Why they're talking about Internet governance

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Andy Oram <andyo () oreilly com>
Date: October 20, 2005 4:37:24 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Subject: Why they're talking about Internet governance


http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/8147

   Why they're talking about Internet governance
   Andy Oram
   Oct. 20, 2005

   (Originally printed in the [95]American Reporter)

   It's an unlikely matter for the United States and other nations to
   lock horns over: the administration of names and numbers used to  
reach
   Internet sites. But this seemingly trivial function is occupying  
a lot
   of time among government representatives traveling from continent to
   continent. A United Nations body wants to wrest power over these
   things from their current master, the Internet Corporation For
   Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The United States says that with
   ICANN in charge, things are running just fine (which they aren't).
   Many people condemn one side or the other for trying to carry out a
   power grab, or call the engagement a lot of hot air.

   But to me the first question to ask is: who called the
   names-and-numbers issue one of "governance" in the first place? Why
   did this ever become something for corporations, governments, and
   international bodies to wrestle over? Why isn't it going on quietly,
   cheaply, and with universal acceptance in the background, like so  
many
   other aspects of Internet operation?

   The matter of Internet names and numbers is actually a sad and  
sordid
   history that goes back over ten years. It never should have come to
   this point, where it is wasting millions upon millions of dollars,
   along with time and energy of some top Internet thinkers--and where
   real initiatives that could improve Internet access get shoved to  
the
   corners and left to gather dust.

Domain names get hot

   ICANN has control over three types of addressing, sometimes called
   resources. The very term "resources" biases its listeners right off
   the start, because a resource is usually something valuable that's
   limited and needs to be managed and bargained over. Addressing is
   being treated that way, but it didn't have to be.

   The first type of address is the number assigned to each computer  
for
   the purposes of routing traffic. This is called the IP address  
(where
   IP stands for "Internet protocols"), and in its current form it  
tends
   to be printed in four parts, such as 209.204.175.65 (the current
   address of the site where you're reading this,
   www.american-reporter.com).

   There used to be fears that we were running out of IP addresses, and
   accusations that some sites were receiving more than they needed,  
were
   hoarding them, etc. There may be pockets where scarcity exists,  
but to
   address the problem (pun intended), the Internet body that designed
   the IP address (and which has nothing to do with ICANN) created a  
new
   version, IPv6, that vastly expands the number of available  
addresses.

   Few sites have adopted IPv6, which requires enormous administrative
   changes. One of the tragedies of ICANN's existence is that it has
   played no role promoting this conversion to new addressing, even
   though as a central controlling organization for IP addresses, it
   would have a natural role as evangelist for the change. Instead,  
ICANN
   is mired in the other controversies described in this article, along
   with its own bureaucratic bumbling.

   A second addressing category involves a collection of potpourri  
called
   "assigned numbers."

   But the towering controversy in ICANN is the third area of  
addressing,
   the assignment of domain names. These are what let you request
   www.american-reporter.com in your browser instead of 209.204.175.65,
   and their presence is much appreciated. A lot of emotional  
baggage (as
   well as commercial power, as we shall see) is loaded onto domain
   names, but at base, they are simply another form of addressing.

   In the mid-1990s a true governance issue struck the Internet: the  
U.S.
   government opened it up for commercial use. Before then, it was
   supposed to be used only for government, academic, and research
   purposes. But now you could actually sell something over the  
Internet!
   Driven by this new freedom and the recent invention of the graphical
   web browser, thousands of companies poured the wares out before a
   virtual marketplace.

   Domain names were not designed for the new distribution of Internet
   users. Just seven names existed at the top of the tree, such as .mil
   for military use and .gov for government agencies. (A typical  
name is
   whitehouse.gov.) These names--called top-level domains--were managed
   by the U.S. government. Of course, other countries had come  
online by
   then, but they had their own names, such as .fr for France. Only one
   top-level name was allocated for commercial use--and for that  
reason,
   the history of computing will always remember the mid- to-late 1990s
   as the "dot-com" era.

   Yes, having a name ending in .com became one of the most pressing
   business requirements overnight. And businesses wanted a name that
   reflected their trademark, such as ford.com or porsche.com.

   Internet-savvy speculators bought up hundreds of thousands of famous
   names with no goal in mind but to wait until the company with the
   trademark came looking for it--and then they charged thousands or  
even
   millions of dollars to make the transfer. This was simply the free
   market at work, but the capitalists who got in line too late for  
their
   favorite domain names steamed up and called it cyber-squatting.

