Coverage of past ICANN meetings:
ICANN 36 in Seoul, South Korea
ICANN 35 in Sydney, Australia
ICANN 34 in Mexico City

Comments and questions?
Please post them below in the comment section of the page or send us an email.

* * *

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:27 AM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. summarizes the ICANN 37 meetings in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:25 AM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. talks with Anthony Van Couvering, CEO of Minds + Machines, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:35 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. sits down with Bart Boswinkle, Senior Policy Advisor for the Country Code Name Supporting Organization, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:30 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. speaks with Zahid Jamil, a representative for business interests and other major topics, and a big player for ICANN, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:50 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. talks about DNS Security (DNSSEC) with longtime Internet industry leader Steve Crocker, CEO of Shinkuro Inc., at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya. Updates on the root being signed or scheduled to be signed: .ORG to be signed in July, .COM next year, .NET end of 2010. ccTLDs's showing much activity across the board.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:46 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. spends a few minutes with Ndeye Maimouna, Director of ITC in Senegal, about security around the location of this ICANN 37 meeting being in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:32 AM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. discusses a 2nd topic with Margie Milam about vertical integration and registry/registrar separation around distribution at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:31 AM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. speaks with ICANN Policy Director, Marika Konings, about registration abuse at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:30 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. meets with Stephane Van Gelder, General Manager of Indom.com at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:07 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. meets with Margie Milam, ICANN Senior Policy Counselor, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya. The main topic for this video is Specific Trademark Issues (STI).

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. speaks with ICANN CEO, Rod Beckstrom, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya. Big stories coming out of Kenya include further networking out of Africa, EOI board vote and progress areas for new gTLDs.

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:10 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. has a discussion with Liz Gasster, ICANN Senior Policy Counselor, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya. WHOIS is the main topic.

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:50 PM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. chats with Avri Doria, Chair, Executive Committee of the ICANN Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya. Expressions of interest in new gTLD is the main topic.

Update / Local Time: Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:24 AM — Gray Chynoweth, GC, VP Business Operations for Dyn Inc. discusses the .XXX TLD with Stuart Lawley, Chairman & President of the ICM Registry at ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Update / Local Time: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:23 PM — Gray Chynoweth, General Counsel & VP, HR at Dyn Inc. discusses the upcoming ICANN 37 meeting in Nairobi, Kenya. Gray introduces the video blog series, done in conjunction with CircleID for the 4th time. Gray also outlines the topics for this event including security and remote access, new TLD's, the .xxx gTLD, DNSSEC rollout, root scaling, WHOIS study and more.

If you're not making the trip out to Africa, stay tuned and watch all of the footage from ICANN 37 in Nairobi, Kenya following Gray's hike of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania with other Internet professionals (http://kili2010.com).

Brought to you in partnership with Dyn Inc. Please add your feedback and suggestions using the comment form provided on this page or contact us directly.

For those interested in the outcome of the recent face-to-face session, a raw transcript and session summary statement are available here:

http://meetings.apnic.net/29/program/consultation

I'd like to thank APNIC for hosting this session as it is important to discuss these issues publicly in timely manner so that input can be brought to the the March 15-16 ITU IPv6 study group meeting in Geneva. By having a public discussion of these important issues, APNIC (as an ITU-D sector member) can submit the outcome for further consideration in this process.

While the ITU IPv6 study group is a closed meeting, I have received an invitation to participate on March 15-16 in Geneva on ARIN's behalf as an "invited expert", and at that session I will focus on the comments covered in the public consultation that was just held. If you have additional input on this topic that you would like to have considered, please review session materials and then contact your regional internet registry, or your organization/company/government ITU representative if you are aware of one. I will also take comments on the CIR proposal until the ITU IPv6 study group meeting start on 15 March, and will try to do my best to convey the input received.

As you can tell, we're attempting to be as accommodating as possible to the ITU as they explore the issues in this area, and their processes are significantly different than Internet Registry System regarding how input is received and considered. At this point, ARIN considers it very important to support these educational efforts, and hope that it will result in better overall understanding of the success that is today's Internet Registry System.

I hope this post helps the Internet community understand where we are in this interesting process.

Thank you for your feedback and support!

Written by John Curran, President and CEO at American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

The problem is shown to be an outcome of the interaction of the distribution of key material and the regular rollover of the key signing key that forms the trust anchor for the signed zone. When these resolver implementations fall out of sync with the zone's keys then they do not quietly fail, but instead they enter a period of sustained query thrashing, asking the same query from all the name servers of a zone with up to a thousand repetitions from each single initial seed query.

The signing of the root of the DNS and a hierarchical signing delegation from the root downward was intended to circumvent such problems of manual key management and synchronisation, because as long as the client was able to synchronise their key with the root key then there is no such problem of falling out of sync with individual zone keys. However there is a vulnerable period over the next six months when the DNSSEC-signed root is deployed with a deliberately unvalidatable root zone, or DURZ. Clients are meant to avoid loading a local key for the root during this period, as there is no valid public key. But our studies have shown that if a client does mistakenly load a key then the resultant query load of rapid-fire repeated DNSSEC queries and large DNSKEY responses may present traffic problems for both the client and the root servers themselves.

