An essay written for the International Institute of Strategic Studies (www.iiss.org), February 2016
Is the multi-stakeholder model a
viable way forward for Internet governance?
|
|
|
"We
pay too little attention to the reserve power of the people to take care of
themselves. We are too solicitous for government intervention, on the theory,
first, that the people themselves are helpless, and second, that the
government has superior capacity for action. Oftentimes, both of these
conclusions are wrong."
- Calvin
Coolidge, President of the United States (1923-1929)
|
The Internet as we know it today has roots in
the technological developments of the Industrial Revolution and the inventions
that came into being as a direct result of research and development into
computational technologies by a diverse range of commercial, academic and
governmental groups. This essay will
address the role that combined technological contributions and shared
governance has had on the development of the Internet since its inception, and
speculate on how Internet governance for the future may best develop.
PAST
Arguably,
modern-day computation started with the Babbage Difference Engine, proposed by
Charles Babbage in his paper of 1822 to the Royal Astronomical Society which
took the often tedious and painstaking process of calculation by hand into the
realm of automation. Over the next
hundred years, computing developed from simple arithmetic into complex
machinery with real-life applications, growth of which was driven by the twin
engines of commerce and war through hundreds, if not thousands of contributors
across a multitude of sectors. By the
time World War II began, computation had reached a point where these
applications of computing culminated in the development of the Colossus series
of computers at Bletchley Park and subsequently the Bombe, used to decrypt
German communications and which made a huge impact to the war effort.
Bletchley
Park's NI1b and 'Room 40' government agencies were not the only organisations
to develop significant advancements in computation around that time. Commercial organisations, and those affiliated
to but standing independent from government, also drove progress. For example, free from Bletchley Park after
the war ended, Tommy Flowers, the inventor of Colossus, re-joined the Post
Office Research Station throughout the 1950s subsequently helping to develop
ERNIE, one of the world's first random number generators, a successor of which
is used today to pick Premium Bond winners; he and his team also developed
hitherto unknown pulse modulation techniques for telephone exchanges. Across the Atlantic, IBM were busy with a
multitude of projects, from the IBM Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator
(the 'Harvard Mark I') in 1944 to 1956 when IBM were busy pioneering disk
drives in their San Jose laboratory. The
transistor was invented in 1947 by a team at Bell Laboratories; the EDSAC, a
paper-tape computer was built in 1949 at Cambridge University. From hand-held
mechanical calculators to trackballs, the acceleration of progress in computing
was marked, driven both by commercial and government interests, and with
significant contributions from academic institutions and individuals too.
Throughout
this period of early computing, evidence shows that individuals, government,
academic and commercial organisations all contributed towards technological
progress, and that premise holds true today.
The technology 'gold rush', which has culminated in Facebook in the
modern era, continued through the 1950s to 1970s with an ever-accelerating
number of new insights, inventions and ideas.
After the development of ARPANET by DARPA in the early 1970s, networked
computing was opened to universities and consequently the general public. Open-source computing in the form of the UNIX
operating system began as early as 1969, and anyone was free to develop and
improve upon it. The miniaturisation of
silicon chips throughout the 1970s and 1980s led to Moore's Law, named after
the co-founder of Intel which states that the number of components on an IC
chip would double approximately every two years (now thought to have reached a
plateau).
Frameworks
for these new technologies came not exclusively from central government, but
from gifted individuals such as Alan Turing, John Von Neumann, Clive Sinclair
and Jack Kilby. Sinclair, an
entrepreneur, brought affordable consumer electronics to the masses; a
latter-day James Dyson, his inventions ranged from the ill-fated Sinclair C5
electric trike to the wildly successful Sinclair ZX Spectrum. Kilby invented the integrated circuit as part
of his work with Texas Instruments, an integral component of every modern
computer system. Famously, Bill Gates
co-founded Microsoft from a garage, a company which has grown to be a
market-leading force today.
We can
deduce then that the impetus for research and development into early computing was
sourced from not one controlling entity, but by a vast array of experts working
for a variety of causes. This
understandably led to a plethora of competing standards and protocols in the
field. For example, TCP/IP was invented
in 1974 independently from UDP in 1980, but both each able to handle Internet
traffic (with key differences). Early
console-type computers such as the Acorn Electron, ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64
competed in the commercial marketplace, and the rough-and-tumble of commerce
drove manufacturers to produce bigger and better solutions.