   There are many possible solutions to cyber-squatting. Companies  
could
   choose a name that wasn't taken yet, or just pay the squatter. But
   quite large corporations started making ugly noises about possessing
   trademarks and launched lawsuits to gain control over their own  
names.

   At the same time, the company called Network Solutions that happened
   to have gained control over handing out .com names--through a  
process
   somewhat less orderly than a game of musical chairs--realized they
   were sitting on the Fort Knox of Internet gold mines and started
   charging money for a service that used to be free. The fee was  
nominal
   by commercial standards, but high enough to make individuals think
   twice about reserving names for themselves.

   The clamor got worse and worse until a set of Internet public
   activists suggested a conference pulling together everyone  
interested
   in the domain name problem. This conference took place in July  
1998 in
   Virginia under the name Global Incorporation Alliance Workshop. The
   name reflected a recent white paper from the U.S. commerce  
department
   that indicated the government's resolve to incorporate a new
   corporation that would handle names and numbers. CPSR submitted a
   paper (to which I contributed) called [96]"Domain Name Resolutions."

   Amazingly enough, progress was made at the workshop. The many
   contending stakeholders came to consensus on some key points that
   would protect free expression and diversity among domain names. Had
   negotiations proceeded in that direction, the whole issue of
   allocating domain names might have been resolved harmoniously and  
the
   world could have gone on to more weighty topics. Whether or not
   everyone abided by the decisions, the results of the workshop would
   have represented a powerful moral direction post pointing toward an
   open Internet governed by consensus--had the results been the basis
   for further developments.

The first power grab

   It should be understood, before we go further, that pressure on the
   .com space could easily and immediately relieved by creating new
   names, such as .biz. The allure of the "dot-com" name held
   corporations back from endorsing this simple solution. But a more
   sinister drive lies behind the domain name controversy.

   Having established commercial beachheads on the Internet,  
corporations
   wanted to own the whole terrain. Through the World Intellectual
   Property Organization--an organization that make international
   policies regarding trademarks, copyright, and so on--they were
   designing a new regime for handling domain names. It was nicely  
suited
   to large corporations with the money to take out trademarks,  
litigate
   disputes, and so forth, but was unfriendly to individuals or
   organizations of limited means. For a variety of reasons, an
   artificial scarcity served the purposes of some powerful  
institutions.

   Within weeks of the successful conclusion of the Global  
Incorporation
   Alliance Workshop, a lash-up of Internet leaders, Network Solutions,
   and other back room forces popped a proposal of their own on a
   surprised and unprepared Internet community. The proposal (which was
   the second try for most of these actors, the first having  
collapsed as
   a half-baked exercise) ultimately led to ICANN. Most stakeholders  
were
   left out of the decision--even many large corporations were  
angry--but
   the Commerce Department approved the proposal, happy to wash its  
hands
   of the issue.

   Or so they thought. ICANN was to come back and pain them year after
   year--through lapses in following through on their requirements,
   through financial problems, and through sheer all-around failure. At
   least once, the renewal of ICANN's contract was seriously imperiled.
   Each time, perhaps grudgingly, the Commerce Department would give
   ICANN a new lease on life. Yet now the U.S. government staunchly
   defends the organization they castigated and threatened, when it  
comes
   up against U.N. criticism.

   And do you know what was the most absurd aspect of the whole domain
   name mess? Within a couple years, search engines had progressed  
enough
   that content could be easily located regardless of domain name.
   Whether you are ford.com or porsche.com or american-reporter.com  
isn't
   very important anymore. The problem that caused ICANN to be created,
   after so Machiavellian manipulation, simply evaporated. And yet  
ICANN
   existed, and exists to this day. Thus it provides spur for the  
current
   debate over "Internet governance."

An international bruhaha

   Two aspects of ICANN--IP addressing and assigned numbers--roll along
   with hardly any discussion; the third aspect--domain names--could  
have
   done the same if the trademark holders and World Intellectual  
Property
   Organization and ICANN hadn't raised such a stink over them. But now
   that a locus of control has been established, everybody wants a  
piece
   of it.

   The debate currently goes on within the World Summit on the
   Information Society (WSIS), a body set up by the United Nations in
   December 2001 to make international policy regarding Internet  
access.
   The summit approved a declaration of principles that is almost
   completely laudable, stocked with such standard fare as bringing  
poor
   people online and protecting freedom of speech.

   But they have a bee in their bonnet concerning ICANN. Certainly,  
it is
   controlled by the United States government--which renegs on its  
duties
   by letting ICANN blunder about so much--but the solution is not to
   bring it under U.N. control. The solution is to hand all its powers
   over to leaner, more technically focused groups that operate with  
less
   fuss and more consensus.