Further on, in mid-2010, the root will be signed with a key that can be validated. The current intent is to regularly roll this root zone key every 2 - 5 years. Our studies show that if clients continue to operate on a manner which does not fail quietly, but fails in a way that generates very high bursts of DNS queries, with repetition factors in the order of up to 300,000 repetitions per seed query in a typical case, then each root zone key rollover has the potential to pose a significant denial of service threat on the root of the DNS posed by such out-of-key-sync clients running the current code levels of DNS resolvers.

The full details of the study can be found at http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-02/rollover.html

About the Authors:

George Michaelson is a Research Scientist at APNIC, the Regional Internet Registry serving the Asia Pacific Region.

Patrik Wallström has been working on DNSSEC and the development of the registry system at .SE for seven years, and with computer security and open source for over 15 years.

Roy Arends is Senior Researcher at Nominet UK, the Internet Registry for .uk domain names.

Geoff Huston the Chief Scientist at APNIC, the Regional Internet Registry serving the Asia Pacific region.

Written by George Michaelson, Senior Research and Development Scientist at APNIC

Top 10 Featured Blogs in 2009:

1. Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail Compromised - But How?
   by Terry Zink - Oct 08, 2009
2. A Closer Look at Iran's State of Internet, Strange Transit Changes in Wake of Controversial Election
   by Jim Cowie - Jun 14, 2009
3. WiMAX vs. LTE
   by Paul Budde - Mar 10, 2009
4. China's "Green Dam Youth Escort" Software
   by Rebecca MacKinnon - Jun 08, 2009
5. Verizon Mandates IPv6 Support for Next-Gen Cell Phones
   by Derek Morr - Jun 09, 2009
6. Cloud Computing Types: Public Cloud, Hybrid Cloud, Private Cloud
   by Sam Johnston - Mar 06, 2009
7. Can't Connect… Won't Connect
   by Bill Thompson - May 13, 2009
8. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009
   by Steven Bellovin - Apr 13, 2009
9. Google AdSense Asks Publishers to Change Their Websites' Privacy Policy
   by Dhaval Doshi - Mar 13, 2009
10. YouTube's Fine - Analysts Don't Understand Internet Peering
    by Brough Turner - Apr 16, 2009

Top 10 News in 2009:

1. Network Solutions Under Large Scale DDoS Attack, Millions of Websites Potentially Unreachable
   Jan 23, 2009
2. U.S. General Reserves Right to Use Physical Force, Even Nuclear, in Response to Cyberattack
   May 13, 2009
3. Google Cloud Storage Coming Within Weeks
   May 20, 2009
4. Finland First Country to Make Broadband a Legal Right
   Oct 14, 2009
5. SPECIAL: Updates from the ICANN Meetings in Sydney
   Jun 26, 2009
6. Google Rolling Out Its Services Over IPv6
   Jan 08, 2009
7. ICANN's President and CEO Announces Resignation
   Mar 02, 2009
8. Iran's Internet Censorship Most Sophisticated in the World
   Jun 19, 2009
9. Comcast Unleashes Trial DNS Redirection in Select States
   Jul 09, 2009
10. Latest Cybersquatting Stats from WIPO
    Mar 16, 2009

Top 10 Industry News in 2009 by sponsored posts*:

1. Facebook Selects MarkMonitor Antifraud Solutions to Combat Malware
   by MarkMonitor - Apr 30, 2009
2. .ORG First Open Top-Level Domain to be Signed with DNSSEC
   by PIR - Jun 02, 2009
3. Perspectives from a Nonprofit Domain Name Registry on Navigating the Social Media Frontier
   by PIR - Apr 24, 2009
4. Expanding Internet Access Driving Software Piracy, Study Says
   by MarkMonitor - May 22, 2009
5. A Seemingly Overwhelming Number of Important Documents Released by ICANN
   by MarkMonitor - Jun 02, 2009
6. MarkMonitor AntiFraud Solutions Combine Proven Antiphishing and Expert Antimalware Capabalities
   by MarkMonitor - Mar 23, 2009
7. DNSstuff.com Offers Trusteer Rapport Product to Help Users Boost Their Defenses Against Online Fraud
   by DNSstuff - Mar 23, 2009
8. dotMobi Names AutoTrader.mobi as Millionth Site Tested by Acclaimed mobiReady Tool
   by dotMobi - May 20, 2009
9. IP Rights in Digital Environment Key Element of Proposed Treaty
   by MarkMonitor - Apr 15, 2009
10. COCC Partners with MarkMonitor for Anti-Phishing Services
    by MarkMonitor - Mar 18, 2009

* Featured news updates from CircleID's industry participants by more information here - see 'Dedicated Marketing Channel' section

Written by CircleID Reporter

The ITU stills seems to cling to the notion that countries get IP blocks, as that is the driver for Resolution 64, which in turn is the basis for a study commissioned by the ITU which recommends the implementation of Country Internet Registries as competition to the Regional Internet Registries.

