The Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China has issued a statement on “Internet Policy in China.” Released Tuesday, the lengthy statement covers a range of topics from promoting internal development and use, to freedom of expression, protecting Internet security, and international cooperation. A quick review reveals two interesting passages relevant to global Internet governance.
How much DNS is blocked in China?
The most recent episode of The Ask Mr. DNS Podcast offers up some disturbing corroborating evidence as to the extent of DNS filtering and outright blocking occurring in China. VeriSign's Matt Larson and InfoBlox's Cricket Liu, who co-host the geeky yet engaging and extremely informative show, held a roundtable discussion including technical experts from dynamic name service providers (better known as “managed DNS” services) DynDNS, TZO, No-IP, and DotQuad, as well as Google and Comcast.
After recalling the recent episode where queries to Net Nod's instance of the i root were intercepted and tampered with resulting in incorrect responses being returned inside and outside of China for facebook.com and other websites, Larson posed the question whether others were having similar experiences. (NB: Net Nod's i-root server instance in Beijing is still shut down, as their CEO has apparently stated it is not possible to offer authoritative root service in China) Unfortunately, several of the managed DNS services providers answered affirmatively.
Senate Commerce Committee passes Cybersecurity Act
Late last month the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, chaired by Sen. Jay Rockefeller who also serves on the Intelligence Committee, unanimously passed an amended Cybersecurity Act of 2010. With regard specifically to Internet governance issues, the bill has changed dramatically, but it still provides some interesting language around defining critical infrastructure and setting a future research agenda.
Transfer markets and the battle to come over IP address Whois
Network World writes that IPv4 depletion is happening faster than expected and that a black market might form to allow companies who need IPv4 addresses to get them. ARIN's CIO Richard Jimmerson notes that the ARIN community has been proactive in addressing this, “providing at least limited address transfer opportunities to mitigate that problem.” (other RIRs have similar policies)
For me, the emergence of transfer markets always seemed inevitable. The most important, and least talked about, aspect of the policies creating those markets has to due with the unanticipated use of registration records.
New research on how ISPs could combat botnets
New analysis, by a group of researchers including IGP's Michel van Eeten, suggests that by focusing mitigation efforts on a subset of ISPs could eliminate the bulk of zombie computers responsible for generating spam and initiating other online threats.
As reported in MIT Technology Review:
The researchers analyzed more than 63 billion unsolicited e-mail messages sent over a four-year period and found more than 138 million unique internet addresses linked to sending out the spam. Typically such machines have been hijacked by hackers and are corralled into a vast network of remote-controlled system known as a “botnet.”
Who do you trust to sign the root?
ICANN's Trusted Community Representative (TCR) program, which proposes to distribute signing authority for the DNS root zone among representatives of the Internet community, was launched by ICANN about two weeks ago.
DNSEXT Working Group participant Thierry Moreau observes that
basically, the concept (and details) of TCRs is the ICANN answer to the concern over a strengthening of DNS control, [and over allowing] international participation. The concept of TCR is also original – no other crypto deployment ever required, or seemed to require, a similar level of transparency.
But, despite the good intentions there are questions.
Committee OK's funding for cybersecurity R&D, including Internet standards and assessing methods
As reported last week, the House Homeland Security Committee has passed a $2.7 billion appropriations bill, H.R. 4842 Homeland Security Science and Technology Authorization Act of 2010. The bill allocates $150 million over two years to the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate.
The bill continues the funding of Internet standards works dealing with securing critical Internet resources, as well as offers an opportunity for improving our understanding of how domestic efforts to improve cybersecurity impacts global Internet governance.
North American Network Operators Group to formally organize
The North American Network Operators Group (NANOG), which is little known outside of the technical community but serves a vitally important role in the successful functioning of the Internet, has decided to organize under 501(c)3 status. To date, NANOG had its meetings and activities organized under the auspices of Merit, a Michigan-based educational and networking research non-profit which managed NSFNet, the precursor to the modern Internet. Since 1994, the NANOG mailing list has served as a primary method of inter-carrier communication in the region, used to share information and resolve operational problems. How the change will impact NANOG's activities and the operators who participate is to be determined, but it represents another step in the continuing formalization of Internet governance institutions.
NPR misses the point on the politics of global Internet governance
NPR concluded yesterday a series on “the newest arena of international conflict – cyberspace.” To be honest, it was very gratifying to hear major media bringing the vitally important topic of global Internet governance to a wider audience. By and large it was good reporting, highlighting the increasing contention as national governments world-wide struggle with the ramifications of a global communications network. One point they missed though was that “global Internet governance stands…neutral, apolitical, and largely hands off [from government interference today].” This is simply incorrect.
ITU on Internet governance debates
From IP Watch, an extensive interview with ITU Strategist Alexander Ntoko, which covers among other things, ITU's recommendation to member states to continue the IGF, and the ITU's preparations for the upcoming Plenipot this October in Mexico, including how the ITU-ICANN debate is “about countries wanting to play an equal role in those global policies that affect the internet,” how “the management of IPv6 is peanuts” compared to international spectrum management, but “there has to be clarity in what membership wants us to do.”