   It is not clear whether we can go back to a golden age of a
   technically run, frictionless Internet. There was a time when  
control
   over the servers for domain names, along with the top-level  
allocation
   of IP addresses and assigned numbers, rested in a single computer
   scientist who had done early work on the Internet and was  
respected by
   all, named Jon Postel. Clearly, this was not a sustainable solution
   (ironically, Postel died tragically a few weeks after helping to
   create ICANN), but the length of its successful operation shows that
   basic solutions can be quite light-weight.

   Domain names do raise policy concerns of a technical nature, and
   various actors in the space can take action to improve them. The two
   main issues are making sure the servers don't go down or get
   overloaded (technical robustness) and making sure nobody can spoof a
   name in order to direct you to a fake site (technical security).
   Providing names in every language, using character sets  
recognized by
   each culture and country, is another technical issue.

   But ICANN has done virtually nothing on the first two issues, and
   acted very slowly on the third. Instead, it concerns itself with
   policy issues that fall into two broad categories:

     * Scarcity: Users can't get a name they want--one they consider a
       "good" name.

     * Squatting: Possession by one user of a name that another person
       or organization thinks is rightfully theirs.

   The first problem can be solved by loosening rules for top-level
   domains, so that more are created. To ensure that all users can find
   all valid domain names. some central body is needed to create and  
hand
   out control over new top-level domains. This could be done by a  
small
   service center in a manner similar to how registrars hand out names
   within each top-level domain.

   The second problem can be solved by a policy that treats domain  
names
   simply as references--like book titles, which are never treated as
   trademark violations--and therefore things to which no one has more
   right than anyone else.

What really needs governance?

   Thanks to ICANN, WSIS is now worried about "governance." In the book
   Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration (available [97]in PDF
   format) contributor Wolfgang Kleinwaechter says the term "Internet
   governance" first appeared in a WSIS document in January 2002, and
   become a "hot item" at a February 2003 conference. WSIS now  
devotes a
   clause to that term in its [98]plan of action.

   And now that governance is on the table in the form of the ICANN
   debate, a number of other cards have been played by various
   governments. Many are indeed pressing issues that can use the  
help of
   governments and international agencies:

     * Spreading access to the disadvantaged, and providing content of
       value to them in their native languages.

     * Inequitable costs paid by underdeveloped countries to connect to
       the major countries that offer Internet service.

     * The need to guarantee business transactions online. Such issues
       include legal recognition of digital signatures, and adapting
       consumer protection laws so a person in Germany can buy goods  
from
       Mali.

     * Revising laws regarding speech for the Internet. Should  
bloggers,
       for instance, meet the same standards for accuracy as  
professional
       journalists?

     * Preparing police and courts internationally--both technically  
and
       legally--to prosecute someone from another continent who  
messes up
       your hard drive or tricks you into revealing sensitive
       information.

   These issues were thrusting to the surface anyway, and had been
   brought before many governments as well as international bodies such
   as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.  
But the
   existence of the obtrusive, non-consensus-based, quasi-governmental
   ICANN furnished an example of governance that countries  
unfortunately
   treated with envy rather than repugnance.

   Resources do require management. Our oceans are becoming polluted  
and
   devoid of edible fish; our energy sources are running out; armaments
   ranging from rifles to nuclear materials are traversing borders far
   too freely.

   But the Internet is not a resource as these are. It is a medium,
   infinitely expandable. The U.N. can certainly help governments adapt
   to its bounty, and its challenges. Well-placed funding for access,
   content, and law enforcement are valuable.

   Luckily, most of the actors (including the authors of the book
   mentioned earlier in this article) give at least lip-service to
   multilateralism and transparency. They recognize that Internet  
issues
   require cooperation among many actors--rather like that Global
   Incorporation Alliance Workshop back in 1998. In his contribution to
   that book, William Drake (a colleague of mine in CPSR) calls for an
   "integrative analysis" that would probably be a loose coalition of
   stakeholders, rather than a centralized governing body.

   By taking names and numbers off the bargaining table, we can free up
   space for policy issues we really need to deal with.

---

   Andy Oram is an editor for O'Reilly Media, specializing in Linux
   and free software books, and a member of Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility. His web site is www.praxagora.com/andyo.

        This work is licensed under a [106]Creative Commons License.

References

  95. http://www.american-reporter.com/
  96. http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/dns/dns_resolutions.html/
  97. http://www.unicttf.org/perl/documents.pl?id=1392
  98. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html
 106. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/