The ITU staff member who spoke about Resolution 64 told us tell us that some ITU members feel "everything is perfect" in relation to IPv6 address distribution, and that nothing should change. However some other member states, particularly those from the developing world want some changes. My question to her (if that workshop had had remote participation available) would have been: "Which developing countries asked for this and when?"

Her rhetoric was straight out of the pre-WSIS era, like the last 5 years of capacity building around these issues haven't happened. The first thing that struck me as not being current was her statement that "GAC statistics show that developing countries representatives are relatively low and in the RIR [regional Internet registry] process".

Well, I just took a look at the composition of the GAC, and I see 45 developed nations and 43 developing countries who have GAC seats. (I used a very generous definition of "developed countries" BTW, so it's possible that by others definitions, emerging economies have more representation in the GAC than the developed world). The second part of that statement is untrue by definition, here in Africa, and I suspect, in other parts of the world. In other words, it seems obvious that in the AfriNIC Policy Development Process for example, we should hear mostly African voices participating in IP address policy making. In fact, this is the case, as I am sure is true in the LACNIC and APNIC regions.

My feeling is that if countries (as nation states) want to participate in the IP address policy communities, then they should make sure their employees become involved (as they have clearly done in the GAC). In any case, the idea that developing countries are not represented in the policy development process (PDPs) of the RIRs is nonsensical. Having more localized representation and regional self determination regarding policies is the reason we have the 2 newest RIRs.

Bringing the IP address PDPs closer to the people (on a national level instead of a regional level) is one reason cited by Professor Sureswaran Ramadass, to develop Country Internet Registries in his study commissioned by the ITU. Conveniently enough, the study calls for the ITU to be the "Alternative RIR" but for a global region (oxymoronic, I know). The problem with the notion of putting nation states in charge of IP address policies is that there is no guarantee that these states would build PDPs that are open, transparent and bottom up, as is the case with the current RIR PDPs. In Africa, decisions made by governments are usually made behind closed doors, and unfortunately these decisions are not necessarily made in the public interest, or in the interests of the community of global Internet users. By contrast, the AfriNIC PDP is completely open, transparent and inclusive. Anyone can join and help determine the policies followed by AfriNIC staff and Local Internet Registries.

In addition, once a nation has an telecommunications asset (think frequencies or licenses), as IPv6 blocks would surely be perceived, the tendency is to maximize revenue from that asset. These assets have been traditionally used to protect incumbent telcos and, more unfortunately, to line the pockets of government officials. Dr. Ramadass seems naive when he suggests that country-based Internet registry (CIRs) wouldn't necessarily be publicly owned. Would the ITU allow a non-member Civil Society body to run a CIR when it had an ITU member (usually a regulator or incumbent monopoly telco) in that country?? Would the regulator/government allow such a scheme if there was an asset they think they could monetize? It seems highly unlikely.

Several years ago, one African nation I am familiar with, even mooted the idea that ISPs MUST get their IP addresses from the regulator. Scary, but true, and I'm afraid this would become quite common.

Professor Ramadass' main thrust was that Internet users have matured, they want a choice. "Right now we have a single choice, and choices is what we are asking for." What he seems to ignore, or not understand, is that users get their addresses from their ISP who acts as a local Internet registries (LIRs). As long as Users have a choice of ISPs, then they have choice in selecting IP address provider, of course, what they are buying is not IP addresses, but IP connectivity. Dr. Ramadass misses this (or completely ignores it) or perhaps its just hyperbole when giving a presentation, but the idea of end user choice when selecting an IP address registry means decoupling IP address assignment from connectivity. In this document, the end user in his plan gets their IP addresses from their ISP, so perhaps it was just a rhetorical flourish.

It wasn't his strangest however, that was "Can any of you tell me you would only like to buy from one shop? Can any woman tell you that?" It doesn't matter if you are an end user or an ISP, one doesn't BUY IP addresses, one leases them for the duration of an allocation or assignment.

Another bombshell of his: "Why don't the 5 RIRs compete." Instead of competition between the RIRs, we have cooperation, collaboration and coordination. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which is better for the Internet as a whole. Of course, If you are a global organization, you CAN get allocations from different RIRs for business units in those distinct regions, but these (relatively few) cases aren't really seen as competition between the RIRs.

When talking about conservation of addresses he implied that address blocks are given out to all that apply: "that means my son could go on the net, put up an application and get a /32" Now that is weird. Of course his son could get a /32, IF he could meet the criteria in his region. He would have to prove he had a legitimate business, via company registration documents, become a member of the RIR, pay his dues as a member and describe in his application how the address block would be used. It's not like IP blocks are just given out willy-nilly. However, his proposal would open up the field to just such abuse, as there is no guarantee that CIRs would follow the strict application processes that the RIRs use.

Local Internet Registries must agree to follow the rules of the RIR. Dr. Ramadass suggests that enforcement of this is too big a task on a regional level, it should be done locally. That is the beauty of the LIR, it does the local education and agrees to enforce the regional policies at the local level when it becomes a LIR. LIRs also do the functions he mentions would be done by a CIR (systems, training, helpdesk). LIRs help their customers with the often arcane knowledge regarding routing and DNS reverse delegation procedures and they can do it in their local language. The burden of setting up CIRs for developing countries would be onerous and very difficult, as engineers would have to be lured from the private sector or given extensive training. Who would pay for this? The ITU? This training is already being done by AfriNIC and AfNOG to LIRs. Would we replicate the AfriNIC training course 53 times (one per African nation). How about replicating WHOIS services, instead of the 5 RIRs providing WHOIS service, would we have hundreds of entities doing this? This all strikes me as an extraordinarily inefficient use of scarce resources.

Prof. Ramadass also claimed that CIRs would localize websites, so that people could understand IP address policies in their own language. If one looks at African regulators websites, one doesn't see much evidence of this at all in regards to telecom policy, so this is a dubious claim at best. However, RIRs in the developing world do offer helpdesk services and training courses in multiple languages. Here in Africa for example, you can go to an IPv6 training course in French or English. if the ITU really wants to help deploy Ipv6 in the developing world, perhaps, as mandated in Resolution 64 they could financially support these multilingual training courses and existing RIR meeting fellowship programs instead of funding self serving "studies".

The APNIC region, where Dr. Ramadass is from, has actually tried this model, which as Izumi Aizu pointed out in the workshop, hasn't met with the greatest success. If I remember correctly, the APNIC community decided years ago to phase out this model. The study acknowledges this saying;

"Currently APNIC has a structure called NIRs. However, the uptake of the NIR model has been very limited. Currently, the existing NIRs essentially process and approve IP address requests made by their countries ISPs and organizations. The address allocations however, are directly made by the respective RIRs and not by the NIRs themselves."

So if it has been tried and failed, what is the motivation for trying again? It would be very interesting indeed to see the documentation on which ITU member states are calling for this kind of system.

In the workshop Dr. Ramadass gave the impression that /32s would be allocated by the ITU to CIRs, but in the document cited above, it seems that the plan is to give CIRs each a /24. Perhaps the document I found is an earlier version. Whatever the case, this plan would lead to greater fragmentation of address space and routing table bloat. This puts undue burden on ISPs in the developing countries who may not be able to afford the "big iron" that ISPs in more developed parts of the world routinely buy. Experts in the field gave excellent background briefings on Internet routing economics in various IPv6 workshops at the 2009 IGF, so I won't belabor the point, except to say that when the study commissioned by the ITU says:

Both the RIR and CIR model follow addressing hierarchy and strive for address aggregation. Irrespective of the RIR or CIR model, address aggregation purely depends on the address allocation algorithm and policies followed.

It ignores the deleterious effects that multiple hierarchies, allocation algorithms and policies differences would have on Internet routing.

All in all, it seems to me that when Dr. Ramadass claims that this plan would have no change on the "integrity, sustainability and routability." of IP address distribution, he is blind to the the negative impacts that the actual implementation of this plan would have in Africa and other parts of the developing world.

A woman from the Nigerian regulator made a great intervention after the presentation on CIRs. She mentioned that there is only one place to get frequency (from the ITU) and this makes for a stable and reliable system of allocation. She noted that in order for such radical change in IPv6 allocation processes to be justified, there must be an ongoing market failure. Clearly the RIRs have not failed in this regard, as the ITU has not failed in spectrum allocation.

If the ITU continues to press this idea, perhaps we Internet users should demand competition in spectrum allocation as well!

Written by McTim, IP Resource Consultant

In a heated exchange, Professor Dr Sureswaran Ramadass, the Director of Nav6 an ITU consultant/fanboy squared off with the new ICANN CEO about competition in IPv6 address distribution. It seems clear that the ITU hasn't given up their hope of becoming a player in distributing IPv6 addresses to their members.

His question, setting off the contretemps, was "Since there are so many IPv6 addresses, why can't we have additional organisations giving it out?" (start at about the 53rd minute of this video)

The answer, of course, is that we CAN have additional organisations, but we SHOULD NOT. There is a policy in place for developing emerging RIRs, the ITU however just doesn't meet the criteria.

These criteria were conveniently summarized for the ICANN Stockholm meeting

I doubt that the ITU could get any objective observer to think that they could meet these criteria, unless they radically changed their way of working of course, which isn't likely.

