Vint Cerf, one of the pioneers of the Internet and a vice president at Google, at a meeting of the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers in Los Angeles, October 2007. (Joi Ito)

CTV.ca

Officials from 18 countries held an impromptu, late-night meeting earlier this month at the United Nations office in Geneva, and made a decision that rattled Internet technocrats around the world.

Autocratic governments like China and Iran attended the meeting, as did several democratic ones. Despite protests by Portugal and the United States, they voted to staff a working group on the future of the Internet Governance Forum — an important theatre of discussion on matters of cyberspace — by governments alone.

The seemingly arcane move reverberated through a community of technical experts, academics and civil society groups who felt they had been unfairly excluded.

Fourteen technical organizations that help oversee how cyberspace runs wrote an open letter asking the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) to reverse its decision. Meanwhile the Internet Society, an umbrella group that helps manage technical standards online, posted a petition to its website in protest.

“A significant fuss has been kicked up about it,” said Byron Holland, president and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, which manages the .ca domain.

Even Google waded into the fray. Vint Cerf, a vice-president at the online behemoth and one of the pioneers of the Internet, added his name to the petition, alongside 2,600 others. He also attacked the UN decision in a Dec. 17 blog post on Google’s website.

“We don’t believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance,” Cerf wrote. “The current bottoms-up, open approach works — protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let’s fight to keep it that way.”

Eleven days later the UNCSTD buckled under the pressure, according to the Internet Society, and agreed to include up to 20 non-governmental groups.

The episode underscored what has become an uneasy relationship between organizations that have helped gently steer the Internet since its infancy, and UN bodies that came to focus on Internet governance during the 2000s as cyberspace continued to unfurl across the brick-and-mortar world.

“The root of the debate here is a philosophical difference between how you approach the future governance of the Internet,” Holland told CTV.ca by phone. “Everything that goes forward from that will have a very different tone or direction.”

Technocrats like Holland have also been hinting at a specific threat: that the UN could become a forum where authoritarian governments who are riled by the free flow of information work to put the breaks on its superhighway.

Cyber peace treaty

A second UN body — the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which manages the world’s radio frequencies and orbiting satellites — has been debating who should govern the Internet for years.

Its secretary general, Hamadoun Toure, would like to spearhead the creation of a “cyber peace treaty” to prevent the Internet from becoming another domain in which countries wage war against one another, as they do by air or at sea.

“Cyber threats can reach critical infrastructure of any country, the nerve centre of any nation,” Toure said by phone from Geneva. “A sophisticated attack can bring even the most powerful nation to its knees.”

There have been several recent examples of such events. During a dispute with Russia in 2007, Estonia was hit by widespread cyber attacks that knocked out bank, newspaper and government websites. Similar denial-of-service attacks struck Georgian media and government websites a year later as Russian tanks rolled into South Ossetia.

Then last July, the discovery of the Stuxnet worm led to speculation that a foreign government was trying use malicious software to cripple Iran’s nuclear program.

But there are a number of hurdles to creating an international agreement that would discourage such attacks. One is who would forge it.

“If we were to have a roundtable on this, you would see not only governments around it. Are we mentally prepared for that, to have around the same table private sector, civil society, consumer groups and governments?” Toure said. “That is what it will take for meeting the challenges of a cyber peace treaty.”

Risky business

Critics of Toure’s proposal worry that non-governmental groups would not be given an equal seat at the table, and point to the ITU’s plenipotentiary conference in October.

There, delegates discussed a Russian proposal to take over managing Internet domain names. Currently that task falls to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a private organization whose president and CEO was barred from attending the meeting.

Others say the ITU’s government-to-government approach is too slow and clunky to manage something as fast-moving as the Internet, or that it could pave the way for less open regimes to introduce new online controls.

“We have to be careful about what institutions take the lead,” said Ron Deibert, director of the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the University of Toronto. “The Chinas, the Irans, the Saudi Arabias of the world want to impose a territorial vision of control over cyberspace — and if the ITU got its wishes, that’s essentially what would happen.”

In future, the debate over who should govern the Internet would do well to bear in mind its success stories like Google and Facebook, said Olaf Kolkman, director of NLnet Labs and chair of the Internet Architecture Board.

If the ease of accessing an unfettered online world helped those billion-dollar corporations evolve from tiny start-ups in garages or university dorm rooms, he suggested, then closing off the Web could lead to stagnation. It might also wall off opportunities for everyone who has yet to set foot in cyberspace.

“If we can preserve the spirit of openness moving forward,” Kolkman wrote in an email, “we will see much of the innovation coming from developing countries, and the billions of people who have yet to come online but who will change the shape of the Internet when they do.”

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101228/un-governments-future-of-the-internet-101230/

The sign outside Google China headquarters in Beijing, adorned with flowers and notes from local Internet users. (Mike Dong)

CTV.ca

For nearly two months, Internet users in China have been waiting anxiously to find out whether the world’s largest online search engine will close in their country.

