Docstoc

Connecting to the Internet

Document Sample
Connecting to the Internet Powered By Docstoc
					MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE EVENTS
LAINA RAVEENDRAN GREENE

 Managing
 

Director, GetIT Pte Ltd
Chair of APPLe

Coordinator of SINCPEC INFOTEL

laina@getit.org
www.getit.org
1

EVENTS LEADING UP TO WHITE PAPER • other private initiatives to create new TLDs and to have new root servers, e.g.. ALTERNIC, eDNS, name.space • increasing use of .com, mainly due to problems associated with .us • increasing use of domain names as trademarks

• domain name hijacking cases
• trademark disputed and controversial handling by NSI, leading to pressure to change existing system
2

• January 1996- “Delegation of iTLDs”paper was drawn up by Jon Postel, Randy Bush and Brian Carpenterproposed the creation of multiple, exclusive, competing top-level domains (up to 50 new registries for about 150 new TLDs)

• Proposal raised much criticism from Internet technical community. There was even a suggestion to go back to numbers • May’96- Dublin meeting controversial confrontation between ITU, ISOC and CIX (ITU tried to get .int)
• June 1996, the paper redrawn as Postel draft, which was endorsed, in principle by the Internet Society (ISOC) Board of Trustee -slightly revised only

3

•Postel Paper was discussed at INET’96 in June1996

•APPLe meeting in Montreal, June 1996 brings together all the various parties e.g.. CIX, INTA, ISOC, ITU, ILPF, etc. to discuss the future of Internet Governance
•Aug’96- further redraft •Sept’96- IAHC idea first mooted by Executive Director of ISOC at Harvard Information Infrastructure meeting (where I had presented a paper on “Internationalizing Internet Governance”) •Nov’96- Press announcement of creation of IAHC

•February’97 after brief comment period, gTLD Final Report announced
4

SOME PERCEIVED CONCERNS
•PROPOSALS DEVELOPED WITHOUT DUE & OPEN CONSULTATION •LEGITIMACY OF FORA AND PARTICIPANTS- who elected them? •$$$$ INVOLVED -LEGITIMACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY NEEDED

•CONCERN HAVING IANA AND ISOC AS VETO POWER FOR CORE AND
POC, IN ITS EXISTING FORM •TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON TRADEMARKS •ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGE PANEL- MORE RIGHTS PROTECTED HERE THAN EXISTING NATIONAL PROTECTION

5

•May 1997- ITU signing ceremony of gTLD MOU
•June 1997- ITU Council discusses issue- US, EU and other countries have concerns. Only agree to depository role of ITU, not to substance of MOU

•July 1997- as part of the US Framework of Electronic Commerce call for the privatisation of DNS to allow for competition and international participation, the Department of Commerce issued a Request for Comments on DNS. By the August 1997 deadline, over 430 comments were received totalling 1500 pages

6

APIA COMMENTS ON RFC
• POINT 1. Applaud open consultation of US Dept of Commerce

• POINT 2. New legitimate structures needed to reflect the
commercialization and internationalization of the Internet. (market forces)

• POINT 3. Internet governance should not just focus on domain
names • POINT 4. Domain names should not be presumed to be trademarks • POINT 5. More international consultation needed to ensure attention to cultural sensitivities and the needs of the developing world.. • POINT 6. Prudent solutions only after open consultation, and technical solutions not legal ones should be pursued first.
7

• WIPO consultative meeting on “domain names and trademarks” on 1st Sept’97. APIA submitted its comments to WIPO. • October 1997- deadline for CORE Registrar applications. Deadline was further extended • October 27th- deadline to ITU Members to respond to ITU Request for Comments

8

• Oct- Dec’97- ASSESSMENT OF INPUT TO RFC AND US GOV DECISIONS ON NEXT STEPS

• EXPIRATION OF NSI CONTRACT FOR .com, .net, and .org end of March 1998 (extended to Sept’98)
• Meanwhile, we see amendments to IAHC, CORE, POC • 30th January 1998, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) an agency of the Department of Commerce, sends out a proposed rulemaking for DNS for comments, commonly referred to as the “Green Paper”. By the March 1998 deadline, more than 650 comments were received..