The reasons we SHOULD NOT have multiple RIRs per continent are various. The first is that RFC2050 (BCP 12) calls for a relatively small number of RIRs, and that they be of continental dimension. Another reason is that it would promote de-aggregation leading to greater bloat of routing tables. In addition, having the ITU set up a registry (or registries) to compete with the existing RIRs would lead to what is known as "RIR shopping". In other words, if a provider didn't like something about the policies set by an RIR community, they could go to an ITU IPv6 registry. This is exactly what Ramadass seems to want. This is generally seen as a very bad idea in the global IP addressing community, as RIR shopping is seen as a way to circumvent the Bottom Up, Transparent, Open, Consensus driven (my acronym for this is BUTOC) way that RIR communities make IP address policies.

The biggest applause of the whole exchange was saved for Dr. Nii Quaynor, the Dean of the African networking community, when he pointed out that he was very happy with the way the RIR system works, as it allows Africans to set their own policies in an open and transparent way, and this multistakeholder self determination is a positive step in development, and any change in this way of collective working is not in the interest of Africa, developing countries, or in the interest of a single Internet.

Written by McTim, IP Resource Consultant

1. What is IPv6?

"IP" is the Internet Protocol, the set of digital communication codes which underlies the Internet infrastructure. IP allows the flow of packets of data between any pair of points on the network, providing the basic service upon which the entire Internet is built. Without IP, the Internet as we know it would not exist.

Currently the Internet makes use of IP version 4, or IPv4, which is now reaching the limits of its capacity to address additional devices. IPv6 is the "next generation" of IP, which provides a vastly expanded address space. Using IPv6, the Internet will be able to grow to millions of times current size, in terms of the numbers of people, devices and objects connected to it¹.

2. Just how big is IPv6?

To answer this question, we must compare the IPv6 address architecture with that of IPv4. The IPv4 address has 32 bits, allowing today's Internet to connect up to around four billion devices. By contrast, IPv6 has an address of 128 bits. Because each additional bit doubles the size of the address space, an extra 96 bits increases the theoretical size of the address space by many trillions of times. For comparison, if IPv4 were represented as a golf ball, then IPv6 would be approaching the size of the Sun².

IPv6 is certainly not infinite, but it is not going to run out any time soon. Each of the RIRs has already been allocated at least one block of IPv6 addresses which is of itself bigger than the entire current IPv4 space. When subdividing and distributing addresses, generous allocations are preferable, as they provide greater flexibility and efficiency in network design, benefiting service providers and end-users alike. However, these will also result in wastage of addresses, so a suitable balance must be maintained between a simple administrative framework and the need for ongoing conservation of addresses.

In developed countries today, the rate of utilization of IPv4 addresses is generally around 2 addresses per head of population³. If this rate of Internet penetration were replicated throughout the world, a total of 12 billion addresses would be needed, an impossible achievement since IPv4 provides a maximum of just 4 billion addresses. On the other hand, the same level of IPv6 penetration would require less than one billionth of the entire IPv6 address space⁴.

IPv6 provides an address space which is sufficient to provide addresses for any conceivable number of individuals, organizations, devices, or network-enabled objects in the foreseeable future (for a number of centuries, at least). Even assuming a uniform global Internet which is a million times denser than that of today's most advanced economy, IPv6, if properly managed, will be able to provide the required addresses⁵.

3. How are allocations made, and to whom?

IP addresses are managed under a system which has been in operation for some 15 years, and which has supported the successful growth of the Internet by a factor of over 100 in that time⁶. This system was established initially by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)⁷, a recognized international standards development organization which is the home of the Internet's core technical standards.

Today, organisations known as Regional Internet address Registry (RIRs⁸) receive IP addresses from a central global source, the IANA (or Internet Assigned Numbers Organisation, which is operated by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers⁹). The RIRs then make allocations directly to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and network operators within their respective regions. This system achieves a balance between the uniform resource management (which is critical to the maintenance of a single globally cohesive Internet), and the direct service of the needs of ISPs (namely, those who need and use Internet address space).

Each of the RIRs is a non-profit organization, and acts in accordance with policies and practices which are established by the Internet community in its region¹⁰. These policies and practices govern the management, allocation, usage and recovery of IP address space (both IPv4 and IPv6) according to the best current practices of the Internet, its industry and stakeholders. At the global level, policies and practices are coordinated through the Address Supporting Organisation (ASO¹¹) of ICANN.

In some cases (currently 8 in total), National Internet address Registries (NIRs) provide services within a specific country or economy, in effect as an agent of the RIR¹². Such registries operate under the policies and authority of their RIR, and do not receive their own allocations of IP address space¹³. The operation of NIRs, where they exist, is specific to local needs and circumstances: for instance, some may be Governmental bodies while others may be independent.

4. How are IPv6 addresses actually being allocated?

Like IPv4, IPv6 address space is allocated by the RIRs in line with the topology of the network itself, to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs, and similar organizations) who require it. Allocations are made under a set of transparent address management policies, in accordance with the demonstrated technical needs of the recipients. When new technologies or applications are developed which may impact upon address management techniques, these are accommodated via open policy development processes which operate in each region. These formal processes are open to all interested stakeholders, through a total of 9 major policy development meetings which are held around the world each year.

