Transcript Document

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
The
RIRs
Standards
Bodies
Service
Organizations
W3C
IAB
IESG
IRTF
Government
Interest
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



Is ICANN the only way to manage the root?





Someone to be a registrar
Someone to maintain root zone
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



DoC says



US started the Internet and
Is responsible to make sure it runs
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:


De jure standards:


IETF, W3C, IEEE
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



ITU-T has developed some Internet
Telephony: H.323/H.248


IETF developed elastic Internet model
Internet Telephony uses IETF components (SIP,
RTP)
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
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
ITU Direction: 1998

ITU directed to take leadership role in
Internet Standardization



Viewed by IETF as imperialist policy


Zhao formed relationships with IETF
Existing relationships with ETSI
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