IANA/US vs. ITU/China (via Mike Nelson)

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Mark Stahlman" <mark () tmtstrategies com>
> Date: September 13, 2016 at 8:27:32 AM EDT
> To: "Dave" <dave () farber net>
> Subject: DL- IANA/US vs. ITU/China (via Mike Nelson)
>
>
> http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/295320-how-russia-and-the-un-are-actually-planning-to-take-over-the
>
> September 12, 2016, 01:00 pm
>
> How Russia and the UN are       actually planning to take over the Internet
> By Eli Dourado
>
>
> According to a countdown clock from Sen. Ted Cruz, there are less than three weeks until the Obama administration 
> puts the Internet at risk from takeover and censorship by China, Russia, and Iran. This conspiratorial fearmongering 
> is, frankly, absurd.
>
> But just because this particular alleged conspiracy is insane doesn’t mean that there is no conspiracy. Of course 
> authoritarian regimes want more control over the Internet, and at this very moment, they are working through the U.N. 
> to get it. But instead of targeting the administration of the domain name system (which, thanks to the so-called 
> “IANA transition” Sen. Cruz opposes, is nearly out of their reach), their chosen vehicle is next-generation Internet 
> standards, particularly an arcane proposal called the Digital Object Architecture (DOA). The best way to stop 
> authoritarian regimes and keep the           Internet free is to go through with the transition.DOA is the brainchild 
> of the legendary Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet’s TCP/IP protocol. The Internet does a great job of moving 
> bits around the world, but it isn’t always so good at authentication, rights management, and access controls. Kahn’s 
> idea, dating back to the early 1990s, is to bake “information management” directly into core protocols. What if every 
> piece of data and every device that accessed the network had a permanent, trackable unique identifier? If you wanted 
> to access information on the network, the system would decide if you were authorized to receive it and, if so, allow 
> you to fetch it.
>
> Only the academic publishing industry has enthusiastically adopted DOA in the form of its digital object identifier 
> standard. Since 2000, journal articles are assigned permanent identifiers that point to digital versions of the 
> articles. Metadata associated with journal article objects usually point to a traditional URL where the article can 
> be accessed. In a more advanced DOA environment, the system might use the permanent identifier associated with your 
> laptop to determine whether you had the right to access the article.
>
> As it turns out, Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia all really like the idea of baking information management directly 
> into next-generation protocols. These governments all believe that information flows a bit too freely on today’s 
> Internet. Wouldn’t it be great, they reason, if tomorrow’s Internet allowed us to track all devices online as well as 
> withhold access to any content we did not want to disseminate?
>
> Authoritarian regimes missed the boat on influencing existing Internet standards, but so-called “next-generation 
> networks” provide a new opportunity. The U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is an agency that, among 
> other activities, hosts standards meetings between governments and telecom companies. Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia 
> have used this forum to advance their vision for next-generation networks, including DOA.
>
> The main point of attack is the ITU telecom sector’s Study Group 20, which focuses on the so-called “Internet of 
> Things.” The authoritarian regimes have banded together to ensure that DOA is adopted as the overarching standard for 
> IoT devices, ostensibly in the name of protecting against “device counterfeiting.” In reality, DOA will allow IoT 
> devices to be pervasively and persistently tracked. Next-generation networks could deny access to any device without 
> a valid identifier. And by requiring registration at the point of purchase, tracking will extend to people, not just 
> the devices.
>
> In the long run, these next-generation networks open the door to rethinking the Internet on territorial lines. 
> Suppose the Russian government, as is likely, runs the authoritative DOA server for everyone in Russia. In addition 
> to tracking activity online, they could control the flow of information into the country and censor information at 
> the border.
>
> What does the ITU get out of all of this? Relevance. The ITU missed out on the Internet revolution. Internet 
> standards are made by private-sector engineers at the Internet Engineering Task Force. The “root zone” of the domain 
> name system is run out of ICANN, a private non-profit corporation. There is no further compelling reason for the ITU, 
> especially its telecommunication sector, to exist.
>
> The ultimate root authority in the DOA system is something called the DONA Foundation, a Swiss non-profit with close 
> ties to the ITU. The ITU is one of DONA’s initial “multi-primary administrators” (MPAs). In addition, should the DONA 
> Foundation go under or Bob Kahn die (he is 77), the ITU will be waiting in the wings to take over root administration 
> of the system.
>
> Next month is the quadrennial meeting, known as the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA), of the 
> ITU’s telecommunication sector. There are a number of DOA-related proposals that will be under consideration, among 
> other mischief. The tenor of the meeting will depend significantly on what happens with the IANA transition that Sen. 
> Cruz so opposes. If the transition goes through, the United States will have considerably more clout with the middle 
> third of countries, neither liberal nor authoritarian, and should be able to stop most of the worst proposals. But if 
> the transition fails or is delayed, the United States will go into the meeting—as well as crucial meetings in 2018 
> and 2020—from a position of weakness and embarrassment.
>
> If we want to preserve, to the maximum extent possible, an open and borderless Internet, then the path is obvious: 
> Allow the IANA transition to proceed, and then diplomatically twist arms to shut down the ITU’s telecommunication 
> sector. This would keep Internet governance firmly in the hands of the private, multi-stakeholder community for 
> several more decades. Alas, congressional Republicans seem eager to score one of the biggest own goals in Internet 
> politics ever.
>
> Eli Dourado is a research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and director of its technology 
> policy program.



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20160913115636:A410B348-79CA-11E6-A022-DCF2E96CAC21
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com