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