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)

Organizational Chart

Organizations in the Internet

W3C

IAB IESG

The RIRs

Standards Bodies

Service Organizations

Government Interest

IRTF

Address Prefix Assignment 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

DNS Name Management 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

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

Protocol Identifier Management

IETF owns its protocols IAB Charters IANA

IANA (now) assigns protocol identifiers

ICANN current operator of the IANA function That could change

Standards Bodies “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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Attempts to cooperate Standards bodies attempt to

cooperate: example, ICANN PSO PSO recently dissolved for cause

Cooperation is difficult for all organizations Political directions and rivalries Structural differences

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?”

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

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

“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

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887

The issue with government involvement with standards

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

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.

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

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

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”

Conclusions Human motivations Organizational infrastructure Technology development Policy development

Human motivations in technology

We develop technology because a need exists

We deploy technology because it works

Not because we are told to

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

There are serious policy issues

IETF is not a good forum for this ICANN problematic ITU would like to help

Internet Organizations:A study in political science

Fred Baker

Chair, ISOC

Cisco Fellow