DNSSEC: (Dis)incentives to deploy, signing the root, and the “keys to the Internet kingdom”

[Editors Note: Apologies for the belated writeup of an informative panel discussion on the implications of DNSSEC deployment and signing the root.]

“If you hold the [DNSSEC] keys you can decide who is the root zone file editor and who are the root servers. You hold the keys to the Internet kingdom.” – Paul Vixie

On May 17, 2007, IGP, George Mason University Law School's Critical Infrastructure Protection Program and the EPFL eGov program hosted a panel on DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) at the Swiss Embassy in Washington DC. Several recognized technical experts from the private sector, ICANN and the US government discussed the deployment of DNSSEC, and in particular the policy dimensions of digitally signing the Internet’s root zone file. The audience of nearly 80 people included Department of Commerce officials, US government contractors, policy-makers, public-interest advocates and graduate students.  Moderated by Brenden Kuerbis of the Internet Governance Project, the panel included Paul Vixie (ISC), David Conrad (IANA), Scott Rose (US Department of Commerce-NIST), Matt Larson (VeriSign), and Thierry Moreau (Connotech). The discussion highlighted major technical challenges facing DNSSEC deployment, and the effects of root signing on tld zone operators and the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS).

ICANN confronts Free Expression Debate

At the San Juan, Puerto Rico ICANN meeting today a large audience turned out for a workshop organized to discuss the free expression implications of ICANN's proposed policy for adding new top level domains. The issue has proved controversial because governments and ICANN staff are concerned about the appearance of controversial words or concepts in the domain name space. Some of them were traumatized by the .xxx debate and think they can get around those problems simply by blocking TLD applications that might be “offensive” or “sensitive” to some people.
ICANN staff searched very hard for international law and treaties that would justify these actions. One was a 19th century trademark treaty known as the Paris Convention which excludes from trademark registration words that are “scandalous” or contrary to “generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order.” Until we insisted on amendments, the report also selectively quoted the UN Charter on Human Rights, avoiding the free expression guarantees of Article 19. The main problem, however, was the U.S. government-supported GAC principles, which among other things tried to give governments a veto power over any new TLD and required that any proposal respect “the sensitivities regarding terms with national, cultural, geographic and religious significance.” These were seen as opening the door to casual censorship based not on law but opinion and preference.
Moderated by Robin Gross (IP Justice, Noncommercial Users Constituency), expert speakers challenged the proposed policy’s challenges to freedom of expression and an open and neutral administration of Internet core resources.

Drezner Muffs Internet Governance

Tufts political scientist Daniel Drezner has produced an appealingly simple model to explain the typology of global economic governance. You can get a quick summary of his position at Cato Unbound. His basic thesis is that global governance is still driven by the power of states — well, not states exactly, but “Great Powers.” There are at the moment only two Great Powers, the US and the EU. From this, he derives a useful typology. When the US and EU interests are congruent, and the rest of the world isn't adamantly opposed, we will get harmonized and effective global governance. When the EU and US agree, but the rest of the world won't go along, the Great Powers will avoid universal institutions and forum shop, and we will get “club” standards.

When the EU and US disagree, and there is wide divergence of interest among the rest of the world, we will get “sham” standards, putative global governance principles that don't mean anything and can't be enforced. Drezner puts our beloved Article 19 in this category. Ouch. But he's right about its effectiveness, isn't he? And when the EU and US disagree and have clusters of allies around the world we will get rival governance standards, like in the case of genetically modified foods.

The MAG is dead, long live the MAG? or, “Maybe it's only a Ban Ki Moon….”

We are still waiting for the UN Secretary General to pronounce on the future of the Internet Governance Forum's multistakeholder advisory group (known as the MAG). The decision is so untimely that Nitin Desai, the Chair of the Forum, was unable to hold a private planning meeting of the MAG after the conclusion of the IGF's public consultation May 23. What was supposed to be a deliberative meeting of anointed nominees of business, government, civil society and the technical community turned into a kind of semi-open, free-form discussion. Anyone could wander into the meeting, presuming they were hanging around Geneva that day and well-enough informed to learn that it was going on.