Internet Administration in the RIPE Area

[Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel@karrenberg.net>]

Please forgive the long message. 
My excuse is that I do not post to these lists often.
I hope it you will consider it worth reading.
A HTML version can be found at
http://www.ripe.net/home/daniel/euro-notes.html


Daniel


------------------------------------------


Internet Administration in the RIPE Area

Some Personal Notes

Daniel Karrenberg
<daniel@karrenberg.net>


Introduction

I am taking part in the current discussion about Internet administration
and the establishment of a new IANA.  In the course of this discussion
it has become apparent to me that the structures developed in Europe and
surrounding areas over the past decade are not as widely known as I have
always assumed.  Hence this set of notes.  It is intended for those who
wish to know more about the European Internet administration structures.

Readers should be aware that I have been one of the co-founders of RIPE,
that I am the general manager of the RIPE NCC and that I have taken part
in the development of the structures I describe.  These remarks are
strictly personal and the responsibility for them is mine only.  I will
conclude with a few remarks on the consequences the existence of these
structures has on the current debates.  I will be happy to receive
comments on these notes by electronic mail. 


RIPE: An Open Forum for Debate

RIPE is an open forum established as early as 1989, a real long time ago
by Internet standards.  The geographical area of relevance for RIPE
includes Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia. 
The objective of RIPE is nothing more than being an open forum in which
to discuss Internet issues.  RIPE is not a formal organisation at all. 
In fact it is not a legal body and, contrary to a common
misunderstanding, one cannot become a 'member'.  RIPE has no formal
power or authority, it can only make recommendations and help building
consensus.  RIPE has traditionally been oriented towards technical
coordination, but has never excluded other subjects if there was a clear
demand for RIPE to discuss them.  A recent example is the establishment
of a working group focussed on ccTLD matters.  Anybody interested can
participate in RIPE by attending the meetings and by taking part in the
discussion on the various mailing lists.  RIPE holds three meetings a
year which are attended by 200+ people.  RIPE publishes minutes of the
meetings and the working groups.  Great care is taken to not to
disenfranchise those who are not able to attend the meetings.  An area
clearly outside the scope of RIPE is the development of Internet
standards.  This task is for the IETF which operates on a global scale. 

For further information see http://www.ripe.net/info/ripe/ripe.html


RIPE NCC: Neutral Coordination for ISPs

The RIPE NCC is operating since 1992 after discussions within RIPE
established the need for a technical coordination service with a paid
staff to supplement the RIPE activities carried out by volunteers.  One
of the most visible activities of the RIPE NCC is the administration of
the Internet address space in the RIPE area.  The RIPE NCC took up this
activity shortly after it began operations in response to the technical
requirement for hierarchical allocation of address space.  The RIPE NCC
performs activities for the benefit of the Internet service providers
(ISPs) in Europe and the surrounding areas; primarily activities that
the ISPs need to organise as a group, although they may be competing
with each other in other areas.  The RIPE NCC must therefore observe
strict neutrality and impartiality with respect to individual service
providers.  In particular it refrains from activities that are clearly
in the domain of the ISPs themselves.  Activities are defined,
performed, discussed and evaluated in an open manner.  Results of
activities such as software tools are made available to the public. 
Budgets as well as actual income and expenditure are published. 
Individual data will be kept in confidence where required.  For example
the amounts of address space allocated and assigned are published as are
database entries of individual assignments including the relevant
contact data; however the information supporting individual assignment
requests is kept in strict confidence.  While an activity may result in
services being provided to an individual ISP, performing the activity as
a whole must benefit the European ISPs as a group.  For example address
space registration services are provided to ISPs individually, but the
activity as such benefits all ISPs by distributing address space
according to common standards as well as maintaining a neutral and
accessible registry.  The current RIPE NCC Activity plan can be found at
http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-162.html.

The RIPE NCC is currently organised as an association under Dutch law. 
This provides the necessary representative structure by which the
members control it.  The structure of the association has been developed
in an open, well documented process.  For a description of the
rationales behind the structure see
http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-161.html.  It should be noted that
membership has quite a low threshold and there is no vetting of members.
The RIPE NCC does not determine who can become a member or receive
services.  (During its establishment the RIPE NCC operated under the
umbrella of the TERENA association; the representative structure for
RIPE NCC members were developed within TERENA since 1993 and the
membership has in fact determined the RIPE NCC activities through an
open and transparent process since that time). 

