Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Bill Graham
Strategic Global Engagement
October 2010
!
!
!
Internet Society Galerie Jean-Malbuisson, 15 Tel: +41 22 807 1444 1775 Wiehle Ave. Tel: +1 703 439 2120
CH-1204 Geneva Fax: +41 22 807 1445 Suite 201 Fax: +1 703 326 9881
Switzerland http://www.isoc.org Reston, VA 20190, USA Email: info@isoc.org
!
!
INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 2010
VILNIUS, LITHUANIA
14-17 SEPTEMBER 2010
WORKSHOP 28:
PRIORITIES FOR THE LONG-TERM STABILITY OF THE INTERNET
SPEAKERS:
Session 1: Hillar Aarelaid (Chief Security Officer, Estonia CERT); Danny
McPherson (Vice President, Network Security Research, at VeriSign Labs.);
Alain Aina (Special Projects Manager, AFRInic Network Engineer,); Ram Mohan
(Executive Vice President, & Chief Technology Officer of Afilias Limited); Raul
Echeberria (Executive Director LACNIC); Theresa Swinehart (Executive Director,
Global Internet Policy, Verizon); Max Senges (Policy Team, Google Germany);
Paul Vixie (President of Internet Systems Consortium and ARIN Board Chairman)
REPORT:
The workshop was opened by Ms Neelie Kroes, who stressed how the stability of
the Internet is a multi-faceted topic that concerns users all over the world.
Although the Internet has proven to be fairly robust and resilient so far, this does
not mean that there is no necessity to continue addressing threats. Therefore, it
is important to know who does what and where more work would be needed.
Last, not least, Ms Kroes "reassured" the audience that in the view of the
Commission the private sector, not public authorities, should continue to play the
leading role in day-to-day operations of the Internet, in full respect of the multi-
stakeholder approach. However, given the importance of the Internet for societies
at large, public authorities have an interest – and a responsibility – to understand
what is done and what could be done to ensure the stability and resilience of the
Internet. This is the spirit of the discussion on principles for Internet resilience
and stability which Member States of the European Union are already
conducting, with the Commission providing a facilitating role.
! "!
The workshop revealed three areas where attention is needed to improve global
confidence in the ongoing stability of the Internet.
One speaker said that the main challenges for Internet stability will not come from
the technical area, but from the political and policy arenas. He said one cannot
speak about stability without speaking about integrity of the network. That
integrity is facing challenges such as possible fragmentation due to the loss of
the neutrality of the network, threats to the free end-to-end flow of information;
from over-regulation due to otherwise well-meaning efforts to solve problems like
cybercrime, infrastructure security vulnerabilities, etc.
! #!
Third, threats arise from the need to build skills:
1. In both developed and developing countries there is a need for education and
capacity building so that there are people who can deal comprehensively with
the new global policy environment, and the opportunities and challenges it
presents. Some organizations are already doing that, but considerably more
is necessary.
2. Similarly on the technical side, trained, experienced and capable people are
needed to address each type of threat identified above.
3. Finally, because of the nature of the Internet, there is a need for skills
development at the intersection between the technical and policy worlds.
Technical people need to think about possible social/policy implications of
their work; while policy people need to be able to understand the technical
constraints on their desired policy development. This is a relatively novel
requirement, and there are few institutions trying to address it so far.
The workshopʼs final session began a conversation about gaps that need to be
addressed, who is active in the field, and what else needs to be done. One
speaker noted that the technical community knew about many or all of the
vulnerabilities identified long before they were known to the policy people. And
even then, the policy side of the house only became aware when the nature of
the threat became critical. People from the policy and technical worlds need a
way to get together earlier, and in an environment where they can communicate
early and often. The Internet Governance Forum is a good start, but more is
needed.
! $!
Second, many of the solutions, and general facts of life in the network are
determined by business imperatives and the profit motive. For a public good like
the Internet, profit is not always the best motivator of the sorts of behavior
needed for stewardship. Some things, like the adoption of IPv6 and some steps
to increase security, donʼt have an obvious or immediate economic benefit; yet
they need to be implemented for the ongoing health of the Internet. Changes at
the infrastructure level, particularly at the IP Network layer, tend to be complex
and expensive and lack obvious direct incentive. A way must be found to get
beyond the current situation where, if there is no profit advantage – i.e no killer
app or financial incentive – the necessary steps won't be taken.
And third, in terms of finding a way to evolve the network (i.e., to go from a
wooden wheel, to iron rimmed wheel, to a rubber-tired wheel) there must be a
way to bridge the gap between the researchers, operational people and policy
people. That means we have to find a way to evolve both our understanding and
our systems in a multi-stakeholder way. The continuation of threats to the long-
term stability of the Internet also shows there are not sufficient monitoring and
analytical tools to deal with the challenges posed by the rapidly expanding
Internet, both from security and performance points of view.
People attending the workshop felt it would be useful to continue work with such
an analysis. There was also a call made for participants to elaborate some
principles that would be instrumental in ensuring vibrant (and stable) evolution of
the Internet, possibly in cooperation with the Dynamic Coalition on the Internet
Rights and Principles.
!
!
! %!