Who is in Charge of the Internet?
Verisign's Unilateral Actions versus an Internet model how to Manage the Internet's Infrastructure
It has been a common perception that nobody is in charge of the Internet, that there is no controlling entity, nor should there be. The recent controversy over Verisign's Site Finder, however, shows that it is indeed a misperception that no one controls the Internet. Instead, there is currently a contest over who does and who should exercise this control. This contest is being played out over the question of what management structure is needed for the Internet's infrastructure.
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, Verisign, announced that they will reintroduce their Site Finder advertising site. They believe that there is a vacuum and that they can usurp the power and wealth that will accrue to any company that can seize control of aspects of the Internet's infrastructure. Verisign has a contract with the U.S. government to control the DNS directory (called a registry) for .com and .net domain names. The recent crisis erupted in September, when Verisign directed packets for any unassigned .net or .com domain name to their Site Finder site.
In response, there were various soundings of alarm on the Internet. Verisign, on its part, claimed that it was introducing an "innovation" for the Internet's infrastructure. The crisis was abated temporarily when Verisign agreed to halt the use of Site Finder, in response to a threat that they would lose their contract for the .com and .net registry. In some of the many pages of press articles that appeared on the controversy, the question was raised, Who is in charge of the Internet?
Recently, on the Netizens mailing list, one user raised several questions.
<"Say, what would a netizen do in this entire context?
"Is a netizen hurt by a potentially helpful service?
"Is a US netizen hurt by a potentially helpful service?
"Is a netizen outraged by the side-effects of the commercialization of the Internet in that private interests (and not public interests) lead to destabilizing the overall working of the Internet? A netizen would need to provide a palpable counter-argument of how this endangers, and make it as visible as the advantage. This can be done, instead of crying 'wolf'.
Such questions focus attention on the users of the Internet, particularly the netizens, the active participants working for the Internet's continuing development as a collaborative and ever more inclusive global electronic commons.
Verisign's unilateral action was greeted by many netizens with comments and online discussions, appearing on mailing lists, web sites and in Usenet newsgroups. Among the many reasons given to condemn Verisign's actions, was a post in a Usenet newsgroup. The post1 analyzes how directing Internet packets to Site Finder is a violation of the public nature of the Internet's infrastructure.
Whether or not it has any impact, socially or technically, is beside the point. What gives VeriSign defacto ownership of all domain names not registered by someone else? Why is it entitled to use, for its own lucrative commercial purposes, the virtually infinite domain of domains, shutting out all others? Why has no one addressed this?
John Higdon, Anytown, USA
A subsequent post2 sarcastically describes some of the implications of Verisign's action to assume private ownership of all unregistered .net and .com domain names:
Can you imagine registering a new domain and getting some angry emails to your postmaster account that blast you for hijacking this 'nifty search engine' that used to come up at your URL? They would accuse YOU of hijacking the domain!
Obviously, VeriSign believes that in return for providing root servers for the two top-level domains that they are entitled to exploit for their own use ANY conceivable second-level domain name that is not, in fact, registered to someone. In other words, when you register a domain name (through any registrar), you are in fact transferring that name from VeriSign's stewardship to yours. The difference is that you have to pay in perpetuity to continue using it; VeriSign gets it at no charge.
John Higdon, Anytown, USA
This post helps to highlight that the nature of the Internet's infrastructure is public. It is like other public utilities, such as the water system and the electricity system. Such systems are vital to people's existence. They need to be administered in a way that recognizes public service obligations. The components of a public infrastructure require protection that government traditionally has been expected to provide. With no reliable management structure dedicated to preserving the public nature of the Internet's infrastructure, there will be a perpetual contest.
A second aspect of the infrastructure of the Internet, is that it is international in scope. Hence no single government can fulfill the need to provide the protection for the public nature of the Internet's infrastructure. An international collaboration made it possible to create the Internet and an international collaboration will have the the broad and global reach to support the continued development of the Internet.
A third aspect of the infrastructure of the Internet is that it has been built by a participatory process. This process welcomed the participation and contribution of all those who had a broad social perspective. There is one Internet. The architecture requires a common agreement among the participating networks to make communication possible across the boundaries of the different forms of technology, of ownership, or of political control of these networks. The common agreement has been reflected in the development and adoption of the TCP/IP protocol. In turn, the TCP/IP protocol respects the diversity of the networks that are part of the Internet.
Unilateral actions, like Verisign's, violate such basic aspects of the Internet. In the midst of the furor created by Site Finder, Verisign claims it has the right to introduce what it calls "innovations" into the Internet's infrastructure. If some entity introduces an "innovation" that harms others who are part of the Internet, what are those who are hurt by such actions to do? Not only does Verisign's claim violate the public and international nature of the Internet's infrastructure, it also violates that principle that the networks and their users themselves retain the ability to determine what is in their own interest. Verisign is usurping this right, the very right that has made it possible to create and spread the Internet.
The public and international nature of the Internet's infrastructure
No single company, nor multiple companies, were able to create the Internet. Many private companies created the kinds of networks they felt would be the networks wanted by everyone else. These were proprietary networks, which served the companies who created them. The Internet, however, was created by a collaboration of scientific researchers from different countries, who were able to do the research to create the international infrastructure of the Internet. By the broad nature of the objectives of the researchers, they were able to create an Internet which could be open to education, business, government, and citizen networks. When one business starts to try to turn the Internet into its own private network, it is threatening the nature of the Internet as a metasystem of diverse and different networks.
By welcoming the participation of researchers from different countries in the development of the protocol TCP/IP, the process of welcoming feedback to guide the continuing development was integrated into the development process. That process, therefore, had the advantage of input from a broad set of experiences and views. The international nature of the collaboration that built the Internet, made it possible for the Internet to be international. Unilateral decisions to change the Internet's infrastructure, can only threaten the international nature of the Internet.
The Verisign problem once again brings to the fore the need for a public, participatory process of international collaboration to support and develop the Internet's infrastructure. Fortunately, there is a model for this, the model of how the Internet was developed.
This year, 2003, is the 30th anniversary of the creation of the draft paper outlining the philosophy and architecture of the TCP/IP protocol. The paper was presented in Brighton, England, at the University of Suffolk in September, 1973. It was presented to a meeting of researchers from many different countries of the world. Spreading an understanding of the model of how the Internet developed can be helpful in the efforts to create an appropriate management structure for the Internet (Celebrating the Birthday of the Internet).
The model of the Internet's development is a model of a system that learns from, and builds on the development of the Internet itself. Until an appropriate management structure for the Internet's infrastructure is developed, netizens can continue to utilize the collaborative, participatory, public and international process of Internet development to effectively challenge inappropriate and ineffective management proposals like Verisign's Site Finder.