One particularly noteworthy item in this context is that the membership
has decided that the RIPE NCC will *not* undertake activities that can
be subsumed under general lobbying or general 'trade association' work. 
It is felt that such work would necessarily force the NCC to take a
position on controversial issues about which the membership would be
divided.  This would jeopradise the neutral and impartial position of
the NCC.  At the same time however it was explicitly affirmed that the
RIPE NCC would represent the membership on issues directly relating to
its activities.  The RIPE NCC thus has an explicit mandate to represent
its membership on issues of address space distribution and the
establishment of a new IANA. 

The RIPE NCC currently has more than 1100 members from 80 countries 
in the RIPE area.

The RIPE NCC has strong ties to RIPE.  Many aspects of RIPE NCC
activities are discussed in RIPE working groups and suggestions for new
activities often originate in RIPE.  Most notably the local policies
regarding the allocation and assignment of Internet address space are
developed in the RIPE local-IR working group, a forum open to everyone. 
It is noteworthy that this open forum has always provided the
opportunity for input by address space users and other groups. 

For further information see http://www.ripe.net/info/ncc/aboutncc.html


ccTLDs: Working National Structures

In the RIPE area the administration of ccTLDs is at widely varying
stages of development.  However I'd like to emphasize that the
structures are quite well developed in those countries with a relatively
long Internet history.  Typically ccTLDs in those countries are
administered by a not-for-profit foundation or association created for
that purpose.  These bodies are established such that all the
stakeholders can be represented.  These bodies are typically watched
very closely by a number of interest groups, the legislature and the
government. 

It is particularly noteworthy that the older ccTLDs have successfully
developed policies that effectively deal with trademarks, dispute
resolution, cyber squatting and other common problems.  Many of them
have well developed systems of multiple registrars working with a single
registry.  The registrars typically are ISPs but can also be other
service companies.  In short: the policies and systems for ccTLD
administration in the RIPE area are further developed than the policy
and system for gTLD administration currently are.  The ccTLD communities
have solved many of the problems which dominate the Internet governance
debate.  This is not surprising because the underlying reason for the
difficulties with the gTLDs is their global scope.  Many of those
difficulties are much more straightforward to tackle when the scope is
limited to a particular country. 

It is important to point out that not all ccTLDs in the RIPE area have
yet reached the sophistication the oldest ones have.  Some of the more
recently established ccTLDs are still administered by single individuals
or academic institutions.  However they are all developing and the trend
towards open non-for-profit self-regulating structures is quite strong. 

For more information you can start at http://www.ripe.net/centr/tld.html
This page refers to the web sites of the ccTLD administrators.  Due to
the local scope much of the detailed information tends to be in the
local language.  The list of sites with some documentation in english
includes: uk, nl, no, de, ... 


CENTR: Coordinating ccTLDs

Recent discussions in the RIPE TLD working group established the need
for a coordination activity supporting ccTLD administrators.  Also the
ccTLDs found that their interests were not adequately represented in the
debates on Internet governance.  35 ccTLDs established a policy group
with two main aims: first to build consensus on name space
administration issues and speak with a united voice, second to start a
coordination activity on operations and developing policy.  The
intention is to establish a legal body for these purposes in 1999.  In
the meantime the project is called RIPE CENTR and the RIPE NCC has
agreed to act as an umbrella for hosting the coordination activity much
like TERENA did for the RIPE NCC.  The RIPE CENTR policy group and the
RIPE NCC agree that this is only a temporary arrangement which will
transition into the legal body to be established by the ccTLDs. 

RIPE CENTR also has ties with RIPE, which it regards as an important
open forum.  Especially the RIPE TLD working group is a forum open to
everyone wanting to discuss ccTLD related matters. 

For more information see http://www.ripe.net/centr/index.html


ISP Associations: Trade Associations

In a number of countries Internet service providers are starting to form
ISP associations.  Typically these associations are trade associations
with activities normally found there.  They deal with local regulatory
issues and local legislation.  A common theme seems to be content
regulation and legislation about issues like wire-tapping and 'decency'.
These initiatives currently are at their early stages of development and
liaison relationships with other organisations such as ccTLD
administrators are being established. 