As ecologist Xiong Zhenqin told the journal Nature recently: “Research without Google would be like life without electricity.”

The Internet giant announced in January it was reassessing whether to continue its operations in China, where 384 million people surf the Web under tight government controls.

Google discovered that hackers had broken into its popular Gmail application. The attacks appeared to originate from mainland China. The culprits were looking for information about Chinese human rights activists and that suggested government involvement, Google alleged.

Citing concerns over security, human rights and freedom of speech, the California-based Internet giant said it would either find a way to stop censoring its search results in China or leave.

Whether Google and Beijing are in negotiations is unclear, but the company has made no public decision on the matter. Meanwhile the cyber attacks, which Google said hit at least 20 other firms, have reverberated through Washington.

The U.S. National Security Agency probed where the hackers were based, tracing the attacks to servers in Taiwan, then reportedly to a pair of Chinese schools. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also demanded that Chinese authorities conduct a thorough and transparent investigation.

“The Google attacks were taken extremely seriously — more than just an incident of potential industrial espionage but a major body blow to the American political system,” said Ronald Deibert, a cybersecurity expert at the University of Toronto.

Deibert is one of the people Google has been soliciting advice from in its dealings with China. He delivered a presentation about the rise of cyberspace control at Google’s headquarters a week before the company uncovered the hack. And officials informed him of their discovery before they went public.

Deibert told CTV.ca the hackers went one step further than was widely reported, ostensibly trying to access directories of data that Google collects, as required by U.S. national security laws.

The company tapped Deibert’s expertise after he co-wrote a 2009 study into cyber attacks against the office of the Dalai Lama. Researchers uncovered an extensive online spy network dubbed GhostNet that they traced back to China. It had compromised 1,295 computers across 103 countries — including some in Canada.

Domestic appeal

Deibert says Canada needs to confront the issues of censorship and government intrigue on the Web that incidents like the Google hack raise.

In a paper published on Feb. 22 by the Canadian International Council think-tank, he called on Ottawa to develop a cyberspace strategy that includes:

• Fixing Canadian laws that foreign governments could use to justify controlling the Web, such as with content filtering or online surveillance
• Scrutinizing whether Canadian technology exports are being used by foreign governments to restrict Internet access
• Encouraging “arms control in cyberspace” by, for example, proposing a UN treaty to make the Web more open and peaceful

The idea of “arms control” may seem extreme, but governments have started using the Internet to help them wage war.

During the 2008 conflict in Georgia, hackers took down key government websites in the capital of Tbilisi while Russian tanks rolled across the border. Military powers including France, Israel and the U.S. have adopted such cyberwar tactics as part of their defence policies.

The Internet is “entering a dangerous and chaotic phase, essentially a cyber-arms race,” Deibert said, and that’s led to spiralling computer espionage and computer network attacks.

“We need at least some government to stand up and say ‘how are we going to restrain this?’”

Policy ‘vacuum’

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government pledged, in this week’s throne speech, to create a cybersecurity strategy that would protect Canada’s “digital infrastructure.”

So far, however, there has been a “surprising vacuum in Canadian policy around cyberspace generally,” Deibert says.

Ottawa has been considering legislation on the issue. “The Investigative Powers of the 21st Century Act” was tabled last June. It proposed that Internet service providers be required to hand over data and personal information about their customers to police. But the bill hadn’t become law by the time Parliament was prorogued.

The federal government’s existing cybersecurity efforts are organized around Public Safety Canada. For example, CSIS and the RCMP’s technological crime unit probe Web-based threats or attacks and report to Public Safety.

The department is also “leading cross-government efforts to produce a cybersecurity strategy,” David Charbonneau, a spokesperson for Public Safety Canada, told CTV.ca by email.

The strategy will incorporate input from private companies and foreign governments, Charbonneau wrote, “and will build on significant efforts that have been underway.”

Meanwhile south of the border, U.S. President Barack Obama appointed a White House cybersecurity co-ordinator in January. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security created a similar position in 2005, and Washington unveiled a national cybersecurity plan in 2008.

As governments in North America and elsewhere develop policies on cyberspace, they’re influencing how the Internet will evolve.

“The dominant trend right now is the growing militarization of cyberspace,” Deibert said. “That leads down a path towards islands of territorialized Internet that are not connected to each other.”

“Another path I’d prefer to see is one where there’s perhaps a treaty articulated by countries of the world that lays out basic principles for how cyberspace should be governed,” he added. “Hopefully that would be in an open, public way.”

For the time being, efforts to keep the World Wide Web peaceful and open are centring on China, which passed a new round of Internet controls last week.

Without an international cyberspace treaty, the U.S. government is considering whether to lodge a complaint about China’s online censorship with the World Trade Organization.

But China isn’t alone. The list of countries where Internet censorship has become a hot-button issue has grown to include democracies like Germany, France and Australia.