In their policy-making to date the RIR communities have made a series of specific decisions to ensure that there are minimal barriers to IPv6 adoption by ISPs and others. At present the minimum size of an IPv6 allocation to any ISP is greater than the entire existing global IPv4 address space, yet each allocation is the equivalent of only a single IPv4 address on today's Internet (one four-billionth of the available address space).

At the end user level, IPv6 addresses are also allocated in very substantial blocks rather than in single addresses or small blocks, as has been the case with IPv4. Under today's policies, each IPv6 user receives enough address space to allow the use of hundreds or thousands of separate segments within a home or business network. Depending on their service configuration, each end user has enough address space to address any conceivable number of devices (literally millions) which might be used. This will allow IPv6-enabled devices including appliances, sensors and objects to be deployed easily and cheaply in the large numbers which are expected in coming years.

5. Why did such large IPv4 address allocations go to US organizations, including the US Government, and its Department of Defense?

The Internet was developed by the US Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA), and was originally used by the American Government and academic organisations. Until the late 1980s the Internet was never expected to become a critical global infrastructure, and IPv4 address allocations were made in a liberal manner, not just in the US, but to government and academic institutions throughout the world. This resulted in many large allocations of IPv4 address space, and the early depletion of the IPv4 address pool (to the extent that in 1991, more IPv4 addresses were allocated than in any year since then¹⁴).

It was only in the early 1990s, when an Internet "boom" became apparent, that concerns arose about the rate and manner of address space distribution¹⁵. At this time, the RIR system was proposed¹⁶ in order to ensure that addresses were managed by the Internet community itself, in the best possible manner. At the same time, work was started on "next generation" of the Internet Protocol, which would be necessary to support long-term Internet growth. This was standardized in 1995 as IPv6¹⁷.

As described above, IPv6 allocations are made on a neutral and impartial "demonstrated need" basis, according to address management policies which can adapt as required to changing needs and circumstances. IPv6 allocations are made uniformly to any organization which demonstrates its requirement, and there is no possibility of "special" allocations being made to any organization, whether Governmental, business or otherwise.

6. How does this system change to meet evolving needs? What about developing countries and the changing face of industry?

Through the RIR policy processes, all stakeholders have the ability to bring concerns to light and to propose solutions for any problems which can be demonstrated. In this way a variety of issues affecting developing countries have been raised and addressed in the past, resulting in policy changes that have supported Internet deployment in those countries. Recently for instance, the size of the minimum IPv4 allocation has been reduced in some regions, allowing easier access to address space by those in disadvantaged circumstances.

It is notable that each of the RIRs, in accordance with its regional priorities and needs, has placed substantial resources into support for Internet development and capacity building in their regions, and particularly in developing countries. This support has taken the form of targeted and subsidized training programs, conference scholarship support, discounted fees, online resources, remote participation facilities for RIR meetings, and many other measures,. In future, as the IPv6 Internet evolves and grows, the regional address policy processes will ensure that all relevant considerations are bought to bear on policy formation, in both developing and developed nations.

The current policy framework for address distribution operates on a needs-based framework, using a timeframe that is generally an annual cycle. For very large deployments that we anticipate with the continued growth of the Internet with IPv6 it may be appropriate for network operators to be able to plan address deployments over a longer timeframe of network deployment. One of the essential attributes of the address distribution system is the ability to adapt and change.

Proposals to change the parameters related to address distribution to meet the evolving needs of this industry at both local and global levels can be considered and endorsed within the respective regional and global policy development processes for address management.

7. Would it be better to set up a UN-based of other multilateral organisation to manage IP address allocations?

The Internet today is a distributed, decentralized, multi-stakeholder enterprise, but one which is also reliable, efficient and secure enough to carry trillions of dollars in value and investment worldwide. Indeed it is argued by many that the success of the Internet has not occurred in spite of its unique mode of coordination, but rather because of it¹⁸.

As the Internet has grown, some Governments and inter Governmental organizations have sought to play a much stronger role in governing its use and ensuring that it is "properly" regulated. This approach has been resisted by the internet community at large, which maintains the view that the imposition of governmental controls would inevitably stifle the currently highly effective network. It has been the experience of many diverse economies, in both developing and developed countries, that successful development of high-capacity, efficient and cost-effective Internet infrastructures has followed from deregulation of the industry in favour of a more self-regulatory and competitive environment.

Industry, working in an environment of vibrant competition at national and global levels, has ensured that the network has grown in the most efficient and effective way, delivering the best content and applications to its users at the best possible price. Civil society has also acted, often at an international level, to ensure that the Internet is put to the best possible uses in serving human development, while being developed and governed in a way which is open, accessible and secure. The multistakeholder, bottom up policy making procedures developed by various non-governmental organizations, formal and informal, has proved to be a successful model which encourages the unique innovative capacity of the internet, without the constraints which would be imposed by the heavier structures of the more traditional international organisations.

