I believe that one of the most important aspects of short capacity building courses is to give us insights and to stimulate our curiosity to develop further reseraches on the topics that interest us the most.
As we are supposed to send the organizers of the South SSIG personal reports about the lectures, I thought that it could be a good idea to share them here, so they can benefit all the community and maybe provoke more curiosity :)
This report is the result of my personal notes and may not precisely reflect the opinion of the lecturers. If any of you want to discuss these themes further or would like to have more information about this summer school, please feel free to get in touch
SOUTH SUMMER SCHOOL OF IG
Participant: Marília Maciel
Internet Governance History: From a military Project to a mass media
Birth of the Internet
• It had to do with military race. On October 4th there was the lunch of Sputnik
• A communication system with a center could be attacked. Decentralize it and make it difficult to destroy.
The four waves of Internet development
1) Military Wave
EUA context. Darpanet and e-mail exchanges in December 1969.
Research financed by the military department of defense. But there was no real intervention from them. There was a feeling they did not know the kind of research they were financing.
2) Academic wave
1974- Before the TCP/IP there were 3 different internets. Vint Cerf and Bob Khan had the idea to link these networks together.
DNS. Translate numbers into names. Do it hierarchically, like family names ex: .gov for government, .com for commerce. Countries also. Problem: how to define what is a country. There were 246 countries, islands and territories according to ISO 3166.
All process of distribution was done without the shadow of government regulation. Bottom-up organization by the community. It was a trusted relationship.
Management and oversight over the root server is a huge responsibility. IT makes possible that one gTLD can communicate with other. If mistakes are made in the root, than the communication is impossible. The root server is supervised by the US government.
All 13 root servers have the same information on their databases. 3 or 4 times a day they synchronize their information. If US takes info our of the root servers, others could by pass it.
3) Concepts wave
Code making. Where does legitimacy comes from. How to reach transparency?
Buying a good domain name for your business is as important as buying good land in the past.
Postel wanted to put together a committee to administrate the DNS. ITU, ISOC, business organizations.
ICANN turned the hierarchy in which governments at the top upside down. The users and business sector are more important
4) WSIS wave
There was not an original intent to discuss the Internet, but governments brought the issue, because they were not happy with their role.
Government X private sector leadership? Issue: management and oversight of the Domain name system. EUA standpoint: if it aint´t broken, don´t fix it!
Creation of The WGIG to settle this. This group should not be compose by governments only. It should be multistakeholder and bring representatives from developed and developing countries.
WGIG final report
Each theme has its own ideal governance arrangement. Ex: IP. Private driven and government advice.
Definition of IG in the report. What does “respective roles” mean?
IGF as a space where the stakeholders could share their views. The bodies and actors discuss, go back home and make decisions. There´s no sense in a centralized oversight.
Prep Com II
US government gave a green light for the IGF.
China was silent before Tunis. The idea of a “digital Yalta”. China criticized the system but if people let China rule its internal Internet, then it´s fine for the moment. It was an arrangement and it put the Europeans in a difficult position.
Outcomes of Tunis:
Enhanced cooperation – part of the European proposal. Is it a new model of a new mechanism? No consensus about interpretation. Governments agreed to disagree.
Waiting for what will be a pos-JPA. There´s a new government in US, but there are more serious priorities for them.
Elections for the board in 2002. In Germany, a hacker was elected. In Japan, a person who was not an internet user. After Sep 11 the US has decided to stop this experiment. Cyber security is more important than cyber democracy.
G 20 will debate the Internet? Governments will have more role?
Oversight over the root is now a less important issue.
The participation of society
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
• The participation of users is unequal.
• ICANN and IGF are not opening space for the participation of internet users.
• Governments are responsible to increase the participation of users. This is on their best interest.
• States in LAC don´t have policies related to TICs
• Lack of capacity building to involve CS with quality
• Lack of resources in our countries.
• Lack of participation from women
An holistic approach to IG
• Foundation of IG regime background was the aim of the lecture
• It was a breakthrough that IG was understood as more then names and numbers.
• Governance is how we direct the process, by one or many entities, may be top-down or bottom-up
• Global governance: Global geographically, really affects most of people involved.
• Internet is becoming the focal point of all ICT industry.
