DOCSLIB.ORG

Internet Governance Is Our Shared Responsibility - by Vint Cerf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Internet Governance Is Our Shared Responsibility - by Vint Cerf Internet governance is our shared responsibility - by Vint Cerf This article is published as part of the series "Digital Minds for a New Europe" - check this link for a new article each day. Below Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist at Google and co-architect of the Internet, sets out his vision for how the internet should be governed. 2014 marks 40 years since Bob Kahn and I published the design of TCP in the IEEE Transactions on Communications. TCP eventually was split into TCP/IP. Those two complementary protocols define how computers and computer networks communicate with one another in the Internet, and they therefore remain at the core of the Internet‘s architecture today. Both TCP/IP and the ARPANET--the Internet’s immediate predecessor--owe their origins to research carried out for the US Department of Defense, but European contributions should not be overlooked. There were the contributions of Alan Turing and other Britons to the creation of the first electronic computers and to the foundations of computer science. Early research in the use of packet switching for computer communication was pursued in the US by Larry Roberts, then at Lincoln Laboratory and Leonard Kleinrock at MIT, by Paul Baran at RAND, by Donald W. Davies and this team at the UK National Physical Laboratory and by Louis Pouzin and his colleagues at IRIA [now INRIA] in France and Peter Kirstein and his team at University College London. We should also recognise the work of Paul Otlet and Henri La Fontaine, two Belgians whose Mundaneum may well have been the most ambitious attempt to catalogue the world’s knowledge between the ancient library at Alexandria and the explosion of information assembled on the Internet when it gained significant usage. Of course the World Wide Web, one of the most popular aspects of the Internet, was itself a European creation, having been developed by Tim Berners-Lee while he was at CERN. Europe continues to have a fundamental share in both the future of the network and in securing the benefits it offers for itself and its citizens. When we began developing what would become the Internet, we strongly felt that its adoption and use depended on making its design freely and openly available to any interested party. Over four decades, by working together with a variety of stakeholders, an informal coalition has built and maintained the governance systems and standards that support a free and open Internet. We are approaching an unprecedented moment in human history: an era in which all the knowledge we possess as a society and as a species could become accessible to everyone. Already, some three billion people are online, and I hope that in the decades to come we will see advances in access that will allow the whole of humanity to tap into, and contribute to, the content accessible through the Internet and the World Wide Web. But we must not take these advances for granted. If our global society is to fully enjoy the opportunities offered by the Internet, we must continue to work towards two interconnected goals. On the one hand, we must keep the Internet free and open. On the other, we must ensure that it offers the security protections essential to maintaining the trust people place in the network and its applications. Keeping the Internet free and open requires that we build and maintain a credible and robust multi-stakeholder model for the Internet’s global governance. The openness of the Internet has been the key to its growth and value. “Permissionless innovation” is the mainspring of the Internet’s economic power. By giving anyone connected the ability to communicate with anyone else on the network, the Internet has decreased barriers to entry and democratised access to opportunities once reserved for a privileged few: opportunities to speak and be heard, but also opportunities to turn a good idea into a business, to compete for customers, or to help build a better tomorrow. As Internet policy discussions become more global in nature, stakeholders should continue to rely on the evolving structures that have allowed us to develop global policies that benefit all users. New institutions have been created as the need has arisen, demonstrating the adaptive power of the existing distributed and multi-stakeholder governance system. Intergovernmental treaties may be needed when state cooperation is required to improve the safety and security of the Internet, but we need to guard against the imposition of inflexible and brittle rules on a dynamic technological and social environment. The Internet governance model was designed to allow all stakeholders to participate on equal footing, but the current model needs to be improved if it is to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly those from developing economies, are able to meaningfully participate in the governance process. It is incumbent on participants within the current governance model to bring in new stakeholders whose voices may not be effectively heard in the current conversation. We