December 2017 – Net Policy News

How To Preserve The Internet Beyond ICANN: Robust Interconnection (Part 1: The question)

The question: how to arrange “robust interconnection” of the Internet without being dependent on ICANN. Vladimir Putin is creating an alternate root, with support from India and China. Columbia Professor Eli Noam convinced me a “network of networks” was possible and could be a good thing in theory. I doubt ICANN will actually shut out the Russians, but it’s reasonable for Russia to protect itself.* My question here is technical. Thousands of people, especially at the IETF, have worked to build the Internet we have today. The principles are simple; the implementation is demanding. So I’m asking engineers, “What technical systems must be built to ensure robust interconnection, assuming everyone wants to work in good faith?”

ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi confirmed to me there was no technical reason the Chinese, Hebrews, Verizon or any other competent party couldn’t set up independently. Vladimir Putin intends to test that, creating a new root that is not controlled by a California organization. The primary benefits of “The Internet” could be maintained so long as there was “robust interconnection.” Fadi added the rub was how to ensure that robust interconnection.

I think Fadi was worried about censorship, a real issue.

ICANN CEO’s Promise to China of a Seat At The Table

In 2014, the ICANN CEO promised to make ICANN more truly global. China, now one-third of the Internet, has never been represented on the ICANN board and is bypassed on most issues.* No wonder they are creating alternatives. Since so many in “Internet Governance” seem not to know this, I’m reprinting the transcript from an event in the Manhattan Borough President’s office. The video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhFk-fcuTEM

“Our danger really was that the Chinese were going to announce they will have their own Internet and run away with their own root and leave us kind of a second Internet. That was the biggest danger we were facing. (Audience question) What would happen if they did? (Fadi continued) If they did, and it’s a good point, if the Chinese separated their Internet I think the Internet as we know it – as a single platform to share ideas, to share commerce, with a minimum of barriers, with a minimum friction – inevitably if they separate the root we will have friction between the networks. They’ll put rules, they’ll connect walls.

Kathy Brown’s Leaving; Can the Internet Society Now Become Global, Independent, Democratic & Transparent?

Kathy Brown has announced her coming resignation as CEO of the Internet Society. It’s her decision. She has strong support, continues to be one of the ablest policy advocates in D.C., and has the energy to work very hard. I’ve known her for many years to be one of the most decent executives in D.C. For the Internet Society, she brought the Internet Governance Forum back from a near-death moment to be a vibrant forum for discussing Internet issues. (See below for Ms. Brown’s view.)

Kudos are pouring in. Vint Cerf writes, “I would highlight Kathy’s astute hiring of talent during her term as CEO and her expansion of the role of ISOC as a supplier of factual data and a defender of the Internet’s openness. ISOC was very prominent in the WCIT controversies as a defender of the Internet and in the IANA transition that was by no means a slam dunk. There were real challenges to this change from extremely powerful interests in the US Congress and in international settings. Kathy’s most recent contributions came at the IGF in Geneva where she was her usual candid self, laying out real challenges and real goals to guide attendees into the future. She brought to ISOC a pragmatic optimism which I hope will continue under new leadership.”

Times of London: “YouTube a shop window for child abuse videos”

Google and Facebook continue to fail at blocking what society considers abusive. It may not be possible to do so without a truly massive team examining videos. Despite the German government threatening $millions/day in fines, government pressure everywhere, advertisers fleeing and thousands hired, the control systems are failing.

Alexi Mostrous, Head of Investigations at Murdoch’s Times of London, just before yearend reports, “Child predators are using YouTube as a ‘shop window’ to showcase abused children before exchanging explicit footage and images with paedophiles around the world. One Brazilian paedophile posted a dozen videos of young girls to YouTube this month. Most were ten seconds long and showed the children standing silently, licking their lips or dancing. One showed a masked child aged about ten saying: “Hey guys I got new underwear.”

Each video was emblazoned with the paedophile’s email address. When an undercover reporter made contact, the man boasted he had 315 gigabytes of material showing ‘naked’ children.

Latest issue

Professor Noam’s “Many Internets” http://bit.ly/ManyNets

Until about 2010, everyone agreed the Net was a “network of networks,” not a monolithic entity. There was a central authority, ICANN, keeping track of domain names, but that was a minor administrative function.
Columbia Professor Noam suggests we might be better off accepting that some nations or groups might want to organize their networks differently. It’s easy to see demand for an Internet with much more effective filters against material some think harmful to children. (Any 10 year old can easily find porn today. Many do.)
Internet translation is getting better very quickly. You might want an “Internet” that translates everything into your language. Google Chrome translation isn’t perfect but I was able to research most of this story on Russian language sites. With a few more years progress, I might welcome an alternate that brings me everything in English, including caching for better performance.
De facto, Internet news is already split, as hundreds of millions only get their news from Facebook. Google AMP pages, including for news, also favor selected parts of the net
Centralizing the DNS doesn’t prevent censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. There are many Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists who want to block what they consider blasphemy and limit free speech. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-hold-rally-on-internet-at-citi-field.html . More from Noam http://bit.ly/ManyNets

