Documentary coverage of IGF-USA by the Imagining the Internet Center

Posts Tagged ‘Walda Roseman

IGF-USA 2012: Critical Internet Resources (CIRs) – Evolution of the Internet’s Technical Foundations

leave a comment »

Brief session description:

Thursday, July 26, 2012 – Since the initiation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Critical Internet Resources (CIR) and the evolution of the Internet’s technical foundations have been a central focus of ongoing Internet governance debates. Varied views can engender misunderstandings that influence the opinions of global stakeholders, and different views exist about how to advance CIRs. International governmental approaches are proposed by some, while others strongly support the present bottom-up, consensus-driven models. Three foundational technological changes – IPv6, secure Domain Name System (DNSsec) and secure routing – framed the discussion in this workshop. Deployment of these new technical and organizational approaches raises significant challenges to stakeholders, operations and governance arrangements.

Details of the session:

The moderator for the session was Walda Roseman, chief operating officer of the Internet Society. Panelists included:

  • Steve Crocker, chair of the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
  • John Curran, president and CEO of the American Registry of Internet Numbers
  • Richard Jimmerson, director for deployment and operationalization, Internet Society
  • Vernita Harris, deputy associate administrator in the Office of International Affairs of NTIA, US Department of Commerce

Thursday’s IGF-USA conference at Georgetown Law Center featured an assembled panel of government and corporate experts who addressed the controversial issues concerning the control of critical Internet resources.

Walda Roseman, chief operating officer of the Internet Society (ISOC), chaired the discussion on the implementation and security of CIRs.

CIRs include IP addresses, domain names, routing tables and telecommunications, or what Steve Crocker, CEO and co-founder of Shinkuro Inc., Internet Hall of Fame member and chair of the board of ICANN, called the base of Internet architecture upon which everything else is built.

Moving from Internet Protocol Version 4 to IPv6

One of the most pressing concerns regarding CIRs is the revision of Internet Protocol (commonly referred to as IP) from version 4 to version 6, now the most dominant protocol for Internet traffic.

IPv4 used 32-bit addresses, allowing for approximately 4.2 billion unique IP addresses, but the growth of the Internet has exceeded those limits. IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses, allowing for about 3.4×1038  unique addresses. This number is equal to approximately 4.8×1028 addresses for each of the seven billion people alive in 2012.

John Curran speaks about critical internet resources during IGF-USA conference in Washington, D.C. on July 26, 2012.

Because headers on IPv4 packets and IPv6 packets are quite different, the two protocols are not interoperable and thus they are both being run in what is called a “double stack.”

However, IPv6 is, in general, seen to be a conservative extension of IPv4. Most transport and application-layer protocols need little or no change to operate over IPv6. The exceptions to this are the application protocols that embed internet-layer addresses, such as FTP and NTPv3. In these, the new address format may cause conflicts with existing protocol syntax.

Internet service providers, the Internet Society and many large Internet-based enterprises worked to support a World IPv6 Launch on June 6 this year to help accelerate the adoption of IPv6.

John Curran, president and CEO of the American Registry for Internet Numbers, said upgrading to IPv6 is a necessary step for “any enterprise that wants to still be in business in five years,” because it enables them to continue to reach new customers and grow.

When asked about the costs or burdens of upgrading to IPv6 for small businesses, Curran explained that in most cases the burden would fall on the hosting company through which they run their website.

Chris Griffiths, director of high-speed Internet and new business engineering for Comcast, confirmed this, stating his company would have to upgrade to continue to attract new clients.

Security issues always loom large in Internet evolution

The development of the Internet has led to a need for Domain Name System Security, or DNSSEC. Curran explained that DNSSEC maintains the integrity of the Internet by ensuring the information users obtain is from the source they believe they are corresponding with, essentially preventing redirection to fraudulent websites.

Redirection could come from hackers, hijackers and phishers, but also the US government, should initiatives such as SOPA or PIPA pass.

“My primary interest is keeping the open Internet alive,” said Richard Jimmerson, director of deployment and operationalization for ISOC. “Somebody in this room will want to invent the next Facebook or Yahoo! Today, that is possible, but if we do not pay attention to certain things, that may not be possible anymore.”

Griffiths said Comcast and other Internet technology companies work together through governance processes now in place to address, for example, the types of security vulnerabilities that can drive action to work to avoid future risk, and in making adjustments in infrastructure and dealing with other emerging challenges.

Steve Crocker speaks about critical internet resources during IGF-USA conference in Washington, D.C. on July 26, 2012.

Conflicts arise over the management of CIRs

The US government currently maintains the most control globally over CIRs. This is not well received by some critics around the world, as they fear that the United States may abuse its power. Some have also proposed that they would like to see a roadmap of the Internet for the next 20 years.

Curran addressed these concerns by stating that the US government has a positive track record regarding the respectful and neutral administration of its responsibility for CIRs, mostly leaving all of the operational details to multistakeholder global governance bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force and ICANN, and added that roadmap would not likely be effective as there are too many unknowns moving forward.

Vernita Harris, deputy associate administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, explained that the newest Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract indicates it expects that ICANN and aspects of control over the Internet architecture “will be multi-stakeholder driven, addressing the concerns of all users both domestic and international.”

— Brennan McGovern

Advertisements

IGF-USA Scenario Discussion: Panelists, participants discuss future that puts Internet governance in hands of governments worldwide

with one comment

Facilitators Steve DelBianco, Walda Rosemann and Janice LeChance lead a discussion on a possible global government for the Internet.