9

5th June 1998-

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Management of Internet Names and Addresses

commonly referred to as the “White Paper” DNS Statement of Policy

10

DIFFERENCE FROM GREEN PAPER
The White Paper removed three areas: • substantive regulatory provisions, including but not limited to a variety of specific requirements for the membership of the new corporation and for registries and registrars •the creation during a transition period of a specified number of new generic top level domains •minimum dispute resolution and other procedures related to trademarks

11

Privatising IANA and NSI’s root server functions, handing it over to an international not-for-profit corporation. Those functions that are still under “supervision” or “ownership” of the US governmentcontroversial point since de facto (moral authority) lies with Internet community as a whole, while de jure with US government.

12

EXISTING IP ADDRESSES HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE
IANA, A US Government subcontractor

AFRNIC? ARIN RIPE APNIC IP addresses for Americas IP addresses for Europe/ LA-NIC? IP addresses for AP does not do domain names Africa and ME- does do does not do domain names domain names

MEMBERS

MEMBERS MEMBERS

ISPs, CONFEDERATION OF ISPs, CORPORATE USERS, ETC..
13

EXISTING DOMAIN NAME HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE
ROOT “A” SERVER (.)---------NSI “under”“NSF”,

Global TLDs .com, .net, .org (NSI)

country TLDs .sg, .my, etc (national NICs or persons) e.g. SGNIC

special TLDs .edu, .mil, .gov (US government)

Int’l TLDs .int (ITU)

SLDs ibm.com, getit.org, etc. usually companies)

SLDs .com.sg, .org.sg, etc. (usually access providers)

SLDs ntia.gov, etc (gov agencies)

mrkt.ibm.com,etc singtel.com.sg, etc. doc.ntia.gov

SLDs wipo.int (int’l org) hr.wipo.int
14

FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT OF THE WHITE PAPER Purpose of the new corporation
•To set policy for and direct the allocation of IP number blocks •To oversee the operation of the Internet root server system •To oversee policy for determining the circumstances under which new top level domains would be added to the root system, and •to coordinate the assignment of other technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet

15

WHITE PAPER NOT ABOUT INTERNET GOVERNANCE- BUT NARROW ISSUES OF MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF INTERNET NAMES AND NUMBERS
Principles to guide US government in deciding which new entity to enter into agreement with •Stability- should not disrupt current operations or create competing root systems •Competition- market mechanisms that support competition and consumer choice •Private bottom-Up coordination- private sector action is preferable to government control •Representation- should have functional and geographic diversity in its decision making
16

WHITE PAPER- ELEMENTS FOR NEW ENTITY
• INCORPORATION-Headquartered in the US, and incorporated in the US as a not-for-profit corporation. It should have a Board of Directors from around the world.

• INTERIM BOARD/INCORPORATORS-Should include representatives of regional Internet number registries, Internet engineers, computer scientists, domain name registries, domain name registrars, commercial and non-commercial users, Internet service providers, international trademark holders and Internet experts highly respected throughout the Internet community. There should be substantial representation from around the world.

17

ROLE and TERM OF INTERIM BOARD (to be enshrined in Charter, Bylaws etc)
• to be appointed, on an interim basis, consisting of individuals representing the functional and geographic diversity of the Internet community. ..could serve for a fixed period, until the Board of Directors are elected and installed and they will not themselves serve on the Board for a fixed period thereafter • to establish a system for electing the Board of Directors that insures that the new corporation’s Board reflects the geographical and functional diversity of the Internet (bottom-up elections from members or open to all) • to develop policies for the addition of TLDs and establish the qualifications for domain name registries and registrars
18

BOARD OF DIRECTORS (to be enshrined in Charter, bylaws)
• STRUCTUREa) Board of Directors-should be balanced to equitably represent the interests of :
•IP number registries, •domain name registries,

•the technical community,
•Internet service providers, •Internet users (commercial, not-for-profit and individuals) •from around the world

• restrict government representation on the Board of Directors
without precluding governments and intergovernmental organisations from participating as Internet users or in a non-voting advisory capacity
19

• ELECTION OF BOARD-Nominations to the Board of
Directors should preserve, as much as possible, the tradition of bottom-up governance of the Internet, and Board Members should be elected from membership or other associations open to all, or through other mechanisms that ensure broad representation and participation in the election process.