1995 was a turning point. US withdraws NSNFNET, allows charging for Domain names, Netscape enhanced and IE launched
1996 – treaty on IP in WIPO. It is already IG
2002 to 2005- Global politization of IG. Other actors joined
WSIS process. Understanding of the need of multistakeholder. New experience to stakeholders
WGIG reports main outcomes: Working definition of IG, horizontal framework. IGF provided a way out for a deadlock negotiation
Inner circle: names and numbers, technical standardization (remember that code is law), Network security
Outer circle: ICT arrangements with indirect impact. International telecommunications regime, international trade, international radio regime, international satellite regime, International development programs.
Are telecommunications moving to next generation networks? Using IP? If so, the regulation will apply even more to the internet environment.
Numbers IP for LAC
Articulate collaborative forces and stability of Internet in the region:
• Development agenda ex: Frida
• Napla- discussed interconnexion costs
• +Raíces – make copies of root servers
Enhanced cooperation: the possible outcome. There was no consensus to create new structures. Enhanced cooperation made possible to enhance the participation of different actors, even without a clear consensus.
There are five organizations in the world that administrate the critical Internet resources.
IPv4. It will still be possible to have access to them, but in small blocks. It will be difficult to have access to big blocks of IPV4.
In LACNIC, there´s a web portal devoted to the transition to IPv6. Portalipv6.lacnic.net
The level of adoption of IPv6 is low, but our ability to work with it is high. There are joint task forces on the countries of the region.
IPv6 won´t take the place of IPv4, both technologies will co-exist. It´s a trasition, not a migration.
It´s not a good idea to extend the life of IPv4 indefinatately, because it will discourage the transition. The issue is that the ones that are available go back to the central pool for equal distribution.
IGF Spain – The global forum are good to grasp which are the themes for debate. But to discuss local issues, local meetings are better.
Technical Standards, education, capacity building.
IETF has no juridical personality. It´s under ISOC´s umbrella. The copyright of all its protocols belongs to ISOC.
IETF is based on knowledge and not on membership. If someone gives a good suggestion it will be supported.
Principles of IETF: Rough consensus and Running code
Lines of action:
Projects of Participation, transparency, e-procurement, etc. Red Gealac – e-government
A2K. Schoold and communities of low income. Relpe – red latino americana de portales educativos. Materials available on CC.
ICT4Buys. SME and employment
POETA – youth and employment
The role of protocols, standards and codes in Internet Governance
What do protocols, standards and code have to do?
What principles have to do with IG?
Do the people creating the things above know that they doing governance?
Definition of IG in WSIS: people agreed because it was ambiguous. Creative ambiguity for best or for worse?
Large division between people who worked with technology and people involved in governance.
• Protocol – set of rules determining the format and transmission of data
• Standards- formalization of a protocol or practice
• Code- symbolic arrangement of data and instructions. Implementation of the protocol. It is what makes the internet unique.
Succession: Protocol – standard – code – protocol (improved)
Internet can´t be understood like other fields. It is unique because it is composed by a complexity of code, it has an unexpected possibilities. Human interactions have side effects and unintended consequences
Packet based, end to end, robustness, laired architecture, hourglass model (IP is the waist of the hourglass)
Naming, robustness- documented RFC 793. Transmission protocol
Difficult question: Does running code define legitimacy?
Lawyer. ISOC Argentina
Cybercrime is a mixture. There’s need for real law and cyber law.
Cybercrime: Criminal law should be a last resource, after civil regulation.
Argentina law 25.326 (juridical regime of the protection of data)
Argentina law 26.388 (Cybercrime)
Challenges from Budapest convention:
- Points 7 X 24 (international cooperation)
- The responsability of ISPs to keep data records from users.
- Electronic evidence (how to admit them and conserve them properly)
International law and IG
Information about the registrant in the WHOIS database
IP lawyers want the use database, while the privacy advocates want to protect them.
CRISP protocol – Cross Registry Information Service Protocol.
Final Task Force Report on WHOIS services (2007)
Users (registrants) can use a proxy server.
Abuses of the WHOIS database.
UDRP uniform domain name dispute resolution policy.
1) Domain name identical or confusing
2) the registrant does not have rights over the domain name. Bad faith.
Guidebook How to apply for new gTLDs www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm