kidmercury

As the title of this post suggests, I am not totally sure about the contents of this post. In fact, a big part of why I'm writing this is in hopes that someone will put the smackdown on me and set my stupid ass straight.

The question I seek to answer is who controls the Internet?

Naturally I started my journey by reading the book Who Controls the Internet? I highly recommend this book, even though I disagree with many of the books arguments, as well as its central thesis that the Internet does not disrupt the nation-state as a form of governance, and that folks who believe that it will are overly idealistic and unrealistic. I'll put the smackdown on that book in a future blog entry. But in spite of the failings I perceive in the book, it does a great job of explaining some Internet history -- and the past is the best place to look to understand the future.

So here's my understanding (which as noted may be incorrect, so take it with a grain of salt):

1. There is an organization known as IANA, which runs in parallel with ICANN, that is the naming authority of the web. These organizations are ultimately responsible for the naming system of the web; meaning htey decide that there will be a .com domain name extension, a .net, what new ones will come, etc. Ultimately, this organization is responsible for ensuring that when you type in Wikipedia.org, you get sent to Wikipedia -- and that this applies from any device you use to connect to the Internet.

2. There are what as known as root nameservers. This is where I start to get a little confused, because all these technical people that write about this stuff are such poor communicators that they cannot explain this stuff in simple terms. Anyway, my understanding, which I emphasize may be incorrect, is that there are 13 root nameservers that are ultimately responsible for allocating addresses and domain names. I think if anyone wants to break the Internet, they would want to attack these nameservers. Moreover, I think if there is disagreement amongst these nameservers, they could fracture the Internet into multiple Internets. In other words, if they all break away from the rules prescribed by IANA and ICANN, then you might get a different web page when you enter Wikipedia.org into your computer, as each nameserver could be its own naming authority, so where you would get routed would depend on which nameserver are you connected to. I am not 100% sure on this.

3. Here you can see who are the operators of those 13 nameservers. The Internet is a creation of the US Department of Defense, and so it is not surprising to see some military operators of some of the nameservers. It could, however, be problematic. Even those nameservers that are not directly operated by the US government are operated by US institutions -- and thus subject to US law. Of relevance here is the story of Jon Postel, widely regarded as "the father of the Internet," who basically was the naming authority before IANA/ICANN was born. Postel clashed with the US government over who should be controlling the Internet, and at times decided to flex his authority by having the operators of regional nameservers, whom he knew and were personally loyal to Postel, change how they functioned. Upon doing this he was threatened by the US government and told if he did it again he would be arrested. So, based on this, it seems as though the United States government, particularly the Department of Defense, is in control of the Internet -- both in that it controls several of the root nameservers, as well as the legal authority to prosecute others.

Generally, all this stuff happens behind the scenes and no one cares. But the way to break the Internet is to break this system.

It would be nice if this system was more democratic in a way -- if I could somehow vote to influence ICANN and IANA. And while the US Department of Defense did pay for the Internet, I think IANA/ICANN should be global institutions. The case for this will become a lot stronger when it becomes apparent that the US borrowed money from international lenders, used this money to launch an imperial agenda, and now can't pay it back. LOL

I am eager to learn more about this issue because I think it's important to understand for anyone interested in executing The Business Plan That Saves the World. If anyone can help me understand this more, please feel free to share your thoughts.

marko

Its democratic in that the elected gov't of the united states (or any other country) regulates. Silicon valley (google and friends) love the dems, the infrastructure guys (comcast and friends) love the republicans.

I think you are putting an overemphasis on the power of naming - paying a yearly fee for a domain is kinda like property taxes. Basically IANA/ICANN are given a (global) government monopoly on naming stuff and they govern the internet issues in the US, along with the FCC and other agencies (no idea of who owns what or how they fight it out).

Aside from governance, the owners of the actual infrastructure and core service providers are really key (servers, fibres, etc). Also, I think its increasingly moving to, he who owns and governs the data rules.....which is why Google is causing such big waves and spending so much cash on lobbying the dems. Its also why data privacy and governance is going to be such an hot issue over the coming decades. Of course, the data all runs over the infra so if you have access to that, ultimately you also have access to the data.