• FUNDING- The new corporation will be funded by domain
name registries, regional IP registries, or other entities identified by the Board

• STAFF-current IANA staff should provide continuity and
expertise over the transition. Should also hire necessary expertise to bring rigorous management to the organisation

20

WHITE PAPER REFERENCE TO COUNCILS
• COUNCILS-The new corporation could rely on separate,
diverse and robust name and number councils responsible for developing, reviewing, and recommending for the Board’s approval, policy related to matters within each council’s competent. The elected Board of Directors should have final authority to approve or reject policies recommended by the councils.

• PROCEDURE OF COUNCILS-If developed, should
abide by sound, transparent rules and decision making processes, and protect against capture by a self-interested party and provide an open process for the presentation of petitions for consideration.

21

HISTORY BEHIND COUNCILS
• Separation of Name and Number AuthorityComments:
“A number of commentators suggested that management of the domain name system should be separated from management of the IP number system. These commentators expressed the view that the numbering system is relatively technical and straightforward. They feared that tight linkage of domain name and IP number policy development would embroil IP numbering system in the kind of controversy that has surrounded domain name issuance in recent months. ”

22

• Response: The concerns expressed..are legitimate, but domain names and IP numbers must ulitmately be coordinated to preserve universal connectivity on the Internet. Also, there are significant costs associated with establishing and operating two separate management entities. However, there are organisation structures than can minimize the risks identified by the commentators. For example, separate name and number councils can be formed within a single organisation. Policy could be determined within the appropriate council that would submit its recommendations to the new corporation’s Board of Directors for ratification.”

23

PROCESSES OF NEW ENTITY, BOARD, COUNCILS ETC.( to be enshrined in Charter, Bylaws)
• Procedures of a sound and transparent decision making process, which should be fair, open and pro-competitive • basis for corporate decisions should be recorded and made publicly available • procedures which protects against capture by a selfinterested faction, for example super-majority or even consensus requirements • procedures to allow the governing body to evolve to reflect the changes in the constituency of Internet stakeholders, e.g.. have an open process for the presentation of petitions to expand Board representation

24

• should have secure, stable and robust procedures for the operation of the DNS system and the authoritative root server

• procedures which provides for robust, professional management of the corporation
• Councils to have similar procedures, plus must allow for an open process for the presentation of petitions for consideration • Councils send up to Board for approval or ratification • Interim Board to set up election and voting procedures

25

OTHER ELEMENTS IN WHITE PAPERFUTURE CONSIDERATION BY NEWCO new corporation anticipated to adopt policies such as
•keeping registry databases and making them available
•domain name registrants to pay up front and agree to submit cases to certain jurisdiction •submit to ADR if cybersquatting or cyberpiracy involved

•exclusion procedures for famous marks, etc..
26

RECOMMENDED TRANSITION STEPS
1) New not-for-profit organisation must be established by the private sector
2) agreement must be reached between US government and the new entity 3) NSI and US government must reach agreement on terms and conditions of NSI’s evolution into another competitor amongst others 4) ask WIPO to convene an open international process to develop a set of recommendations for trademark issues 5) consult with international community, including other governments 6) cooperate with IANA, NSI, IAB and others to review the root server system for security, etc.
27

WHO IS THIS “PRIVATE SECTOR” AND HOW ARE THEY TO BE ORGANISED, ESPECIALLY GLOBALLY??? 1) New not-for-profit organisation must be established by the private sector- White Paper did not set out criteria nor procedure

meetings were popping up all over the place… Marina Del Ray, Reston, Aspen Institute, Geneva, etc…concern was how were they all linked? Which one to go to? Which was legitimate?Which would be recognised by Ira Magaziner?

