Controlling Internet Infrastructure Part 1: The 'IANA Transition' and Why It Matters for the Future of the Internet

David G. Post, D. Kehl
{"title":"Controlling Internet Infrastructure Part 1: The 'IANA Transition' and Why It Matters for the Future of the Internet","authors":"David G. Post, D. Kehl","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2636417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On March 14, 2014, the United States government announced its intention to end its direct role in overseeing the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS). The IANA transition, as it is called, is a moment of critical importance in the history of the global network and the relationship between network governance and government control. It is an extraordinarily complex undertaking, both technically and legally, and there is a great deal at stake — but only a small handful of people understand the full scope of the problems involved and can participate intelligently in the public discussion about what entity or system should replace the U.S. government’s role in DNS oversight. It is thus an unfortunate combination of circumstances for informed decision-making and public discussion. This paper seeks to fill at least a part of that gap.The current IANA transition is the logical culmination of the sequence initiated in the 1998-’99 transition, and it presents a significant opportunity for the United States and for the global community of Internet users. Over time, the justifications for a special role for the U.S. government in managing the evolution of the Internet and its governance systems have considerably weakened, as a consequence of both the Internet’s vastly expanding global reach and of questions about the U.S. government’s ability to claim any kind of neutral “stewardship” role for itself with respect to Internet affairs. The IANA transition also has important symbolic significance: it is a formal recognition by the United States that the Internet, which the United States government helped usher into existence 30 years ago, is now truly a global public trust. The Internet’s core infrastructure, rather than being the special purview of any one country’s exclusive jurisdiction, needs to evolve in ways that benefit all users, world-wide. And a strong, consensus-based, non-governmental, multi-stakeholder institution at the policy-making center of the DNS is likely to be the best way to ensure that the Internet infrastructure remains free from undue governmental influence. Yet the risks the transition poses are also high. The DNS is, by design, essentially invisible to the vast majority of Internet users, but if it were to break down, or fragment into multiple competing systems, the impact on Internet use around the world would be substantial. Furthermore, in the wrong hands control over the DNS can be leveraged into control over a much broader universe of Internet activity and communication than that encompassed by the DNS alone. Freed from U.S. government oversight, what is to prevent ICANN from inserting itself into global law-enforcement or governance role far removed from its core commitment to insuring that the DNS runs smoothly and efficiently? The stakes are high, for everyone who uses the Internet and everyone who is concerned with its future development as a global communications platform. Designing a transition plan that achieves the goal of relinquishing the U.S. government’s oversight over the DNS while eliminating (or at least minimizing) the risks will be a difficult task, one that will require considerably more public attention and debate than it has received up to now. This paper, by explaining the nature of the challenges and the opportunities presented by the transition, lays some of the foundation for that debate, as well as for subsequent papers in this series, in which we will address in greater detail the substance of specific transition proposals now under development, along with our recommendations concerning implementation of what we believe to be the key components of a successful transition process.","PeriodicalId":302272,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Management of Technological Innovation & R&D in Developing Economies (Topic)","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Management of Technological Innovation & R&D in Developing Economies (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2636417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

