1. Can the Internet Remain Self-Governing ? Keith Mitchell keith@linx.net Executive Chairman, London Internet Exchange Re-Engineering the Internet, 26th Jan 1998

2. Overview Introduction Some History Experiences in the UK Conclusions

3. Relevant Organisations Speaker is member of: –NOMINET UK Council of Management –Internet Watch Foundation Policy and Management Boards –RIPE NCC Executive Board 30-40% of time in past 2 years on regulatory/governance issues

4. Areas of Interest Illegal & restricted content Telecoms and competition regulation Infrastructure governance: –Physical = IP address space –Virtual = Domain Name space Intellectual Property Crime, fraud, hacking “Spam” = unsolicited advertising

5. Governance & Regulation 1997’s additions to Internet vocabulary Governance: –Who is in control ? –Who is accountable ? Regulation: –Who enforces control ? –Who is subject to control ?

6. History Internet bodies have been created where need arises: –De-facto by those involved –US Federal government (e.g. NSF) “Top Level” of governance by e.g. –IAB, IESG, Internet Society, IANA Technology and standards by IETF Operations by: IEPG, NANOG, RIPE, APNG

7. Past History Authorities for a long time took no interest in the Internet: –Has been largely outside traditional telecoms licencing regimes –Ignorance and conservatism towards technology –Top-down imposition of inappropriate technology

8. Recent History Authorities have woken up: –Massive growth in use –Subsuming other telecoms technology –Importance to commerce –Opportunity and money attract exploitation and crime –Over-positive & over-negative media hype

9. UK Experiences Initial concept of LINX in Oct 94 did not include any regulatory involvement ISPA set up early 96 to promote code of practice for ISPs NOMINET set up mid 96 to manage.uk domain name space IWF set up end 96 to deal with illegal content

10. LINX Experiences LINX is UK national Internet Exchange Point Represents 43 largest UK ISPs Involving physical infrastructure organisation in regulatory activities highly controversial Solution is that non-core activities must be formally defined and have strong consensus

11. LINX & Regulation Funding, and policy & management oversight of IWF Defines “good practice” (BCP), but only mandatory requirements concern IXP Tries to encourage open peering and competition between ISPs Becoming involved in network abuse –Spam, resource theft Channel of communication between ISPs and regulators

12. Telecoms Regulation Regulators: –Oftel (UK), DG-XIII (EU), FCC (US) Tension between: –Former PTTs –Licenced telco ISPs –Unlicenced independent ISPs Where does Internet fit into existing voice-originated regulation models ?

13. Telecoms Regulation Regulators can have very fixed view of world Having licence can be both problem and advantage for ISPs UK regulator has built-in bias towards licence holders They don’t always use or understand Internet technology !-(

14. Internet Watch Foundation Voluntary funding from large ISPs directly, and small/medium via associations Operates hot-line for reporting illegal material Working on content rating schemes ISPs supporting IWF have defence against prosecution for customer actions

15. Internet Watch Foundation ISP industry appoints members to Management Board Public interest represented by Policy Board Illegal content reported to ISPs and to Police NCIS Liaison with UK Government and EU Commission

16. Content Regulation Future Issues Convergence with other media and potentially their regulators ? –ITC, BBFC, ICSTS, VSC Would be nice to get some support from content industry and not just ISPs Need similar bodies in other countries to deal with problem at source Impact of planned Human Rights Bill ?

17. DNS Governance Hottest and most complicated Internet governance issue at present IAHC, POC, PAB, CORE, CENTR etc. etc. Others better qualified to talk about this than speaker (Stream 1) Will summarise NOMINET UK governance

18. NOMINET UK Set up to improve on mess of unsuccessful attempt to run.uk namespace on voluntary distributed basis – “naming committee” Same legal entity type as LINX, ISPA, IWF –Not-for-profit –Company Limited by Guarantee –Member consortium

19. NOMINET UK Membership open to all Anyone can buy domains direct Members can buy at discount Voting rights proportional to domain consumption –accountability to end-users via market Benign attributes needed for a natural monopoly

20. Address Space Top-level is IANA Delegates space and authority to – RIPE NCC, APNIC, ARIN RIPE NCC currently moving from academic/ research-sponsored home (TERENA) to independent member-derived autonomy ARIN has taken over from InterNIC for American address space

21. Conclusions - Industry Authorities want identifiable bodies to take responsibility Don’t go “ QUANGO” -mad ! Market-based solutions friendlier than bureaucracies where possible Bottom-up accountability to end-users Democracy is good, but not always for doing engineering

22. Conclusions - Legal Internet is not so different from “real world” Evolve and improve existing laws Avoid panic legislation Legislators need help and education

23. Conclusions Self-regulation can work, and is often better than imposed solution ISPs need incentives before they will self-regulate Still experimenting, but lessons have been learned from good & bad examples