28

INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION BEGUN, Thanks to Barbara Dooley of CIX, Dr Frankel and others
The International Forum on the White Paper- IFWP process consolidating the various private sector efforts has begun. First meeting was in Washington DC from 1-2nd July 1998.

www.ifwp.org
2nd meeting- during INET’98 in Geneva on the 24th-25th July 1998. 3rd meeting- Singapore 11-13th August 1998 at the ANA Hotel

4th meeting- Buenos Aires August 20th
5th meeting?????- to be decided
29

• concern over reinventing of White paper- seen in Reston and Geneva….see US government as arbiter and reach compromise after open consultation, if we reinvent then will never finish the process…
• important also to see how different efforts piece together...

30

WORKSHOP DIVIDED INTO:
RESTON

GENEVA
• Group A- Profile of the new Entity • Group B- Membership

• Group A-Profile of the new entity
• Group B-Board of Directors and Membership • Group C-Members Rights and Liabilities • Group D-Implementation • Group E-Domain Names/Trademarks • Group F-Security/Privacy

• Group C- Process of the Entity
• Group D- Address and Protocol Councils • Group E- Names Council • Group F- Domain Name and Trademarks

31

SINGAPORE MEETING
Plenary sessions mainly on:
1) Defining the new entitya) Functions of the Future Entity b) Role and relationship of Board versus Councils

c) Process of the new entity
2) Making the new entity work-

a) Membership and accountability b) Funding issues c) Technical issues

Workshop
a) Address and Protocol Councils b) Names Council
32

Reston
• Group A(profile of the entity)- since moderator did not feel White Paper was binding, went on to reinvent Functions, conclusions reached include:

a) IP assignment and IP assignment policy , with guidleine such as reasonable and equitable assignment, minimum barriers to portability, etc
b) responsibility for the root zone system, and obligation to

maintain it coherently and operate it in interests of all parties
c) authority to create new TLDs, in the best interest of the industry and users, maximise competition…although no consensus on impact on ccTLDs There was no concensus on role of regionals to Board, nor on whether there was a role for regional Registries once new IANA formed,

d) fourth function mentioned in White Paper- no clear
concensus since not clear what that meant

,

33

Geneva
• Group A (Profile of the Entity)
a) set policy regarding IP addresses, bottom up procedure from Councils, which Board accepts or veto b) set policies and procedures to maintain a coherent root zone system

c) set policies and procedures for TLDs, including ccTLDs
d) power to set policies and procedures to assign technical parameters e) set technical policies and procedures of DNS and oversight of registries and registrars f) set policies and procedures to determine own structure and finances

34

Reston
• Group B(Board of Directors and Membership)a) approved notion of independent councils underneath the Board for names, numbers and protocols- “We have policies for numbers, we have policies for protocols. There is no reason that we can’t take the things that are working now and bring them in” b) main contention is the names council c) agree that there should be an Interim Board before a Final Board, with limited powers (although as far as possible, if IFWP open and global participation, can be the incorporators instead of Interim Board) d) Board should have fair hearing panels, and process of checks and balances e) Membership- no clear concensus on whether there should be a membership.

f) there should be qualitative criteria set up for Interim and Final Board members, although no concensus on numbers
35

Geneva
• Group B (Membership) a) yes, membership organisation of individuals and
organisations(academic, commercial, users, IOs)- no concensus if individuals can vote b) membership classes??-definitely members from names, numbers and protocol councils, organisational members should fit these membership groups c) -Board should be elected both by membership groups as well as directly

d) Members rights- right to elect Board, right to nominate, right to removeother issues not answered- how can change Charter, period of membership, removal of members, responsibilities, costs of membership
36

