Can the Internet RemainCan the Internet Remain Self-Governing ? Self-Governing ?
Keith [email protected]
Executive Chairman, London Internet ExchangeRe-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, BFBC, 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