Recently a number of initiatives has started to organise clubs of such
associations both on the European and RIPE area level.  I expect that
these activities, which are quite recent, will develop and establish
liaison relationships with RIPE and other regional organisations. 

For more information see: 
http://www.euroispa.org/ 
http://www.eurointernet.org/


Users: Still to Happen

I am not currently aware of organisations specifically representing
Internet users in the RIPE area neither on the local nor on the regional
level.  Consumer organisations in various countries have taken up issues
and various local groups have reacted to local legislation regarding
issues like content, privacy and encryption.  I am very interested to
get into contact with any such organisations. 


Summary: Sophisticated Administration Structures Exist in the RIPE Area

Over the past decade appropriate and sophisticated structures for
Internet administration have been developed in the RIPE area.  They
derive their legitimacy from an appropriate membership base as well as
open process and a long -by Internet standards- tradition.  These
structures with their knowledge and considerable experience deserve the
proper consideration in the current global debate. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Below are a few personal observations on how the RIPE area governance
structures influence issues currently debated.


The Number of Names Registered May Not Be Relevant

Quite often in recent debates gTLDs and ccTLDs have been compared using
the number of registrants or the number of second-level names registered
as a metric for comparison.  More often than not such comparisons are of
dubious value because of the differences in policies. 

Traditionally gTLDs, and most notably among them com, are typically
administered by commercial entities interested in revenue from
registrations and as such have relatively liberal policies on which
names can be registered. 

ccTLDs on the other hand are typically administered by not-for-profit
entities interested in populating the name space in a rational manner
agreed by the local Internet community.  They typically have policies to
protect trade mark interests and to prevent cyber squatting.  This
necessarily leads to less second-level registrations in typical ccTLDs
than in typical gTLDs. 

Without judging the merits of the policies concerned it is clear that
the number of second-level registrations or registrants is highly
dependent on the policies.  Therefore one cannot just take this number
as an absolute measure without qualification.  In particular such a
number is not very useful in determining the amount of influence or
representation a particular TLD should have when it comes to setting
global policies concerning all TLDs. 


Global Administration Has To be Built on Regional Structures

The existence of legitimate regional structures such as RIPE, RIPE NCC,
RIPE CENTR and the ISPAs suggests that global administration structures
should be built on the foundations they provide rather than be set up in
parallel with them.  The RIPE NCC is the obvious party to form roughly
one third of the proposed address supporting organisation.  RIPE CENTR
is the obvious party to represent RIPE area ccTLDs in the proposed name
supporting organisation.  The ISPAs are obviously an important party
starting to bundle the interests of an important part of the Industry in
the RIPE area. 

It has been suggested that the new IANA should be a global organisation
with individual membership.  Such a proposal not only neglects the
existing foundations on which to build, but also provides the arena for
considerable conflicts from the start.  Those represented in the
existing local and regional structures will see little reason to also
join a global organisation individually.  They will argue that they have
long established regional organisations which can easily represent their
collective interests at the global level.  Inevitably some of those not
currently part of the regional structures will join the global
organisation in an effort to pursue their regional interests at the
global level because this may appear to be easier than pursuing them in
local and regional structures.  Conflicts are guaranteed.  Not
accidently this is the pattern observed by the IANA on many ccTLD
related conflicts for a long time already: Local parties appeal to IANA
in conflicts that are best resolved on the local level.  IANA already
now finds it difficult to impossible to address the individual issues
from its global position other than referring them back to the local
level. 

The new IANA should be an organisation built on existing local and
regional structures rather than in parallel to these structures. 


The New IANA Has to be Robust and Flexible

In general the planning horizon in the discussions to me appears to be
too short in many cases.  Most notably there are proposals to populate
the initial IANA board predominantly with naming experts because naming
is high on the immediate agenda. 

Such proposals are very unwise because one should not design global
administration structures or selecting their bodies based on very short
term objectives.  The structures we develop and the people we select now
will have to last a long time by Internet standards.  The agendas will
change.  The important objective is to create a practical structure that
will receive wide acceptance and that is designed to evolve as the
Internet and the regional structures evolve around it.  This is why the
September deadline, while important, cannot be an excuse to implement
short term solutions.