The Next-Generation Internet: Who's In Control?
The European business and noncommercial communities are playing a game
of catch up on the Internet. While they are experimenting with and
getting grips on the continuous influx of new technologies and ensuing
standards (see the Bangemann
report), America is already discussing the implementation of the
next-generation Internet. The question is: how can Europe and the rest
of the world catch up and become an active participant in the shaping
of this new structure?
The next-generation Internet discussion is a peculiar one, focused on
two themes and variations - technical applications and social
implications- and conducted almost exclusively by U.S.- dominated
organizations that do not seem to communicate on all levels. http://www.ieee.org/> IEEE and http://www.ietf.org> IETF are talking about and working on
introducing all kinds of advanced features like multi-point casting.
They deliver great work in this area, but do not fully address usability
and the global effects of new developments. Groups like http://www.isoc.org/>ISOC and http://www.farnet.org/>FARNET are talking about how the
groups providing funding for the next-generation Internet - U.S.
universities, corporations, and government - may be
"productive" in and profit from the new model.
Issues like intellectual/information property, cross-border information
trade, verifiable and controllable information flows, world education
and the influence of worldwide media (like http://www.cnn.com/>CNN) are only addressed in the sideshows
(see CFP and http://www.epn.org/tcf/tcdrak01.html/>EPN) or receive only
minor attention. It looks like a new form of colonialism in which this
(simple) western information-structure will be forced upon the rest of
the world.
It's strange to see that while the success of the Internet is mainly
attributed to its easy accessibility to all kinds of people - religious,
educational, political, business, cultural groups, etc. - that many of
these people are given very little chance to voice their ideas on future
directions for the Internet. Even stranger is the absence of direct
representation by most of the governments of the world.
If we want the world to profit from this new era, we need a new
approach. First, we need to establish what the world needs in this new,
overwhelming Information Age. And what the world needs is a global
information infrastructure (GII) - not just a "next-generation"
Internet. If GII is to become a reality, focus must be shifted away from
elitist Internet developers and users to include diverse communities
worldwide.
So how can this be done, or even more important, who can do this? At
this moment, there is only one institution that's fit for the job: the
United Nations. Among other things,
it's aim is to achieve international cooperation in solving
international problems and to harmonize the actions of nations.
In the same way the UN has bodies like UNICEF and UNCTAD, a new body -
UNIIC (United Nations Information Infrastructure Counsel) - should be
founded. Upon it's formation, four tasks should be undertaken:
- Defining the goals of the next-generation Internet as the GII
- Coordinating and synchronizing all existing groups working on GII.
- Securing the cooperation of all countries and fitting their
information infrastructures into the emerging model.
- Creating and implementing laws for GII.
In order for the above to be accomplished, UNIIC must first create a
constitution - one that will be accepted by all groups. It would have to
be a combination of the http://205.185.3.2/presidents/aae/side/amend.html>American Bill
of Rights, the http://www.bible.ca/s-10-commandments.htm>Ten Commandments
and the UN
Charter.
Statements like "Everyone has the right to join GII once they accept the
rules that apply to it" and "Thou shalt not discriminate between
messages of the same priority that pass through machines should be
established". It is essential to avoid statements that are either
time-bound (for example, addressing spamming when it probably won't
exist in ten years time) or region/culture-bound (like "Thou shalt
address a Lord with 'Lordship'" in e-mail messages).
Enforcing this constitution should not be much of a problem. There would
be three stages of enforcement. First, a warning (known to everybody).
Second, a downgrading to lowest priority on all traffic to and from the
non-abiding individual or group. And last, but not least (if the first
two do not work) a total shutdown, meaning no traffic to or from the
non-abiding individual or group. This last stage establishes a strong
boycott mechanism which will "virtually" kill off wrongdoers. The last
two stages can be implemented by means of a gray and black lists. All
GII users should enforce these lists or risk being placed on the lists
themselves.
In addition, it would be wise for UNIIC to set up and own a worldwide
backbone alongside existing commercial backbones. Priority routing
systems are in the works, which means that those who are willing to pay
for their mail to be delivered faster will be considered more important
than those who cannot afford the price. Several noncommercial groups
(such as the Red Cross) and smaller governments need a guaranteed
backbone. UNIIC's backbone can provide this line and also be used to
gather ideas from all groups for the development of the GII. If there is
more capacity on the UNIIC backbone, it could be open for use next to
other backbones.
Hopefully these suggestions will lead to a considered next step for the
GII. Otherwise, the world cannot truly profit from the possibilities in
front of us.
Stephan Okhuijsen