need a general framework for a global, multi-stakeholder Internet governance that preserves the free and open Internet and provides transnational protections for the rights of its users. The framework has to enable the evolution of the Internet and be able to adapt to it. We need therefore an adaptive or layered approach to Internet Governance: • The first level is enhanced communication, which proposes that “all stakeholders have the possibility to make their arguments to all other stakeholders.” • The second level, enhanced coordination, would involve partners engaging more closely, “stakeholders seek to divide challenges into ‘thematic work packages’ which are assigned to the appropriate institution. • The third level of cooperation, enhanced collaboration, would involve a set of stakeholders developing a joint solution and new practices (and possibly a new institution) supported by the cooperative group in question. Among the mechanisms that should be reinforced and supported, I would single out the Internet Governance Forum, which has illuminated our understanding of the opportunities and challenges arising from the global growth of the Internet. It needs financial support and a properly staffed secretariat, and it deserves a permanent mandate from the United Nations. The digital future will be built, in part, on mobile technology, rapidly dropping costs of Internet-connected equipment, and boundless development of new applications. The global Internet Governance Forum and its regional and national counterparts can, with an appropriate mandate, become an ever more helpful mechanism for highlighting issues, tracking their resolution in appropriate forums and driving forward new governance approaches when necessary. Preserving effective multi-stakeholder governance also requires that all Internet institutions embrace transparency, so that stakeholders can understand both the substance of decisions and the process by which they were made. Failing to do so effectively prevents new constituencies from participating in the decision-making process in a meaningful way. For example, when the US government ends its contractual relationship with ICANN, assuring ICANN’s adherence to principles that have made Internet infrastructure robust, global, and beneficial can be accomplished most directly by reinforcing and improving its existing accountability and transparency mechanisms. In addition to keeping the Internet free and open, though, we need to preserve trust in the network if it is to continue to drive the digital economy. Cybercrime and other safety hazards are serious threats to both individual and national security, as well as the open Internet and the free flow of information online. As more people get access to the Internet, criminal activity will inevitably increase on the network. Governments and companies need to work together to ensure and harmonise the rule of law online to make the Internet safer and more secure. To combat cybercrime, we need existing laws to be effectively enforced and new rules to carefully define and police crimes that only exist online and crimes that have counterparts in the offline world. Laws should be technology neutral so that crimes, definitions and penalties are not fragmented as technology evolves over time. For example, fraud online should not be prosecuted any differently than fraud by mail catalog, telephone, SMS or other channels. That said, new technologies may create new categories of crimes, like computer intrusion. In those cases, it is important to take into account the nature of the action (for example, whether engineers are hacking with the intention to steal information or to discover and patch vulnerabilities) and the proportionality of any proposed penalties. Since cybercrime has no physical boundaries, governments should ensure that they are able to offer each other expedient assistance in investigations through mechanisms that respect the laws of both countries and outline the solemn promise of governments to follow the law when seeking user information. In the same vein, laws around the world that allow governments to access to private information need to be stronger, to protect Internet users’ privacy and security. The number of government requests Google receives for user data has increased by more than 70% since we launched our Transparency Report in 2010. While law enforcement agencies must be able to investigate and prosecute illegal activity to keep the public safe, it’s also important that laws protect citizens against overly broad requests for their personal information. Much of the public debate has been focused on the United States in recent years, but its powers and activities do not differ substantially from other western democracies, including those in the EU. Looking back on the decades since the emergence of the Internet, I am gratified that it has become an increasingly universal space that people expect to remain open, free, and borderless. Unlike many other human creations, the Internet is both a technology and a socioeconomic space.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Future of Internet Governance: Should the United States Relinquish Its Authority Over ICANN?