Technological
progress up to the 1970s and 1980s demonstrated that governments, corporations
and individuals could work alongside each other developing new and exciting
changes to the computing landscape. With
each organisation having its own motivations - whether these were financial,
philanthropic, militaristic or educational - progress in the field was at an
apogee, with new developments arriving faster than the general public could
consume them, and, tellingly, faster than the government could regulate them.
This lack of
regulation arguably contributed to the explosive arrival of the Internet in the
late 1980s. First operating via dial-up
modem, connection to a World Wide Web of shared, unregulated, free material for
the cost of a phone call was an attractive consumer proposition. Leading the way was AOL, with their
'GameLine' product - a service that linked an Atari 2600 via phone line to a
server, allowing consumers to rent games for as little as $1.00. AOL transformed quickly into a generalist
consumer Internet Service Provider, and alongside the likes of Yahoo they
cornered the market in user-friendly Internet connectivity. Corporations driven by the survivalist need
for growth and the requirement to please their shareholders with financial
success were technologically outpacing national governments.
Nevertheless,
governments tried hard to catch up, both in research and development and in
introducing regulation ostensibly to protect Internet users and to safeguard
national security. The appearance of the
world's first computer worm, the Morris worm by a person who admitted they had
created it to 'see how big the Internet is' in 1988 frightened the US
Government and led to the very first conviction under the newly-minted US
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It also
provided a demonstration of how the Internet was never under governmental
control, despite much of the funding for it originating from federal
budgets.
IANA, the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, who administered top-level DNS servers for
the Internet, came into being after calls for regulation from key players in
the development of the new World Wide Web such as Vint Cerf and Jon
Postel. IANA was a not-for-profit American
corporation, however it was financed by DARPA funds that originated from the US
Government. When the U.S. Science
Foundation tried to hand over control of IANA to a private US corporation,
Network Solutions, there was a backlash from Internet users who felt that the
Internet would be in jeopardy of losing its freedom and independence, a period
referred to as the 'DNS Wars' and which lasted until the creation of ICANN.
PRESENT
Today, there
exists a tension and ongoing argument surrounding ICANN, who administer
top-level domains on the Internet. This
tension arises from the American nature and location of the ICANN organisation
- with the Internet today being truly global, many nations feel that top-level
Internet administration should rest with a global organisation not so closely
tied to one particular country. Following
the expiration of the original 11-year contract created at the transition
between IANA and ICANN, as of October 1 2009, ICANN became a private (albeit
American) organisation, not directly controlled by the US Department of
Commerce.
This power
struggle at the top of the Internet hierarchy is a reflection of the nature of
the true globalisation of the Internet.
With regulatory oversight undertaken by a variety of stakeholders that
are not exclusively governmental, the same kind of innovative fast-paced
development of technology established in the late 1800s can continue into the
future. With control of the upper
echelons of the Internet held by a diverse board of members rather than a
single state with specific aims, the Internet can be governed by a broader
democracy.
Let us look
at the alternative. Governments have a
track record of interfering with or prohibiting new technology to progress
their own goals or ideals. This has early
historical precedents; on the invention of the printing press early in the 15th
century, Arabic imams in the Ottoman Empire banned the printing press on
religious grounds, with the first press in the region not established until
1729. More recently, the United Arab Emirates threatened to ban Blackberry
mobile phones unless the encryption keys were provided to the government by the
manufacturer. Today, Google Street View
remains banned in Greece and Austria on privacy and national security grounds,
and there is an ongoing argument playing out in the media between Apple and the
U.S. Government about provision of technology to break the previously uncrackable
iPhone on iOS 9.1 in the name of fighting terror.
In
historical cases, resistance to this kind of government instruction led in many
events not only to violence but to capitulation or a reformation of the stance
taken by the governmental organisation to bend to the will of society. As an example, consider the recent row in the
United Kingdom about the 'Snooper's Charter' - the Investigatory Powers Bill -
initially quashed by Parliament due to large opposition from both MPs and the
general public, and now being put through Parliament for a second time by the
Home Secretary under cover of the ongoing EU referendum debate. Suspiciously attracting near-zero coverage in
mainstream media, it is likely this privacy-invading Orwellesque bill will
result in legislation, which will have a profound effect on the ability of the
UK government to spy on its citizens.
