Can the Internet Remain Self-Governing ?

1. Can the Internet Remain Self-Governing ? Keith Mitchell keith@linx.net Executive Chairman, London Internet Exchange Re-Engineering the Internet, 26th Jan 1998

2. Overview • Introduction • Some History • Experiences in the UK • Conclusions

3. Relevant Organisations • 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

4. Areas 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

5. Governance & Regulation • 1997’s additions to Internet vocabulary • Governance: • Who is in control ? • Who is accountable ? • Regulation: • Who enforces control ? • Who is subject to control ?

6. History • 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

7. Past 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

8. Recent 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

9. UK 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

10. LINX 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

11. LINX & 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

12. Telecoms 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 ?

13. Telecoms 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 !-(

14. Internet 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

15. Internet 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

16. Content Regulation 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 ?

17. DNS 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

18. NOMINET 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

19. NOMINET 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

20. Address 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

21. Conclusions - Industry • 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

22. Conclusions - Legal • Internet is not so different from “real world” • Evolve and improve existing laws • Avoid panic legislation • Legislators need help and education

23. Conclusions • 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