    The Future of Internet Governance: Should the United States Relinquish Its Authority over ICANN? Lennard G. Kruger Specialist in Science and Technology Policy September 1, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44022 The Future of Internet Governance: Should the U.S. Relinquish Its Authority over ICANN Summary Currently, the U.S. government retains limited authority over the Internet’s domain name system, primarily through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). By virtue of the IANA functions contract, the NTIA exerts a legacy authority and stewardship over ICANN, and arguably has more influence over ICANN and the domain name system (DNS) than other national governments. Currently the IANA functions contract with NTIA expires on September 30, 2016. However, NTIA has the flexibility to extend the contract for any period through September 2019. On March 14, 2014, NTIA announced the intention to transition its stewardship role and procedural authority over key Internet domain name functions to the global Internet multistakeholder community. To accomplish this transition, NTIA asked ICANN to convene interested global Internet stakeholders to develop a transition proposal. NTIA stated that it would not accept any transition proposal that would replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution. For two years, Internet stakeholders were engaged in a process to develop a transition proposal that will meet NTIA’s criteria. On March 10, 2016, the ICANN Board formally accepted the multistakeholder community’s transition plan and transmitted that plan to NTIA for approval.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE of IDEAS This Work Is Licensed Under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License (US/V3.0)
    less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page i THE FUTURE OF IDEAS This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License (US/v3.0). Noncommercial uses are thus permitted without any further permission from the copyright owner. Permissions beyond the scope of this license are administered by Random House. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.randomhouse.com/about/ permissions.html The book maybe downloaded in electronic form (freely) at: http://the-future-of-ideas.com For more permission about Creative Commons licenses, go to: http://creativecommons.org less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page iii the future of ideas THE FATE OF THE COMMONS IN A CONNECTED WORLD /// Lawrence Lessig f RANDOM HOUSE New York less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page iv Copyright © 2001 Lawrence Lessig All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Random House, Inc., New York, and simultaneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Random House and colophon are registered trademarks of Random House, Inc. library of congress cataloging-in-publication data Lessig, Lawrence. The future of ideas : the fate of the commons in a connected world / Lawrence Lessig. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 0-375-50578-4 1. Intellectual property. 2. Copyright and electronic data processing. 3. Internet—Law and legislation. 4. Information society. I. Title. K1401 .L47 2001 346.04'8'0285—dc21 2001031968 Random House website address: www.atrandom.com Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 24689753 First Edition Book design by Jo Anne Metsch less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page v To Bettina, my teacher of the most important lesson.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Baran, Network Theory, and the Past, Present, and Future of the Internet
    PAUL BARAN, NETWORK THEORY, AND THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF THE INTERNET CHRISTOPHER S. YOO* Paul Baran’s seminal 1964 article “On Distributed Communications Networks” that first proposed packet switching also advanced an underappreciated vision of network architecture: a lattice-like, distributed network, in which each node of the Internet would be homogeneous and equal in status to all other nodes. Scholars who have embraced the concept of a flat network have largely overlooked the extent to which it is inconsistent with network theory, which emphasizes the importance of short cuts and hubs in enabling networks to scale. The flat network is also inconsistent with the actual way the Internet was deployed, which relied on a three- tiered, hierarchical architecture resembling what Baran called a decentralized network. However, empirical studies reveal that the Internet’s architecture is changing; as large content providers build extensive wide area networks and undersea cables to connect directly to last-mile networks, it is in the process of becoming flatter and less hierarchical. This change is making the network become more centralized rather than more distributed. As a result, this article suggests that the standard reference model that places backbones at the center of the architecture may need to be replaced with a radically different vision: a stack of centralized star networks, each centered on one of the leading content providers. INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 162 I. BARAN’S UNREALIZED VISION OF A DISTRIBUTED NETWORKS 164 A. Baran’s Vision of a Distributed Network ........................ 164 B. The Partial Reception of Baran’s Vision ......................... 167 II. NETWORK SCIENCE’S INSIGHTS INTO THE BENEFITS OF NETWORKS ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • About the Internet Governance Forum
    About the Internet Governance Forum The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) – convened by the United Nations Secretary-General – is the global multistakeholder forum for dialogue on Internet governance issues. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 1 The IGF as an outcome of WSIS 2 IGF mandate 2 THE IGF PROCESS 3 IGF annual meetings 3 Intersessional activities 4 National, regional and youth IGF initiatives (NRIs) 5 PARTICIPATION IN IGF ACTIVITIES 6 Online participation 6 COORDINATION OF IGF WORK 7 Multistakeholder Advisory Group 7 IGF Secretariat 7 UN DESA 7 FUNDING 7 IMPACT 8 LOOKING AHEAD: STRENGTHENING THE IGF 8 The IGF in the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation’s report 8 The IGF in the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation 9 9 1 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The IGF as an outcome of WSIS Internet governance was one of the most controversial issues during the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS-I), held in Geneva in December 2003. It was recognised that understanding Internet governance was essential in achieving the development goals of the Geneva Plan of Action, but defining the term and understanding the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders involved proved to be difficult. The UN Secretary-General set up a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to explore these issues and prepare a report to feed into the second phase of WSIS (WSIS-II), held in Tunis in November 2005. Many elements contained in the WGIG report – developed through an open process and multistakeholder consultations – were endorsed in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (one of the main outcomes of WSIS-II).
