central control. The telephone system, also very distributed but often operated as a governmental entity, had a treaty organization, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) that oversaw the international aspects of the system. Thus, delegates were quick to assume that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) would take on the role of ITU counterpart in the Internet space. Calling this assumption a misunderstanding of the Internet’s character is an understatement.
The Interplay That Has Developed Between Internet Governance Stakeholders
Distributed Distribution of the Adress Space
ICANN does indeed have a key role in the global allocation of Internet Address space (i. e. IP version 4 and IP version 6 numerical addresses); the approval of new Top Level Domains (TLDs) for the Domain Name System (e.g., generic TLDs .com, .net, .org, .info, among others, and also country code TLDs (ccTLDs) such as .fr, .uk. .ru, and .us); and the maintenance of protocol parameter tables for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). ICANN also prepares updates to the “root zone” of the Domain Name System (DNS) that are reviewed by the US Department of Commerce/National Telecommunications and Information Agency, and implemented by the VeriSign Corporation.
However, these functions are performed within a complex universe of interrelated actors. For example, Internet Address space is managed by five Regional Internet Registries that, together, form the Number Resource Organization. They accept large blocks of address space issued by ICANN’s Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and delegate it to Inter- net Service Providers and, in some instances, large companies that need direct assignments of address space. There are thirteen root zone service systems operated by twelve companies or organizations (and on the order of one hundred replications of their servers exist around the world). There is a loose organization of root server operators advising ICANN in the form of the Root Server System Advisory Committee. The country code assignments are drawn from a table managed by the Organization for International Stan- dards (ISO), specifically ISO 3166-1 and changes to the country code TLDs are pursuant only to official changes in that table.
The Institutions That Broker The Rough Consensus Which Allows Services To Inter-Operate Bases On Standardized Protocols/Interfaces
The physical Internet is made up of hundreds of thousands of networks each operated independently but cooperatively, interconnecting on the basis of bilateral or multilateral agreements. In large measure, the system works because it relies on standards developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), a body that operates under the auspices of the Internet Society (ISOC). The Internet Society is a global, not-for-profit organization with chapters around the world and operational sites in the US and Switzerland. There are other important standards that are used to build and operate the Internet and they come from many sources, including the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (IEEE), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), the Organization for International Standards (ISO) and many others.
===Entrepreneurship And Competition In The Hardware And Software Sectors Continuously Pushing The Envelope===
he physical equipment used to implement the Internet comes from sources around the world as well. Router vendors include Cisco Systems, Juniper Systems, Huawei, Siemens, and many others. Users of the Internet access it through mobiles from many sources, with laptops, desktops, notebook computers from Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, Dell, among many others. Software from an uncountable number of sources populates online platforms around the world. So-called “cloud computing” systems pioneered by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM and others now provide enormous computing and storage capacity for users of the Internet. The American Smart Grid program and counterparts in Japan, Korea and elsewhere are currently in the process of further developing the “Internet of Things”, which will lead to a more advanced network infrastructure for reporting, mamangement and control purposes.
Businesses around the world make use of the Internet and the World Wide Web application for sales, marketing, customer service, software product delivery, video and audio entertainment, and even voice services, with the latter formerly the exclusive domain of the telephone system.
Internet & Society
The Internet Belongs To The People
In the early days the Internet was created for academic and military purposes. However, now that the general public has had access to the Internet since approximately 1989, the system has expanded to over 2 billion users and become a socio-technological extension of our societies. And while most users contribute and behave as citizens or businessmen, the net also includes criminals and others who abuse the network and its applications for personal gain. Viruses, worms, Trojan Horses and other malware are propagated around the Internet through infected web sites, infected thumb drives, spam email, and a variety of other attack vectors. However, while an Internet with a centralized control center would possibly allow for better surveillance and “higher security”, it would most certainly also hinder the innovation and democratic liberty that online services have brought about.
Transparency & Enhanced Cooperation
he linking of the mobile world to the Internet through applications housed within the mobile phones has accelerated the social and political impact of the Internet. Mobiles are information windows and reporting devices capable of capturing audio, video and imagery and uploading this information onto the Internet. Applications such as Twitter have drawn users together through facilitating near real time interaction. The flexibility and adaptability of the Internet invites a wide range of collaborative and collective activities, discovery of like-minded individuals, activities spanning multiple time zones as well as rapidly coordinated local activities.