Also, this is why china (and many other countries) force any internet service to operate locally. Companies must apply for a license and physically have their servers in the country. When the servers are under jurisidition, the govenrment pretty much has carte blanche to do anything - which is what the whole china/google fuss was about. Of course, the irony of it is that the US government also has carte blanche to get any info from any US internet company or service provider (ex. google, verizon, comcast, skype, facebook, this blog platform, whoever). Its also why China and other countries pull out all kinds of tricks to support local competitors and keep foreign giants out. Trying to counteract information imperialism by keeping as much as possible within their control and jurisdiction.

Not sure if this is what you were looking for....I'm not an expert....but hope it helps.

This is why open internet is so important. If the ISPs can start choosing and charging what traffic can go over their infrastructure, it is a very slippery slope. It opens the door for all vested interests to start lobbying and influencing communication, discussion, etc. Any single step to filter anything on the web, to me is the same as removing freedom of speech.

kidmercury

hey marko,

1. i'm still not clear on ICANN and how democratic it is. meaning, i certainly don't vote for ICANN members the way i vote for congress or the presidency. are positions appointed by someone? does the appointment require approval of another branch, as is the case with the supreme court and the federal reserve? i have no idea (on my list of things to research). ICANN also refers to itself as a corporation, which i find to be peculiar. reminds me a bit of the federal reserve, which also is a corporation with limited influence by elected officials.

2. i'm focusing on IANA/ICANN because i'm looking for all the central points that one would attack if they wanted to break the internet. IANA/ICANN seems to be the mother lode, the way to wreak the most damage. based on what i've read, i think the 13 root nameservers would be another vulnerable point. i believe the central banks and their assets in the military will want to assert more control over the internet because it is too empowering, too threatening to their power structure. their modus operandi is false flag attacks, so i think it is quite possible they will stage some sort of attack on the internet, which in turn serves as the pretext to regulate the web even more, and alter its fundamental structure. i think net neutrality is a bit like altering the fundamental structure of the web, forcing it into an unnatural structure.

3. to elaborate on that point, i think it helps to explain my view that the internet is designed to be censored. consider for instance that censorship can be done at the ISP level, as some ISPs are doing. it can be done at the application level, like google is already doing. it can even be done at the device level, if software in the operating system were designed with censorship in mind. personally, i don't think this is necessarily a bad thing; it can even be a good thing. for instance, think of a family friendly technology company that operated at each level: they ran an ISP, they built web apps, and they built devices that connect to the internet. google is pretty much at this point already, especially with their ISP initiative they recently announced. such a network could really be great at censoring, tracking, etc -- this has both a bright side and a shadow side (the bright side being filtering porn out for children, able to find missing children....the dark side being censorship of unpopular views that threaten entrenched powers, or creating a surveillance system that allows for easy kidnapping by corrupt forces). i'd like to see a world in which such ecosystems that were integrated at all levels (device, application, ISP) competed against each other. with net neutrality, the US government simply becomes the regulator of all levels. as you might imagine i find them to be an untrustworthy regulator. and of course there will also be a cost of such regulation, in the form of increased government spending to enable regulation, as well as more bureaucratic processes to go through for businesses to ensure they are in compliance. just like dealing with the IRS.

the china point you raise interesting. ultimately i don't think trying to turn this into a geography war will work for china in the long run -- people will find a way around it, and it is still decentralized bands of users against centralized government, whether these groups of users are in china or located elsewhere. putting in geographical controls will help the chinese government's agenda, i suppose, but ultimately i don't think centralized can beat decentralized -- decentralized will always be too nimble, one step ahead. at least i sure hope so!

Unregistered

you highlighted a key risk of the phase the web is entering now: existing power structures use their influence to ensure the web conforms to existing structures. AKA everything new is old again.

whether your hypothetical example of false red-flags to push through tougher legislation, net neutrality debate, censorship, gov't access to private data, etc....everything points to a less 'open' direction. i hope i am wrong, but this kind of trend is not something internet or current time period specific. its just human nature.

the flip side of the coin is that google is becoming so powerful and vertically & horizontally integrated that there is a very real risk that they become the internet. to me this is a much greater risk than bad government regulation. i would much rather the governments of the world regulate the web and proactively push regulation (ex. anti-trust) as opposed to letting a single corporate entity gain such a dominant position that they becmoe the medium itself, and there is no way back. so i'm all for the dems position on an open web, but they also have to prove they can be tough with google who is currently filling their coffers handsomely. its a delicate balance that is very difficult to find in such a fast moving space. i just hope that users/consumers are put at the center instead of existing or new business and political interests.

two steps forward, one step back.
of the people, by the people, for the people