Emerging Threats to Internet Security: Incentives, Externalities and Policy Implications

The Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management has published a new article by IGP's Michel van Eeten and Johnannes Bauer, Emerging Threats to Internet Security: Incentives, Externalities and Policy Implications. The paper, based in part on numerous interviews conducted with network operators, is particularly useful for cutting through the often analytically empty cybersecurity dialogue. Using a marginal security (law enforcement) vs. precluded-event security (national security) framework, the authors identify why the issue of botnets leads to such controversy when it comes to policy responses.

New domain name restrictions in China

China's government is using its control of domain names to impose more strict controls over the Internet. In a recent announcement of China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), individuals can no longer register .cn domain names unless they can provide business registration information in paper. The documents include: domain name registration form (with enterprise official seal), a copy of the business license of the enterprise or corporate code certificate and copy of the national ID card of the applicant.

ICANN Staff finally admits it: There is no bottom up process and no difference between “policy” and “implementation”

In response to a motion from Noncommercial Users, ICANN has released a staff issues report about the topic of registry-registrar separation. The NCUC motion asked the staff whether contracts that liberalized cross-ownership restrictions among registries and registrars of new top level domains constituted a policy change that required a new policy development process, or were merely minor implementation issues that could be developed by staff within existing policy parameters. Forget about the substantive issue for a moment. The staff report contains one whale of a process issue. Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:

The ICANN Independent Review Process: complete the trial before modifying it

The law firm representing ICM Registry in its pioneering Independent Review of the ICANN decision on the .xxx top level domain has issued a call for ICANN to wait until the process is concluded and the community can assess the results before making any changes to the Independent Review Process (IRP). We think that is a reasonable request. Changing the IRP before one can take into account the only experience we have with it is like modifying the design of an airplane before it has gone on its first test flight.

IGP provides leadership, expertise and analysis at 2009 IGF

IGP Scientific Committee members were prominent in all phases of this year’s Internet Governance Forum meeting in Sharm-el-Sheik, Egypt. The IGP brought expertise in political science, economics, sociology and other disciples to bear on discussions ranging from cyber security and critical Internet resources to institutional governance.

“It could be the end of multistakeholderism”

The gem above, heard over lunch at IGF Egypt, illustrates the apparently tenuous ground upon which some feel the IGF now stands. But to understand why there was so much concern one needs to sort out the issues at play.

First, there is the issue of who will conduct the formal review of the IGF. The review will be the basis for any decision to continue the forum under the aegis of the UN and in what format (including any outputs).  Second, there is the issue of where financial support for the forum will come from going forward. That these issues are being tussled over within the UN bureaucracy importantly illustrates the soft power that the IGF has accumulated within Internet governance.

The IGF and the Internet Society-ITU rivalry

This year’s IGF was characterized by intensified rivalry between the backers of the Internet Society/ICANN and the supporters of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which would like to contest the former’s hegemony over Internet names and number governance. Many workshops and main sessions of the Forum get sucked into this polarity one way or the other, especially if they discuss critical internet resources. Talk to the ISOC/ICANN supporters and one will get the impression they are engaged in a fight for their life. I am skeptical of this.

ICANN, Inc.: Accountability and participation in the governance of critical Internet resources

IGP releases today a new paper assessing the relationship between public participation and accountability in ICANN. It explains how ICANN has responded to accountability concerns by creating new opportunities for public comment, review, and participation. Is public participation an adequate means of making this global Internet governance organization accountable to...

Chinese takedown, all notice at IGF

The problem with linking inter-governmental organizations and Internet governance were on display today, the very first day of the Egypt Internet Governance Forum. The Open Network Initiative (ONI) planned a reception to launch its new edited collection book, Access Controlled. Outside the room a banner with the book cover graphics and your standard promotional blurb was on display. The blurb mentioned “the great Chinese firewall.” Apparently a representative of the Chinese government complained and someone from the UN or the government of Egypt brought in security and (after about 15 minutes of bizarre discussions) insisted that the banner be taken away.