Brief description:

IGF participants broke into three different rooms to discuss three different, possible potential-future scenarios for the Internet in 2020. In this session, the description given to the discussants was: Most of us assume that the ICT industry, media companies and NGOs will continue to be the leading players on the Internet stage, with governments playing just a supporting role. This scenario describes an alternate future, where citizens and industry worldwide demand that their governments take center stage to clean up an Internet that has become infected with dangerous content and criminal conduct.

Details of the session:

Panelists and gathered participants in a scenario session at IGF-USA 2010 in Washington, D.C., expressed discouragement about an Internet future that will quickly witness larger international governmental control that would ultimately remove power from the ICT industry, media companies and NGOs, who now continue to be the main controllers of the Internet.

“A scenario is not a prediction,” said panel moderator Steve DelBianco, the executive director of NetChoice Coalition. “It’s designed to be provocative, but plausible. It’s designed to challenge your assumptions.”

Some members of the audience were skeptical that the scenario, as a whole, is plausible, but all agreed that if it became reality, it would be a frightening prospect. (Read the full description of the scenario here: http://api.ning.com/files/KeHnmv3O-PHbKeh0tKl8RaAjWl7S9siFVN8YEM6lN0ImimLqwuq6B2UlGNDtHBKp7MwNPjexPsur3DKlypEhgQ__/GlobalGovernmentfortheInternet.pdf)

DelBianco presented three converging forces that serve as drivers for the scenario:

  • Consumers lose trust in online content and e-commerce.
  • Businesses can no longer tolerate losses from fraud and lawsuits.
  • Governments have successfully used electronic monitoring to thwart terrorist attacks.

As a result of those three forces, the scenario proposed the following about the Internet in 2020:

  • Governments cooperate to oversee online content and e-commerce to a greater degree than ever before
  • Government and businesses require biometric ID for online users
  • Online publishers are now liable for user-generated content and conduct
  • You need an “Online License” to use the Internet.

Janice Lachance, the chief executive officer of the Special Libraries Association and an invited panelist for the session, said she is anxious about the scenario’s potential to stem the openness of the Internet.

“I think this scenario gives us all a lot to think about,” Lachance said. “As someone who has an organization that’s concerned with the free flow of information and the access to information, I think that excessive government involvement raises red flags for us. It probably isn’t all bad, but if it’s certainly getting to the point that’s described here, I fear we will have a lot of consequences if you’re trying to do business.”

Walda Roseman, the founder of CompassRose International, said she thinks there’s a “rolling thunder” toward more governmental control because of the increasing security threats facing online users. A member of the audience agreed, saying the scenario is not so unlikely because it’s happening at lower levels already.

“All of these situations are going on, just not at a tipping point,” said the participant. “I don’t think this is necessarily avoidable. I think the focus should be on how to facilitate solutions, rather than to prevent something that currently exists.”

One possible solution, according to Roseman, is to rely on more and better intergovernmental cooperation. She said it’s necessary for countries to find ways to hold more cohesive and inclusive dialogues.

“Can we shape conclusions as a world as opposed to quickly avoid them?” Roseman said. “We’re seeing a lot of collaboration among governments, and the collaboration is not yet 100 percent on the cybersecurity issues, but it’s a different alliance there. We’re wanting intergovernmental organizations to make the policy decisions and a whole lot more than the policy decisions.”

Several audience members said they don’t foresee national governments getting together on the issue of Internet governance in the near future when they can’t even come to concrete conclusions on financial regulation or climate change, for example.

So if “some bizarre world government” isn’t created to handle the issue, as one participant said, then it will fall, most likely, to the local governmental level or the United Nations. Even then, there was some articulated concern that a governmental body simply can’t respond and react in a timely fashion to any problems that may arise.

“I’m concerned about notion of institutional competence,” said an audience member. “Does the government have the competence to run the Internet? I don’t think they have the expertise or the quickness to react.”

Markus Kummer, executive coordinator of the Internet Governance Forum, said that government shouldn’t shoulder all of the blame for ineffective policies.

“We need to avoid having a black-and-white picture of all government is bad and all the other institutions are good,” Kummer said. “I think it’s a little more complex than that. How do we find a fruitful cooperation among all the actors?”

No matter who might claim Internet governance, panelists and participants expressed concerns about the future of anonymity, security, openness and freedom of information on the Internet. They said it’s up to the people who work together through IGF to continue having conversations that could lead to a positive future. “Citizens and business have lost patience, and they need solutions,” DelBianco said. “If we don’t deliver, entities that discuss may be seen as not fast enough to solve problems. We need to show progress. Lots of organizations will have to start delivering results so we don’t get the result we don’t want. We need to avoid having the Exxon Valdez of Internet security.”

Two U.S. government employees who were part of the audience for the scenario said the United States needs to look carefully and closely at how it views and values the Internet to figure out what it truly wants and needs. “This is moving so much faster than we expected,” said a U.S. State Department participant. “Are we going to lose by maybe trying to be idealistic and assuming that everyone else is going to take on our same model? Maybe we need to get together as U.S. citizens and ask, ‘What do we absolutely want for our Internet, what do we want as a country?’ and get really clear on that so that when we start making foreign policy decisions we’re not compromising our values.”

-Colin Donohue, http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org