Issue 100: Internet Governance

You might think of “the internet” as one big thing, but in reality it is many smaller things hooked together by common agreement. The internet connection at my house comes from an Internet Service Provider (ISP). My ISP connects to one or more (likely many more than one) other ISPs and transit providers. Through those interconnections, a message I’m typing here will be sent to a computer across town, across the country, and across the world.

Huawei is proposing a fundamental internet redesign, which it calls “New IP,” designed to build “intrinsic security” into the web. Intrinsic security means that individuals must register to use the internet, and authorities can shut off an individual user’s internet access at any time. In short, Huawei is looking to integrate China’s “social credit,” surveillance, and censorship regimes into the internet’s architecture. The New IP proposal itself rests on a flawed technical foundation that threatens to fragment the internet into a mess of less interoperable, less stable, and even less secure networks. To avoid scrutiny of New IP’s shortcomings, Huawei has circumvented international standards bodies where experts might challenge the technical shortcomings of the proposal. Instead, Huawei has worked through the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union (ITU), where Beijing holds more political sway.

The new proposal specifies that "member states have the right to manage all naming, numbering, addressing and identification resources used for international telecommunications/ICT services within their territories." This seems to be a challenge to the authority of ICANN and IANA, the quasi-private organizations that currently oversee the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. The proposal would also add a new section on security issues. It specifies that the world&apoos;s governments should "undertake appropriate measures" to protect the "physical and operational security of networks; denial of service attacks; countering unsolicited electronic communication (e.g Spam); and protection of information and personal data (e.g. phishing)."

In a question-and-answer session at Mobile World Congress 2012 on Tuesday, [Google's executive chairman Eric] Schmidt said handing over control of things such as naming and DNS to the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) would divide the internet, allowing it to be further broken into pieces regulated in different ways. "That would be a disaster... To some, the openness and interoperability is one of the greatest achievements of mankind in our lifetime. Do not give that up easily. You will regret it. You will hate it, because all of a sudden all that freedom, all that flexibility, you'll find it shipped away for one good reason after another," Schmidt said. "I cannot be more emphatic. Be very, very careful about moves which seem logical, but have the effect of balkanising the internet," he added, urging everyone to strongly resist the moves.

Indian authorities severed mobile internet access and text messaging for a second day Sunday across Punjab, a state of about 27 million people, as officials sought to capture a Sikh separatist and braced for potential unrest. The statewide ban — which crippled most smartphone services except for voice calls and some SMS text messages — marked one of the broadest shutdowns in recent years in India, a country that has increasingly deployed the law enforcement tactic, which digital rights activists call draconian and ineffective.

More countries shut down the internet in 2022 than ever before, according to a new report by digital rights researchers, as the threat of “digital authoritarianism” races up the agenda of many governments worldwide. Authorities in 35 countries instituted internet shutdowns at least 187 times, according to the New York-based digital rights watchdog Access Now. Nearly half of these shutdowns occurred in India, and if that nation is excluded, 2022 saw the most number of shutdowns globally since the group began monitoring disruptions in 2016. Access Now relied on technical assessments as well as news articles and personal accounts to compile its report, which spans complete blackouts, suspensions of specific phone networks or social media apps, and the slowing down of internet speeds.

Wired.com has this article about proposed legislation to "direct the Department of Homeland Security to undertake a study on emergency communications" (the bill's title). The text of the legislation is not available at this time, but when a similar topic was debated in the last congressional session, the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs -- chaired by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman with Senator Susan M. Collins as ranking minority member -- issued a four-page Myth-v-Reality document. That bill also seemed to do more than simply request a study -- it actually established in the Executive Office of the President an Office of Cyberspace Policy. The bill died before coming up for a vote in the final days of the session. At the time, the American Library Association joined with dozens of other groups to send a letter to the committee expression concerns with that version.