8. And what about the future?

IPv6 represents a turning point for the Internet, but one which will take another 5 to 10 years to fully materialize. Some may see this transitional period as an opportunity to propose alternative mechanisms for the management of either IPv6 address allocations, or indeed the Internet itself. However in the absence of any evidence or consensus that a new approach would be beneficial, or that challenges related to IPv6 adoption and transition cannot be managed through the systems, the RIRs will continue to operate as proven, open and inclusive, multi-stakeholder organizations; indeed as some of the best examples of effective Internet Governance which can be found in the world today.

__________
¹ ISOC Briefing Paper 1, "IPv6 and the Future of the Internet”
² A golf ball occupies 0.04l, the Sun 1.4x1030l; the ratio is 1:3.5x1031, or 1:1.7x2104.
³ From http://resources.potaroo.net/iso3166/v4cc.html
⁴ A conservative calculation which assumes the equivalence of 1 IPv4 /32 identifier (of which 232 are available) and 1 IPv6 /64 identifier (of which 264 are available)
⁵ A calculation which follows directly from^4
6 From the World Bank "World Development Indicators”, Internet user population 1993 to 2007
⁷ http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1366.txt "Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space"
⁸ http://www.nro.net
⁹ See http://www.icann.org
¹⁰ ISOC Briefing Paper 10, "The Regional Internet Registry Policy Development Process”
¹¹ See http://www.aso.icann.org
¹² See http://www.apnic.net/policy/nir-criteria/text
¹³ See http://www.apnic.net/policy/operational-policies-nirs
¹⁴ See proceedings of APNIC 27: (slide 4), and APNIC 25: (slide 16)
¹⁵ RFC1338 "Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy"
¹⁶ RFC1366 "Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space"
¹⁷ RFC1886 "Internet Protocol, Version 6"
¹⁸ http://www.isoc.org/news/4.shtml

Written by Paul Wilson, Director General of APNIC

Updates posted in reverse chronological order.

Comments and questions? Please post them below in the comment section of the page or send us an email.

Update / Local Time: Sunday, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:22 AM — Gray Chynoweth talks about the next ICANN meeting to be held in Nairobi with Henry Mungasia, Deputy Secretary Minister of Information in Kenya, and Joe Kiragu, Administrative Manager of Kenya Network Information Center and .KE Registry.

Update / Local Time: Sunday, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:25 AM — Gray Chynoweth speaks with Jothan Frakes, COO of Minds + Machines, a company deeply involved in the introduction of new Top-Level Domain developments, about latest developments that took place at ICANN 36 in Seoul.

Update / Local Time: Sunday, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:22 AM — Gray Chynoweth sits down with Rob Hagarth, ICANN's Senior Policy Director, to talk about the latest developments during the latest meetings in Seoul.

Update / Local Time: Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:05 PM — Gray Chynoweth and Alice Munyua, Communication Commission of Kenya, talk about the next ICANN meeting which will be held in Kenya as well as her perspective on discussions in that took place in Seoul with respect to the African countries.

Update / Local Time: Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:05 AM — Gray Chynoweth talks to Phil Corwin of Internet Commerce Association about some the organization's concerns regarding trademark protection and how it effects domain registrants.

Update / Local Time: Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:05 AM — Gray Chynoweth talks to Robin Gross, Chair of ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC), about the nature of the organization and its reaction towards the introduction of new generic Top-Level Domains.

Update / Local Time: Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:05 AM — Gray Chynoweth speaks with Mike Rodenbaugh of Rodenbaugh Law, a long time ICANN participant and a member of the ICANN Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG).

Update / Local Time: Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:50 AM — Gray Chynoweth speaks with Antony Van Couvering, CEO of Minds + Machines, regarding possible delays with the introduction of new generic Top-Level Domains.

Update / Local Time: Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:55 AM — Gray Chynoweth speaks with Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor of ICANN ccNSO (Country Code Names Supporting Organization), about country code Top-Level Domains in relation to IDNs (Internationalized Domain Names) and mechanisms put in place to speed up the process.

Update / Local Time: Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:10 AM — Gray Chynoweth speaks with ICANN President and CEO, Rod Beckstrom, about upcoming discussions during the ICANN meetings in Seoul including the launch of specific Internationalized domain names, issues around the introduction of new Top-Level Domains and more.

Update / Local Time: Monday, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM — Gray Chynoweth and Michele Neylon, CEO of Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, discuss Inter‐Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Policy Development Process (PDP) which was initiated at the last ICANN meeting in Sydney to address issues related to transferring of domain names from one registrar to another. Neylon explains…

Update / Local Time: Saturday, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:18 AM — Gray Chynoweth speaks with ICANN Policy Director, Marika Koning regarding the Post Domain Name Expiry Recovery working group.

