1 / 30

Internet Organizations: A study in political science

Internet Organizations: A study in political science. Fred Baker Chair, ISOC Cisco Fellow. “ There are two things you don’t want to see being made—sausage and legislation.”. Attributed to Otto von Bismark (1815-1898). W3C. Organizational Chart. Organizations . in the Internet. The .

vanig
Download Presentation

Internet Organizations: A study in political science

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Internet Organizations:A study in political science Fred Baker Chair, ISOC Cisco Fellow

  2. “There are two things you don’t want to see being made—sausage and legislation.” Attributed to Otto von Bismark (1815-1898)

  3. W3C Organizational Chart Organizations in the Internet The Standards Service Government RIRs Bodies Organizations Interest IAB IESG IRTF

  4. IETF specified structure of an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix ICANN (historically IANA) assigns them to Regional Internet Registries RIRs Develop assignment policy Assign to local NICs, or ISPs, or edge networks Local NICs assign to ISPs or edge networks Address Prefix Assignment

  5. ICANN assigns TLDs to registrars NSI, ccTLD Operators, etc TLD registrars work with registries to allocate domain names Domain name holders are on their own DNS Name Management

  6. Who makes sure this much works? • ICANN is responsible for the correct operation of its functions • US Department of Commerce • Maintains a “parental” finger in the game • Participates in root zone changes • Lots of worried people comment – all the time

  7. IETF owns its protocols IAB Charters IANA IANA (now) assigns protocol identifiers ICANN current operator of the IANA function That could change Protocol Identifier Management

  8. “The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.” ISOC and IETF formally related Standards bodies have various views of their own and each other’s roles, which do not agree W3C Standards Bodies

  9. Necessity and importance of • RIRs: RIPE, ARIN, APNIC • IETF • World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) • ITU-T • 3GPP/3GPP2 • ETSI • IEEE • ICANN • US Department of Commerce NTIA • Internet Society (ISOC)

  10. Necessity and importance of RIRs: RIPE, ARIN, APNIC • Current address structure: • One or more address prefixes per ISP or multihomed edge network • Requires • Someone to assign the prefixes • A venue for multiprovider policy discussions

  11. Necessity and importance of ICANN and registrars • TLD structure requires • Someone to be a registrar • Someone to maintain root zone • Is ICANN the only way to manage the root? • ITU-T would like to do it • DOC NTIA might think it could • Alternate root operators suggest roots with random content • A certified organization could manage it • In short: • Someone must manage root; need not be ICANN

  12. Necessity and importance of US DoC NTIA • DoC thinks • US started the Internet and • Is responsible to make sure it runs • DoC says • It would like to step out of parental role • It currently doesn’t trust ICANN • I think we would agree that someone must ensure that root is preserved • Much disagreement about DoC NTIA

  13. Necessity and importance of standards bodies • There exist many bodies that develop standards used in the Internet. • De facto standards: • IETF, W3C, IEEE • De jure standards: • ETSI Tiphon, ITU-T, 3GPP, 3GPP2 • De facto vs. De jure • It has not been shown that one type of standard is invariably better for technical standards

  14. Expertise specific to the Internet • W3C develops/maintains HTML/XML • IETF has displayed expertise in Internet technology • IETF developed elastic Internet model • Internet Telephony uses IETF components (SIP, RTP) • ITU-T has developed some Internet Telephony: H.323/H.248 • Transposition of Telephone model to Internet applications. • Few other obvious claims to fame

  15. Attempts to cooperate • Standards bodies attempt to cooperate: example, ICANN PSO • PSO recently dissolved for cause • Cooperation is difficultfor all organizations • Political directions and rivalries • Structural differences

  16. Regulatory/Policy issues • Example: • “Should Internet companies be responsible for interconnection to transit, or should they share the cost of a link?” • “How should Internet companies divide/gain references in the DNS Root?”

  17. Community deeply divided • Partially carried on in ICANN now: • Limited success • ITU-T may be a logical place to have such discussions • Viewed with combination of interest and suspicion by various parties

  18. Place of Government(A very US mindset) • The purpose and goal of government • Responsible to its people • Economic and Military needs need to be met by common technology • Technology • Policy • Funds research • Creates environment for business

  19. “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” • Can be a means of funding a critical enterprise • Deployment of telephone technology in 20th century largely government initiative • Often a recipe for disaster • X.25, ISO/OSI (GOSIP), French VideoTex

  20. The issue with government involvement with standards “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887

  21. ITU Direction: 1998 • ITU directed to take leadership role in Internet Standardization • Zhao formed relationships with IETF • Existing relationships with ETSI • Viewed by IETF as imperialist policy • Concern about demonstrated expertise • Largely unsuccessful

  22. ITU Plenipotentiary October 2002 • The 1988 Treaty will be retained • ITU actions related to the Internet can only be Voluntary Recommendations up until a new World Conference. • Would not take effect until 2009-2010 • Not supported by US, and unlikely to be ratified until 2011 or later • European attempts to modify CS/CV related to the Internet unsuccessful.

  23. Network Security • Resolution asking the ITU to • Strengthen the ITU standards work • Increase the awareness of the importance of network security • The term “security” is not clearly specified; could address integrity of the network, or integrity of communications, or other subjects • Impacts: • Strengthen ITU-T and ITU-D work already underway

  24. ITU view of ICANN • Modified Resolution 102 (Management of Domain Names and IP Addresses) calls for the ITU to • Take a “significant role” in the international discussions on these topics, including internationalization of domain names • Represent Member State interests in these discussions • Work with other organization on programs to assist developing countries

  25. ITU Website wording • ITU Website for PP02 highlighted Resolution 102 progress • “ITU claims Internet names” • Changed yesterday, • “Internet names: A matter for government and private sector”

  26. Conclusions • Human motivations • Organizational infrastructure • Technology development • Policy development

  27. Human motivations in technology • We develop technology because a need exists • We deploy technology because it works • Not because we are told to

  28. Much of the organizational infrastructure works • Regional Internet Registries • Operational internet imperfect but functional • Technology Standardization • Works best when standardizing existing technology • Can be used to develop technology

  29. There are serious policy issues • IETF is not a good forum for this • ICANN problematic • ITU would like to help

  30. Internet Organizations:A study in political science Fred Baker Chair, ISOC Cisco Fellow

More Related