Russia Orders Alternate Root Internet System http://bit.ly/RussiaDNS
It’s actually practical and not necessarily a problem.The Security Council of the Russian Federation, headed by Vladimir Putin, has ordered the “government to develop an independent internet infrastructure for BRICS nations, which would continue to work in the event of global internet malfunctions … This system would be used by countries of the BRICS bloc – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.” RT
Columbia University Professor Eli Noam and then ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé have both said such a system is perfectly practical as long as there is robust interconnection.
Actually, the battle over ICANN and domain names is essentially symbolic. Managing the DNS is a relatively insignificant task, more clerical than governing. ICANN Chair Steve Crocker pointed out they had very little to do with policy.
Some will claim this is about blocking free speech but that’s rhetoric. Russia doesn’t need to fiddle with the DNS for censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. The wonders of the Internet will continue so long as the resulting nets” are robustly connected. The ICANN and U.S. policy goal should be to help create that system for interconnection.
I expect contentions that “The Russians are taking over our Internet” and “They are splitting the Internet.” The Internet is a “Network of Networks.” It is not a monolith so what would “splitting” it mean or do?
After the WCIT, China realized that ICANN and the DNS are side issues not worth bothering about. They have been building alternate institutions including the World Internet Summit in Wuzhan and the BRICs conferences. The Chinese have put their main work where decisions that matter are made. Wireless standards are set by 3GPP, where nothing can be approved without China’s consent.
The American battle at ITU is proving to be a historic mistake.
Why does Russia want an independent Internet?
They fear that Western sanctions on Russia could cripple the Russian Net. Communications minister, Nikolay Nikiforov, worries about, “a scenario where our esteemed partners would suddenly decide to disconnect us from the internet.” I think that’s highly unlikely but Nikiforov points out, “Recently, Russia is being addressed in a language of unilateral sanctions: first, our credit cards are being cut off; then the European Parliament says that they’ll disconnect us from SWIFT.”
It makes sense for the Russians to be prepared for such a contingency as the Cold War has been warming up on both sides. “Britain’s top military chief Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach just made headlines warning Russian subs “could CRIPPLE Britain by cutting undefended undersea internet cables.” Much more http://bit.ly/RussiaDNS

ICANN Continues Excluding Russia & China From the Board http://bit.ly/CEOPromises
No wonder Russia wants an alternate root. Three years ago, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé promised “a seat at the table” to Chinese Premier Li. ICANN welched and this year added two more Americans.
Almost all the ICANN board is from the U.S. and close allies; only about 4 of the 18 board members are from countries on the other side of the North/South divide in Internet policy. Claiming ICANN represents the Global Internet is inappropriate. China is 1/3rd of the Internet but has no representation on the board.
I know many of the board members. They are all basically honorable but generally share a strong opinion on North-South issues.
Larry Strickling of the U.S. government knew just what he was doing with the IANA transition. He handed over to a board with similar positions as the U.S. government.
“The system is unsustainable while it excludes half the world,” I have been saying since 2012. More, including the transcript of Fadi’s statements,http://bit.ly/CEOPromises

Sorry, Ajit Pai: Smaller Telcos Did Not Reduce Investment After NN Ruling http://bit.ly/SorryPai
Pai justifies his NN choice with the claim, “The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers.” #wrong (Actually, NN has minimal effects on investment, up or down, I’m convinced. Competition, new technology, customer demand and similar are far more important.)
The two largest suppliers to “smaller ISPs” saw sales go up. Adtran’s sales the most recent nine months were $540M, up from $473M the year before. 2016 was $636M, 2015 $600M. Calix the last nine months sold $372M, up from $327M. The full year 2016 was $459M, up from $407M in 2015. Clearfield, a supplier of fiber optic gear, was up 8% in sales in the smaller ISPs.
There is nothing in the data from others that suggests an alternate trend. Anyone could have found this data in a few minutes from the company quarterly reports.
The results in larger companies are ambiguous. I can “prove” capex went up or went down by selecting the right data. The four largest companies’ capex – two/thirds of the total – went up from $52.7B in 2015 to $55.7B in 2016. The result remains positive after making sensible adjustments for mergers and acquisitions. That’s as close to “proving” that NN led to increased spending as the facts chosen to prove the opposite.
Actually, whether capex went up or down in 2016 tells us almost nothing about the choice on neutrality. Everyone knows a single datapoint could be random or due to other causes. Much more, including the source of the errors http://bit.ly/SorryPai