    [Show full text]
  • [email protected] FCC ANNOUNCES PART
    NEWS Federal Communications Commission News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 445 12th Street, S.W. Internet: http://www.fcc.gov Washington, D. C. 20554 TTY: 1-888-835-5322 This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974). FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS CONTACT: August 10, 2009 Mark Wigfield, 202-418-0253 Email: [email protected] FCC ANNOUNCES PARTICIPANTS IN NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN STAFF WORKSHOPS ON DEPLOYMENT, TECHNOLOGY Washington, D.C. -- The Federal Communications Commission’s staff workshops this week for the development of the National Broadband Plan will focus on deployment and technology. On Wednesday, industry, staff and public participants will examine wireline and wireless deployment, as well as what it means to be unserved or underserved by broadband, why areas or groups are unserved and underserved, and what actions the United States should take to help stimulate broader and faster broadband deployment. On Thursday, participants will examine both fixed and wireless broadband technologies that are affecting broadband networks today and that will likely affect them in the future. WHAT: National Broadband Plan Staff Workshops WHEN: Wednesday and Thursday, Aug. 12 &13. See agendas below for specific times WHERE: FCC Commission Room, 445 12th St. SW, Washington D.C. 20554 ONLINE: Press and public attending online should register in advance at http://www.broadband.gov/. Click on “Workshops” tab. During the workshops, audience members -- both in the room and online -- will have the opportunity to suggest questions in writing.
    [Show full text]
  • Marconi Society - Wikipedia
    9/23/2019 Marconi Society - Wikipedia Marconi Society The Guglielmo Marconi International Fellowship Foundation, briefly called Marconi Foundation and currently known as The Marconi Society, was established by Gioia Marconi Braga in 1974[1] to commemorate the centennial of the birth (April 24, 1874) of her father Guglielmo Marconi. The Marconi International Fellowship Council was established to honor significant contributions in science and technology, awarding the Marconi Prize and an annual $100,000 grant to a living scientist who has made advances in communication technology that benefits mankind. The Marconi Fellows are Sir Eric A. Ash (1984), Paul Baran (1991), Sir Tim Berners-Lee (2002), Claude Berrou (2005), Sergey Brin (2004), Francesco Carassa (1983), Vinton G. Cerf (1998), Andrew Chraplyvy (2009), Colin Cherry (1978), John Cioffi (2006), Arthur C. Clarke (1982), Martin Cooper (2013), Whitfield Diffie (2000), Federico Faggin (1988), James Flanagan (1992), David Forney, Jr. (1997), Robert G. Gallager (2003), Robert N. Hall (1989), Izuo Hayashi (1993), Martin Hellman (2000), Hiroshi Inose (1976), Irwin M. Jacobs (2011), Robert E. Kahn (1994) Sir Charles Kao (1985), James R. Killian (1975), Leonard Kleinrock (1986), Herwig Kogelnik (2001), Robert W. Lucky (1987), James L. Massey (1999), Robert Metcalfe (2003), Lawrence Page (2004), Yash Pal (1980), Seymour Papert (1981), Arogyaswami Paulraj (2014), David N. Payne (2008), John R. Pierce (1979), Ronald L. Rivest (2007), Arthur L. Schawlow (1977), Allan Snyder (2001), Robert Tkach (2009), Gottfried Ungerboeck (1996), Andrew Viterbi (1990), Jack Keil Wolf (2011), Jacob Ziv (1995). In 2015, the prize went to Peter T. Kirstein for bringing the internet to Europe. Since 2008, Marconi has also issued the Paul Baran Marconi Society Young Scholar Awards.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Amendment, Common Carriers, and Public Accommodations: Net Neutrality, Digital Platforms, and Privacy
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2021 The First Amendment, Common Carriers, and Public Accommodations: Net Neutrality, Digital Platforms, and Privacy Christopher S. Yoo University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Digital Communications and Networking Commons, First Amendment Commons, Internet Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Policy History, Theory, and Methods Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Policy Commons Repository Citation Yoo, Christopher S., "The First Amendment, Common Carriers, and Public Accommodations: Net Neutrality, Digital Platforms, and Privacy" (2021). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 2576. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2576 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FIRST AMENDMENT, COMMON CARRIERS, AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS: NET NEUTRALITY, DIGITAL PLATFORMS, AND PRIVACY Christopher S. Yoo* Recent prominent judicial opinions have assumed that common car- riers have few to no First Amendment rights and that calling an actor a common carrier or public accommodation could justify limiting its right to exclude and mandating that it provide nondiscriminatory access. A re- view of the history reveals that the underlying law is richer than these simple statements would suggest. The principles for determining what constitutes a common carrier or a public accommodation and the level of First Amendment protection both turn on whether the actor holds itself out as serving all members of the public or whether it asserts editorial dis- cretion over whom to carry or host.