One example
of a nation where this level of control, and more, has been successfully
imposed on the population is North Korea.
In this totalitarian state, the opposite of a multi-stakeholder model
has been developed - with the government in full control of North Korean's
Internet access, the dominant network is an intranet-like closed domestic
system called Kwangmyong. Wider Internet
access is prohibited except by special permission and only to a small group,
under close government audit. This is
reflective of the culture in this state, essential to allow the government to
control and limit the knowledge and views of its people. Freely available Internet websites are not
allowed on Kwangmyong unless pre-reviewed, approved and when necessary censored
by government. Other states such as Cuba
and Myanmar have similar systems.
Is this the
kind of Internet we would like to strive towards in the West? The obvious answer is no. Freedom remains a founding principle of the
constitution of the United States; while not enshrined in a UK bill of rights,
it remains a foundation of UK culture; in the rest of Europe, freedom is a
given in most, if not all member states.
Single ownership evidently leads to unitary control; unitary control
leads to censorship and limitations on individual freedom. The current multi-stakeholder governance and
development models must be kept and nurtured then, both to allow people the
freedom to express and share their opinions without fear of reprisal and to
keep up the pace of technological progress.
Let us
imagine an Internet governed entirely by states. How would such a model be funded? In the past, websites would be created on a
non-profit basis by enthusiasts and experts, and many 'webmasters' would keep
their websites operational from love of their specialism rather than the
prospect of monetary gain. Even now,
there are examples across the web of free services funded by donation, but
these are dwindling in favour of 'freemium' services driven by commercial
interests. At present, advertising
revenue provides the momentum that keeps the Internet moving. Under a
governmental mandate, such an Internet could not exist.
Anyone who
has worked for local or national government could imagine how such a
quick-thinking, dynamic community would fit into bureaucratic, Kafkaesque
models of governance. What if the
controlling government forced users to fill out forms to seek approval for new
websites? Or imposed caps on the number
of posts a user could make citing resource constraints? Or, more seriously impose further restrictions
on the freedom of expression of users?
Censorship of views, however moderate or extremist? What if a paranoid government, desperate to
dispel anti-government protests, decided to prohibit criticism of the ruling
party?
Such an
Internet would be unthinkable, yet as described earlier, this model exists
already in totalitarian countries. The
West must be extremely careful not to allow the freedom of the Internet to be
further compromised in the name of ideological causes, whether these are driven
by paranoid dictatorships or the ever-increasing wish of so-called democratic
countries to ceaselessly surveil their citizens.
Let's now
look at one company that is established today, and try to understand whether we
have preserved the multi-stakeholder model on the Internet that started with a
handful of entrepreneurs, scientists and engineers two hundred years ago, or
whether the commercial sphere is moving towards single-handed control. Facebook is a large, well-known social media
platform with dominant market share.
With the effective death of MySpace by 2011 (despite a relaunch in 2013
with mixed results) and the closure of Friends Reunited in February 2016,
Facebook now dominates the social media landscape with over a billion active
monthly users. Facebook is an example of
where the multi-stakeholder model has converged into the single-stakeholder
model.
Does this
mean Facebook is an example of a successful single-stakeholder model for
Internet use? Its dubious recent history
casts long shadows. Facebook spent over
US$10m on lobbying efforts in the United States in 2015, exerting influence on
lawmakers and other political entities over Internet-related legislation. To emphasise this point - this is a
non-elected commercial entity exerting pressure on elected political leaders to
shape certain aspects of the Internet to suit the interests of the company -
not the interests of the general public, nor altruistic or philanthropic
groups, but the company, and their shareholders.
Up until
2013, it was impossible to permanently delete a Facebook account. Information posted on Facebook such as
political views, personal communications, identity information and more would
remain in the possession and ownership of Facebook with no right for the user
to demand deletion. After 2013, permanent
deletion of accounts became possible but it is doubtful whether the data is
actually removed from Facebook servers - it is far more likely that data is
simply rendered inaccessible, since this presents the most cost-effective
option. From a societal perspective,
Facebook has also been blamed for high divorce rates - in a survey in 2009, it
was estimated that approximately 20 percent of all divorces included some
reference to the social platform.
