Transcript Splinternet” versus open Internet

Splinternet versus open
Internet
Policy recommendations for the American position in
international Internet governance negotiations
Luke Wadman, IEEE-WISE intern
July 31 st , 2013
Rayburn HOB Room 2325
Coming soon, to a PowerPoint near you
• What is the Internet, and what does it mean
to govern it?
• What are the issues? What’s at stake?
• The policy routes
• Recommendations
Source: Qmee.com
Internet governance – a briefer
introduction
Definition: ”Internet governance is the development
and application by Governments, the private sector
and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared
principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures,
and programmes that shape the evolution and use of
the Internet.”
• In English, please!
More Internet governance: models
Two models: multistakeholder and
cybersovereignty
• Multistakeholder: current model, represents civil society,
private sector, government equally
• Cybersovereignty: Government have final say, civil society
and private sector serve as advisors
Multistakeholder: current, “open” Internet
versus
Cybersovereignty: government borders,
Splinternet
The Splinternet is here – in China
• China ISPs are large and infrastructure robust  some
international traffic routed through China (mostly S. Korea,
Thailand, Singapore)
• Can result in traffic/service interruptions
• If you’re an international IT company, bad for business!
• Also bad for user experience: making international calls with
phone vs. Internet
Let’s talk about PRISM…not Snowden, please!
• Impacts of PRISM/Verizon metadata collection go
beyond privacy concerns in US
• Diplomatic and international repercussions if trust
over the Internet is broken – it’s all based on trust!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
Current policy/reactions
• US House: HR 1580, AKA Affirm the policy of
the United States regarding Internet
governance
• Similar measures taken up by previous
Congresses
• More policy action needs to be taken ahead of
International negotiations in 2014, 2015
Policy Alternatives
#1: Status quo (currently in play)
• Stay the course, free Internet, sit on our cyber hands
• Pro: Keep Internet open and free
• Con: Ignore the holes in the message/leave us open to
criticism on US control of Internet
#2: Enhance official cyber relations
• Cyber Policy office in White House, to work on domestic policy
issues and solid position
• Cybers Affairs bureau in State, to take position to international
negotiations, be better prepared
• Pro: Stronger focus on good position, less hypocrisy than #1
• Con: Appears heavy handed, costs $
More Policy Alternatives
#3: More power to the people!
• Engage civil society in stakeholder process further, allow for
more transparency and access.
• Make the average user care! Easier said than done.
• More transparency and separation between US intelligence
operations and Internet – right now, doesn’t look great
• Pro: Preferred by most users, who drive Internet economy
• Con: Feasible?
Policy Recommendation
Blend of #2, and #3
• Build up official channels for bringing focused, reasonable
model of multistakeholder to Internet governance discussions
• Allow users more control of data and utilize more opensourced model for Internet structures & rules
• Support movements like Amash amendment. More care about
privacy  more respect on international Internet
• Advantage: Happier users = better support of model being
taken into international negotiation = ensuring open Internet
in the future
• Problems: needs money to function, but not too much.
Questions?
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/moving.png