    [Show full text]
  • I: the Conception
    Excerpt from: Mayo, Keenan and Newcomb, Peter. “How the Web Was Won,” Vanity Fair, July 2008. I: The Conception Paul Baran, an electrical engineer, conceived one of the Internet’s building blocks—packet switching— while working at the Rand Corporation around 1960. Packet switching breaks data into chunks, or “packets,” and lets each one take its own path to a destination, where they are re-assembled (rather than sending everything along the same path, as a traditional telephone circuit does). A similar idea was proposed independently in Britain by Donald Davies. Later in his career, Baran would pioneer the airport metal detector. Paul Baran: It was necessary to have a strategic system that could withstand a first attack and then be able to return the favor in kind. The problem was that we didn’t have a survivable communications system, and so Soviet missiles aimed at U.S. missiles would take out the entire telephone- communication system. At that time the Strategic Air Command had just two forms of communication. One was the U.S. telephone system, or an overlay of that, and the other was high-frequency or shortwave radio. So that left us with the interesting situation of saying, Well, why do the communications fail when the bombs were aimed, not at the cities, but just at the strategic forces? And the answer was that the collateral damage was sufficient to knock out a telephone system that was highly centralized. Well, then, let’s not make it centralized. Let’s spread it out so that we can have other paths to get around the damage.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Governance and the Move to Ipv6
    Internet Governance and the move to IPv6 TU Delft April 2008 Alex Band & Arno Meulenkamp Internet Governance Community Policies Internet Resource Statistics IPv6 2 Internet Governance ISOC IETF ICANN / IANA RIRs 4 The 5 RIRs 5 What is RIPE NCC? RIPE NCC is –a Network Coordination Center –an independent organisation –a not-for-profit membership association –one of the 5 Regional Internet Registries 6 Registration 7 Goals of the IR System: Registration Why? Ensure uniqueness of IP address space usage Provide contact information for network operators How? RIPE Database Results: IP address space allocated uniquely Contact information available for Internet resources 8 Aggregation 9 Goals of the IR System: Aggregation Why? Routing table grows fast Provide scalable routing solution for the Internet How? Encourage announcement of whole allocations (min /21) Introduction of Classless Inter Domain Routing (CIDR) Results: Growth of routing table slowed down 10 Conservation 11 Goals of the IR System: Conservation Why? IP address space is limited resource Ensure efficient usage How? Introduction of CIDR Community based policies to ensure fair usage Results: IP address space consumption slowed Address space allocated on ‘need to use’ basis 12 IP address distribution IANA RIR LIR /23 /25 /25 End User Allocation PA Assignment PI Assignment 13 Community Policies Policy Development Cycle Need Evaluation Proposal Execution Discussion Consensus 15 How policy is made ICANN / IANA ASO AfriNIC RIPEReach NCC consensus ARIN across communitiesAPNIC LACNIC AfriNIC
    [Show full text]
  • Former Vice President Al Gore and Internet “Father” Vint Cerf Praise the ICANN Model
    FOR RELEASE: June 3, 2009 CONTACTS: Brad White Director of Media Affairs Ph. +1 202.429.2710 E: [email protected] Michele Jourdan Corporate Affairs Division Ph. +1 310.301.5831 E: [email protected] Former Vice President Al Gore and Internet “Father” Vint Cerf Praise the ICANN Model Comments Precede Hill Hearings on Ties to U.S. Government Washington, D.C. … June 3, 2009…. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore has joined a leading Internet founder in acknowledging the success of the multi-stakeholder, bottom up governance of the Internet’s name and address system that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) embodies. “Twelve Years ago as Vice President, I led an interagency group charged with coordinating the U.S. government’s electronic commerce strategy. The formation of ICANN was very much a part of that strategy,” Gore said. The former Vice President’s comments come on the eve of Congressional hearings on ICANN’s relationship with the U.S. government and on the non-profit corporation’s proposed expansion of top- level domains. “The Internet’s unique nature requires a unique multi-stakeholder private entity to coordinate the global Internet addressing system without being controlled by any one government or special interest. What we have all those years later is an organization that works,” said Gore. “It has security as its core mission, is responsive to all global stakeholders and is independent and democratic. We should make permanent those foundations for success.” Gore’s praise parallels the comments of Vint Cerf, a man considered by many to be the one of the fathers of the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) of the United Nations – November a Brief 2019 Description 25-29 What Is the IGF?
