Can the Internet RemainCan the Internet Remain Self-Governing ? Self-Governing ?

Keith Mitchellkeith@linx.net

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