On March 14, 2014, the United States government announced its intention to end its direct role in overseeing the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS). The IANA transition, as it is called, is a moment of critical importance in the history of the global network and the relationship between network governance and government control. It is an extraordinarily complex undertaking, both technically and legally, and there is a great deal at stake — but only a small handful of people understand the full scope of the problems involved and can participate intelligently in the public discussion about what entity or system should replace the U.S. government’s role in DNS oversight. It is thus an unfortunate combination of circumstances for informed decision-making and public discussion. This paper seeks to fill at least a part of that gap.The current IANA transition is the logical culmination of the sequence initiated in the 1998-’99 transition, and it presents a significant opportunity for the United States and for the global community of Internet users. Over time, the justifications for a special role for the U.S. government in managing the evolution of the Internet and its governance systems have considerably weakened, as a consequence of both the Internet’s vastly expanding global reach and of questions about the U.S. government’s ability to claim any kind of neutral “stewardship” role for itself with respect to Internet affairs. The IANA transition also has important symbolic significance: it is a formal recognition by the United States that the Internet, which the United States government helped usher into existence 30 years ago, is now truly a global public trust. The Internet’s core infrastructure, rather than being the special purview of any one country’s exclusive jurisdiction, needs to evolve in ways that benefit all users, world-wide. And a strong, consensus-based, non-governmental, multi-stakeholder institution at the policy-making center of the DNS is likely to be the best way to ensure that the Internet infrastructure remains free from undue governmental influence. Yet the risks the transition poses are also high. The DNS is, by design, essentially invisible to the vast majority of Internet users, but if it were to break down, or fragment into multiple competing systems, the impact on Internet use around the world would be substantial. Furthermore, in the wrong hands control over the DNS can be leveraged into control over a much broader universe of Internet activity and communication than that encompassed by the DNS alone. Freed from U.S. government oversight, what is to prevent ICANN from inserting itself into global law-enforcement or governance role far removed from its core commitment to insuring that the DNS runs smoothly and efficiently? The stakes are high, for everyone who uses the Internet and everyone who is concerned with its future development as a global communications platform. Designing a transition plan that achieves the goal of relinquishing the U.S. government’s oversight over the DNS while eliminating (or at least minimizing) the risks will be a difficult task, one that will require considerably more public attention and debate than it has received up to now. This paper, by explaining the nature of the challenges and the opportunities presented by the transition, lays some of the foundation for that debate, as well as for subsequent papers in this series, in which we will address in greater detail the substance of specific transition proposals now under development, along with our recommendations concerning implementation of what we believe to be the key components of a successful transition process.
控制互联网基础设施第一部分:“IANA转型”及其对互联网未来的重要性
2014年3月14日,美国政府宣布打算结束其在监管互联网域名系统(DNS)方面的直接作用。IANA的转型,正如它所说的,是全球网络历史上以及网络治理与政府控制之间关系的关键时刻。这是一项极其复杂的任务,无论是在技术上还是在法律上,都有很大的风险——但只有一小部分人了解所涉及问题的全部范围,并能明智地参与公众讨论,讨论应该由哪个实体或系统取代美国政府在DNS监管中的角色。因此,对于知情决策和公众讨论来说,这是一种不幸的环境组合。本文试图至少部分填补这一空白。当前的IANA转型是1998年至1999年转型的逻辑高潮,它为美国和全球互联网用户社区提供了一个重要的机会。随着时间的推移,美国政府在管理互联网及其治理系统的演变中扮演特殊角色的理由已经大大削弱,这是由于互联网在全球范围内的广泛扩展,以及美国政府在互联网事务方面声称自己具有任何中立“管理”角色的能力受到质疑。IANA的移交也具有重要的象征意义:这是美国正式承认,30年前由美国政府帮助创立的互联网,现在已真正成为一种全球公共信任。互联网的核心基础设施,不应是任何一个国家专属管辖的特殊范围,而应以惠及全世界所有用户的方式发展。在DNS的决策中心建立一个强大的、基于共识的、非政府的、多方利益相关者的机构,可能是确保互联网基础设施不受不当政府影响的最佳途径。然而,转型带来的风险也很高。从设计上讲,DNS对绝大多数互联网用户基本上是不可见的,但如果它崩溃,或分裂成多个相互竞争的系统,对全球互联网使用的影响将是巨大的。此外,在错误的人手中,对DNS的控制可能会被利用来控制更广泛的互联网活动和通信,而不仅仅是DNS所包含的。摆脱了美国政府的监管,有什么能阻止ICANN将自己置身于全球执法或治理角色中,远离其确保DNS顺利高效运行的核心承诺?对于每一个使用互联网的人,以及每一个关注互联网作为全球通信平台的未来发展的人来说,风险都是很高的。设计一个过渡计划,以实现放弃美国政府对DNS的监督的目标,同时消除(或至少最小化)风险将是一项艰巨的任务,这将需要比目前收到的更多的公众关注和辩论。本文通过解释转型带来的挑战和机遇的性质,为这场辩论以及本系列后续文章奠定了一些基础,在这些文章中,我们将更详细地讨论目前正在制定的具体转型建议的实质内容,以及我们关于实施我们认为是成功转型进程关键组成部分的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信