There are
many more criticisms that the company has drawn in the last decade, many of
which have striking parallels to North Korea - issues relating to censorship,
influence, control, privacy and surveillance.
With increasing polarisation of the Internet around large, flagship
corporations such as Facebook and consequently the reduction of the number of
stakeholders in Internet development and governance, basic human rights are at
risk of violation. This underlines the
need to have a diverse range of controlling entities in charge of the planet's
most prolific network instead of encouraging migration to a system with a
unified controlling party.
FUTURE
Effective
governance of the Internet in the future is a doubtful proposition. While social media is thriving, greater
tectonic shifts are underway and the future of the Internet looks to be moving
at an accelerated pace, not just towards mobile but towards wearable and
embedded devices - the so-called 'Internet of Things' (IoT). With devices such as the Fitbit monitoring
heart rate, exercise, sleep patterns, food intake and even sexual activity, and
this data sharable to a mobile app, traditional website and via social media to
friends and family, how does a government effectively regulate the use of such
a device?
Current
tools such as the UK Computer Misuse Act 1990 (with revisions) are beginning to
look hopelessly traditional and outdated.
Section 3A of the Act, for example, prohibits the supply of articles
that may be used to commit offences as defined in the other sections of the
Act. Does this mean computer
manufacturers may be committing an offence?
What if a wearable device such as a smartwatch was used to record video
that was later used to commit an offence - does this render the manufacturer
and retailer liable to prosecution? The
Computer Misuse Act has no reference to IoT concepts such as wearables, or
embedded domestic environmental controls such as the NestCam.
With
encryption now commonplace in e-commerce and a move towards encryption as a
standard protocol, governments are left without means to enact surveillance or
control of Internet users. Even with the
advanced tools available to specialist government departments (such as GCHQ and
MI5 in the UK and the NSA in the USA), as the current Apple debate shows,
governments are a long way off from maintaining control of Internet activity.
This
increasing lack of ability to govern the Internet is a welcome move. Historical examples have shown that hobbling
free-market technological progress or imposing excessive governance driven
through state-driven paranoid megalomania simply doesn't work. Printing presses came about despite the
government; the early Internet, funded by DARPA, exploded into the public
domain. Despite the USA banning the
export of encryption software, so did encryption, and progress into
technologies such as the IoT in the future will happen despite, not because, of
state intervention. Regulatory and
governance powers as they exist today cannot be effectively exercised when
governments fail to keep up with the pace of technology.
CONCLUSIONS
Through
examining the history of computing, the present state of governance and the
attractiveness of the multi-stakeholder model, it is clear that the only viable
path forwards is to maintain the multi-stakeholder model.
As it has
always done, commerce will provide the infrastructure. End users will continue to provide the
advertising revenue that powers the engine of growth. Although the content of Internet may be
tainted by commercial interests, it should remain a domain where ordinary
people are free to speak, create, criticise, trial, explore and imagine. It should remain an invention that we can use
to communicate with each other, building bridges, doing business, exploring new
places. Ceding control of Internet
governance to single organisations, whether governmental or commercial, would
be disastrous - North Korea provides the example of poor state governance, and
the negative impact that Facebook has had on Internet impartiality provides the
commercial example.
Government
does, however have a role. State
governance should guide development, in much the same way that banks of a river
guide the flow. Governments should step
in only when necessary to curb the worst excesses of complete freedom; where
existing laws are broken online, the government should support the prosecution
of offenders under existing legislation.
If commercial interests cause significant disruption with negative
connotations or consequences, governments could introduce rules or caps to
limit the influence that such commercial giants have on the rest of the online
population. If governments want to
encourage technological progress, then from a governance perspective they would
be well advised to stand aside and let today's entrepreneurs, scientists,
tinkerers, academics, hobbyists, experimenters and ordinary users provide the
driving force.
We are some
way from the Internet transforming from a free-market commercial Utopia into a
philanthropic reflection of the best aspects of humanity, driven by altruism,
enthusiasm, compassion and a wish to improve the human condition. It may never happen. But over-regulation through consolidation and
seizure of Internet control is not only the wrong answer to a question that
should never have been asked; it would be disastrous, severely limiting economic, social and cultural outlooks globally.
No comments:
Post a Comment