    The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) of the United Nations – November a brief 2019 description 25-29 What is the IGF? The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistake- holder discussion platform of the United Nations. It addresses current legal, political, social and technical aspects of the Internet. The participants deal with all aspects related to the question of how the Internet as we know it can be maintained and improved. The issues up for discussion include technical standards, human rights mat- ters, the impact of digital technologies on everyday life and working life, and opportunities arising for economic and social development. The IGF has an advisory function and provides an opportunity for all participants to influence the discussions in the relevant decision-making bodies at national and international level. What does Internet governance mean? ‘Internet governance’ describes an open and constructive decision-making and dialogue process of all social groups that serves to raise awareness of problems and to find pos- sible solutions. In this context, ‘governance’ thus does not What is the IGF? refer to state regulation. Internet governance is rather based on the ‘multistakeholder’ approach. This means that The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistake- representatives of governments and international organi- holder discussion platform of the United Nations. It sations, civil society, business and the technical commu- addresses current legal, political, social and technical nity share their views on technical standards, social and aspects of the Internet. The participants deal with all economic objectives, political procedures and other rules, aspects related to the question of how the Internet as we values and standards related to the Internet on an equal know it can be maintained and improved.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Points of Control As Global Governance Laura Denardis INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS PAPER NO
    INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS PAPER NO. 2 — AUGUST 2013 Internet Points of Control as Global Governance Laura DeNardis INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS PAPER NO. 2 — AUGUST 2013 Internet Points of Control as Global Governance Laura DeNardis Copyright © 2013 by The Centre for International Governance Innovation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Centre for International Governance Innovation or its Operating Board of Directors or International Board of Governors. This work was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www. cigionline.org). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — Non-commercial — No Derivatives License. To view this license, visit (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/). For re-use or distribution, please include this copyright notice. Cover and page design by Steve Cross. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CIGI gratefully acknowledges the support of the Copyright Collective of Canada. CONTENTS About the Author 1 About Organized Chaos: Reimagining the Internet Project 2 Acronyms 2 Executive Summary 3 Introduction 3 Global Struggles Over Control of CIRS 5 Governance via Internet Technical Standards 8 Routing and Interconnection Governance 10 Emerging International Governance Themes 12 Works Cited 14 About CIGI 15 INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS INTERNET POINTS OF CONTROL AS GLOBAL GOVERNANCE ABOUT THE AUTHOR Laura DeNardis Laura DeNardis, CIGI senior fellow, is an Internet governance scholar and professor in the School of Communication at American University in Washington, DC. Her books include The Global War for Internet Governance (forthcoming 2014), Opening Standards: The Global Politics of Interoperability (2011), Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance (2009) and Information Technology in Theory (2007, with Pelin Aksoy).
    [Show full text]