Elders Bearing Witness: Vint, Timbl, & Many More http://bit.ly/VintTim
Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Wozniak and more than a dozen true Internet pioneers wrote Congress to protect Neutrality. The best Congress money can buy didn’t listen but I wanted to reproduce their letter.
I hope they are wrong believing “is an imminent threat to the Internet we worked so hard to create.” My take is the impact will be moderate in the short run.
From the letter:
We are the pioneers and technologists who created and now operate the Internet, and some of the innovators and business people who, like many others, depend on it for our livelihood. … The FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.
Despite this comment, the FCC did not correct its misunderstandings, but instead premised the proposed Order on the very technical flaws the comment explained. The technically-incorrect proposed Order … More, including the full list, http://bit.ly/VintTim

Sorry, Ajit Pai: Smaller Telcos Did Not Reduce Investment After NN Ruling

Pai justifies his NN choice with the claim, “The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers.” #wrong (Actually, NN has minimal effects on investment, up or down, I’m convinced. Competition, new technology, customer demand and similar are far more important.)

The two largest suppliers to “smaller ISPs” saw sales go up. Adtran’s sales the most recent nine months were $540M, up from $473M the year before. 2016 was $636M, 2015 $600M. Calix the last nine months sold $372M, up from $327M. The full year 2016 was $459M, up from $407M in 2015. Clearfield, a supplier of fiber optic gear, was up 8% in sales in the smaller ISPs.

There is nothing in the data from others that suggests an alternate trend.

The results in larger companies are ambiguous. I can “prove” capex went up or went down by selecting the right data.

Professor Noam’s “Many Internets”

Almost 20 years ago, Noam wrote a seminal book, Interconnecting the Network of Networks. Until about 2010, everyone agreed the Net was a “network of networks,” not a monolithic entity. There was a central authority, ICANN, keeping track of domain names, but that was a minor administrative function.

Since the Internet was never a single entity, talk about the harms of “splitting it” made no sense. Eli, who has run a telecommunications institute at Columbia for decades, suggested we might be better off accepting that some nations or groups might want to organize their networks differently.

ICANN Continues Excluding Russia & China From the Board

No wonder Russia wants an alternate root. The two new board members are both Americans, Sarah Deutsch & Avri Doria. Almost all the board is from the U.S. and close allies; only about 4 of the 18 board members are from countries on the other side of the North/South divide in Internet policy. I know many of the board members. They are all basically honorable but generally share a strong opinion on North-South issues.

China is 1/3rd of the Internet but has no representation on the board. The same for Russia. That’s been true for at least 10 years. Avri’s a friend and I respect Deutsch, but ICANN continues to exclude over half the Internet users. (Picture is Fadi on the right and me on the left. Thanks, Joly.)

In particular, CEO Fadi Chehadé in 2014 promised “a seat at the table” to Chinese Premier Li.

Russia Orders Alternate Root Internet System

Actually practical and not necessarily a problem.The Security Council of the Russian Federation, headed by Vladimir Putin, has ordered the “government to develop an independent internet infrastructure for BRICS nations, which would continue to work in the event of global internet malfunctions.” (RT, the Russian government-funded news service.) RT believes “This system would be used by countries of the BRICS bloc – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.”

Expect dramatic claims about Russia’s plan for an alternate root for the BRICs not under Western control. Actually, the battle over ICANN and domain names is essentially symbolic. Managing the DNS is a relatively insignificant task, more clerical than governing. ICANN Chair Steve Crocker pointed out they had very little to do with policy.

Columbia University Professor Eli Noam and then ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé have both said such a system is perfectly practical as long as there is robust interconnection.

Elders Bearing Witness: Vint, Timbl, & Many More

With little hope, 21 of the people who built the Internet asked Congress to protect Neutrality. #Fail. The best Congress money can buy has long had a majority against meaningful rules on Neutrality. AT&T, Comcast, & Verizon spend $100+ plus annually, allocated by influencers that would put Ivy Lee to shame. For as much as $26M/year (David Cohen, Comcast) they hire people who know how to dominate the corridors of power.

Democrats, as well as the now-controlling Republicans, follow the telco line. Legendary lobbyist Jim Cicconi persuaded 77 Democrats to question NN during the Broadband Plan.

Ending Net Neutrality: Copps is Wrong “It Will End the Internet As We Know It.” Pai is Wrong It Will Drive Up Investment

We’ve all heard too much about NN, which I’ve been reporting for 20 years. I support it because I don’t want Randall Stephenson of AT&T deciding what I should watch on TV. The long-run effect is negative.

The claims from some people who agree with me are ridiculous. “According to former FCC commissioner Michael Copps, ending net neutrality will end the Internet as we know it.” http://bit.ly/2it1FkY Michael knows I respect him, but this is ridiculous. Equally unlikely in Pai’s belief this will significantly raise investment. His evidence assumes that AT&T has a time machine. They had told Wall Street they were going to cut well before anyone thought NN was be killed. (“We pretty much finished the LTE build so we will reduce spending.”)