Is it any wonder that the nations of the world now regard the Internet as a force to be reckoned with? It is a powerful and still-growing system that offers extraordinary freedom of expression and collaboration to every Internet user.
Challenges
Technology is neither good nor bad nor neutral. The net can be used to harm others. Moreover, the system is vulnerable to various forms of attack, which take advantage of poorly protected personal computing equipment, server systems and/or mobiles. Such insufficient protection has led to wide-spread abuse involving equipment, servers, mobiles, etc. being compromised and placed under the control of so-called “botnet generals” who use these resources to generate spam, mount distributed denial-of-service attacks or interfere with other components of the Internet.
Openness As Challenge
he origins of the Internet date back to 1973. And even before that, major experiments and developments in time-sharing and computer networking were being conducted (e.g. ARPANET). The Internet design, though funded by the US Department of Defense, grew out of academic and corporate research institutions and the openness of these institutions found expression in the design and operation of the Internet itself. The standards were largely royalty-free and openly accessible on a global basis. The open nature of the Internet and the common availability of open source software facilitates the introduction of new applications and capabilities. Every layer of the Internet’s architecture is theoretically accessible to users and, in consequence, users (and abusers) can exploit vulnerabilities in any of the layers. In consequence, network operators and software makers often look for ways to contain user access to certain layers or protocols. For example, most networks inhibit user operation of electronic mail servers in an effort to limit generation or propagation of spam.
Global Reach And Pseudonymity As Challenge
Pseudonymity was and still is largely the rule when it comes to identifiers used in cyberspace. Authentication relied and still largely relies on usernames and passwords that are only loosely bound to actual users. Not surprisingly, governments worry that the enforcement of societal laws and norms have proven difficult, not least owing to the fact that abuse can originate in one jurisdiction but target a victim in another. In the absence of reciprocity, it may be impossible to take action against the attacking party, or even to identify an individual or group responsible for the damage.
The Internet can be seen as a platform or infrastructure on top of which myriad applications can be built. The World Wide Web is, itself, a platform built atop the Internet. Many applications have been created in the context of the W W W. Users probably do not always realize that web applications, themselves, initiate programs that operate directly on top of the basic Internet platform. Streaming audio and video, voice over IP, peer-to-peer data exchanges and many other applications, while initiated through web-based interactions using browsers and corresponding web servers, are applications of the basic Internet infrastructure. By implication, there is still substantial latitude for innovation in the Internet, beyond the rich and varied platform provided by the World Wide Web.
Conclusion: Do Not Change A Winning Approach
The diversity of players, providers, implementers, operators and users of Internet-based systems speaks to the importance of the multistakeholder model so well described in de La Chapelle’s essay. Although governments have tended to focus on the potential harms that may befall citizen, private sector and government users of the Internet, the historic evolution of the Internet has proven that a cooperative strategy, by focusing on constructive agreements that enhance the value of the Internet’s infrastructure for all sectors, would be of enormous value.
Applying The Multistakeholder Approach To Current Challenges
A modest example of this would be to establish standards for the application of public key technology to validate “digital signatures” that may be used to conclude contracts negotiated in and expressed in the cyberspace of the Internet. If actors transacting agreements in the medium had certainty that these agreements had recourse in the event of breach, even when parties are operating in separate jurisdictions, electronic business and commerce would benefit. One can readily imagine other kinds of constructive, multi-lateral agreements that would be beneficial both in terms of protecting against harm and promoting the utility of this global medium.
Internet Governance As A Distributed And Constrained Responsibility
Because many of the harms result from exploiting vulnerabilities in software and/or hardware used to implement the Internet and its applications, it may also be worth asking what kinds of responsibility should fall on the shoulders of producers. At the same time, intermediary parties, even if they are operating in an optimal manner, may become unknowing conduits for harm. Safe harbors may thus be needed in order to protect these actors. So-called “spear phishing” attacks involve innocent-looking emails that recipients open, only to find their browsers have downloaded malware from an infected web site. Such attacks are extremely difficult if not impossible for intermediaries to detect. Indeed, efforts to detect them might be considered invasions of privacy in some jurisdictions. Balance is therefore needed in apportioning liability, rewarding best practices and achieving a safer environment for the use of the Internet. There is no question in my mind that the diversity of players in the Internet universe demands a multistakeholder approach to governance in the most general sense of the word. De La Chapelle makes a compelling case for this perspective with which I am in agreement.