Reston
• Group C (Members’ Rights and Liabilities)
Three classes of members, Board of Directors members, the members of the entity, members of the Internet community impacted by decision of the entity a) Rights- right to open records of significant issues before the Board, and right to respond before decision is taken by Board, right to vote e.g. simple majority of Board for routine decisions to supermajority of entire membersfor changes to Charter, bylaws or size of Board, right of registries and registrars to make business decisions, etc

b) Liabilities- need for staff and Directors to take insurance to protect against suits etc, need to indemnify registries and registrars not for business decision but for if they acted in accordance to entities policies, etc No consensus on right to remove Directors
37

Geneva
• Group C(Process of new entity)

a) There shall be an Interim Board, with clearly defined powers,
and there should be criteria b) Interim Board will establish the new entity

c) Interim Board to validate the membership and election processes
d) Interim Board should have a six month life, extension possible, no later than Sept 2000, definition of powers still open e) The process of the new entity shall be open and transparent using the Internet to this end to the fullest extent possible No consensus on the fact that Interim Board cannot be on Initial Board

38

Reston
• Group D (Implementation)a) There will be an Interim Board b) Power of Interim Board will be limited- not clear if just set up procedures for election of Board or actually write up bylaws etc c) Interim Board will not select Final Board d) Interim Board will define process upon which Final Board will be selected e) Interim Board, should not introduce new gTLDs

f) public interests should be represented even in the Councils
g) need to define membership and who incorporates are

39

Geneva
• Group D (Protocol and Names Council) not contentious, and reached a lot of consensus within existing RIR and IETF/IAB structure • Group E(Names Council) very contentious and mostly decided issues such as right to recommend new gTLDs, TLD related issues, nonexclusive nomination for Board, forum for discussion among gTLDs and ccTLDs and a forum for dispute settlement between and among them, propose best practices for registrars, recommend changes to Board’s functions and powers, etc Group F(Domain Names and Trademarks)

cooperate with TLD registries to form daabase, and similar points from Reston….WIPO consultative process mentioned
40

Reston
• Group E (Trademarks and Domain Names) a) NewCo to gather information

b) encourage development of ADR
c) right to domain name not based on trademark d) Names Council will make recommendations to the Board, with input and info collected at large, and Board to ratify or approve, or send back for further refining • Group E (Security and Privacy)’ a) adopt OECD guidelines on privacy b) law enforcement issues c) technical security
41

• Michael will tell you about Brussels consensus

42

SEE ALSO JOHN POSTEL’S PAPER AT HTTP://WWW.IANA.ORG/DISCUSSION.HTML
•IANA encourages initiatives to build consensus •offers some thoughts: •category of user should be further divided to commercial and noncommercial to ensure that they are properly represented •should ensure Board is international, e.g. could have one per country only,etc

•Board member should serve in personal capacity
•Interim Board should not be elected but true consensus group •ask for nominations to Interim Board to begin

•etc

SEE ALSO DRAFT BYLAWS AT HTTP://WWW.IANA.ORG/BYLAWS2.HTML

see also NSI draft bylaws
see also Harvard concensus and working draft documents
43

quote from Ira Magaziner from Reston meeting about the new entity and the process
“Its legitimacy has to come from a feeling among the major stakeholders that what is occurring is legitimate. So the most important, I think, piece to keep in the back of your mind, is no matter how much you may come to distrust or dislike somebody else that’s a major stakeholder in this, you’re going to have to come to terms with that. This process has to be inclusive, inclusive, inclusive, that is the key to its success.”

“If more than two proposals, lock people in a room until
they reach concensus”…Geneva meeting quote

44

quote from Tamar Frankel
“ We are in the process of industry self-regulation. Models in other sectors have been based on certain conditions being present, especially with membership from different countries• homogenous membership, • long term interaction among members, • interest in maintaining group reputation by eliminating bad apples, • credible threat of government regulation. These conditions are not quite there in the Internet World, therefore the creation of this industry self regulation mechanism in the new IANA will not be an easy task.
45

With GetIT you’ve Got IT

www.getit.org laina@getit.org

GetIT Pte Ltd 7th Storey, RELC Building 30, Orange Grove Road Singapore 258352 Tel: 7386929 Fax: 738 7839
46


				
DOCUMENT INFO