Update / Local Time: Saturday, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:38 AM — Gray Chynoweth and Scott Pinzon, Director of Policy Communications at ICANN, discuss what will be the 'hot topics' at ICANN 36 in Seoul.

Update / Local Time: Saturday, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:38 AM — Jeremy Hitchcock and Gray Chynoweth talk about what to expect at ICANN 36 in Seoul, South Korea.

Update / Local Time: Saturday, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:38 AM — Jeremy Hitchcock writes: "Last time the ICANN faithful gathered in Sydney, there was a fair bit of unrest and some big unknowns. The Implementation Recommendation Taskforce (IRT) report on how Intellectual Property (IP) could be protected in the era of new Top-Level Domains (TLDs) stirred the pot (making for a great public comment session!) as did, to a lesser extent, the issue of Registry-Registrar separation in new TLDs. Additionally, everyone had big questions on their minds—when the root would be signed (and DNSSEC fully implemented), which of the IRT's recommendations would be incorporated into the new Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG), would IP issues (or any other issue for that matter) further delay the launch of the new generic Top-Level Domian (gTLD) application process, and would ICANN and the US Department of Commerce renew the Joint Project Agreement (the document that had shaped ICANN's existence from its very beginnings)." Read More...

Brought to you in partnership with Dyn Inc. Please add your feedback and suggestions using the comment form provided on this page or contact us directly.

One of the important elements of that document was in section 4, namely that "ICANN and DOC recognize that there is a group of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users generally."

I'm sure that most people can recognize that this refers to the so-called "contracted parties"—the registry operators and registrars who will control half the voting power in the GNSO, ICANN's policy-making body, under the current reforms. This disproportionate voting power has led ICANN policy astray over the years, for example pushing for a new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) free-for-all over the overwhelming objections of the general public and without any economic analysis of the benefits vs. the costs.

To ensure that policy outcomes truly reflect the public interest, the voting power of the general public (business and non-commercial users of the internet, excluding the registrars and registries) needs to rise within the GNSO. ICANN should make it a priority to review and adjust the voting power of the various GNSO constituencies in a timely manner.

Written by George Kirikos, President, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

I, for one, would be interested in any comments, observations, etc. (The caveats: This was, by most measures, a rush job. My spin: This is or should be a risk assessment tool.)

Full report available here [PDF].

As a part of this process, the FCC has recently released a further notice in which it specifically inquired about the definition of "broadband":

In this first Public Notice, we seek tailored comment on a fundamental question—how the Plan should interpret the term "broadband" as used in the Recovery Act, recognizing that our interpretation of the term as used in that statute may inform our interpretation of the term in other contexts. In particular, the Recovery Act requires the Commission to develop a "national broadband plan" that seeks to ensure "access to broadband capability" for the entire United States. An understanding of what constitutes "broadband" thus is essential to evaluating the extent to which "broadband capability" is available, and informs the evaluation of particular policy approaches intended to ensure access to broadband capability. The National Broadband Plan NOI observed that "broadband can be defined in myriad ways," and sought comment on possible approaches. We now seek more targeted comment on three aspects of this issue: (1) the general form, characteristics, and performance indicators that should be included in a definition of broadband; (2) the thresholds that should be assigned to these performance indicators today; and (3) how the definition should be reevaluated over time.

Further information about the inquiry and how to file comments can be found in the FCC Public Notice. [WORD]

Written by Robert Cannon, Cybertelecom

Similarly, the sessions on technology featured a diverse set of voices, but emphasized speakers with actual technology backgrounds. Despite the technology focus, a good number of non-technologists were included, such as Dave Burstein, Amazon's lobbyist, Paul Misener, and veteran telephone regulator Mark Cooper. A number of the technology speakers came from the non-profit or university sector, such as Victor Frost of the National Science Foundation, Henning Schulzrinne of Columbia University and IETF, and Bill St. Arnaud of Canarie. The ISPs spanned the range of big operators such as Verizon and Comcast down to a ISPs with fewer than 2000 customers.

Given these facts, it's a bit odd that some of the public interest groups are claiming to have been left out. There aren't more than a small handful of genuine technologists working for the public interest groups; you can practically count them on one hand without using the thumb, and there's no question that their point of view was well represented on the first three days of panels.

The complaint has the feel of "working the refs" in a basketball game, not as much a legitimate complaint as a tactical move to crowd out the technical voices in the panels to come.

I hope the FCC rolls its collective eyes and calls the game as it sees it. Solid policy positions aren't contradicted by sound technical analysis, they're reinforced by it. The advocates shouldn't fear the FCC's search for good technical data, they should embrace it.

Let a thousand flowers bloom, folks.

Written by Richard Bennett, Research Fellow

Updates posted in reverse chronological order.

Comments and questions? Please post them below in the comment section of the page or send us an email.

Update / Local Time: Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 12:25 PM — Graham Chynoweth, General Counsel, Dyn Inc. discusses latest developments between to domain name registrars and ICANN with Adam Eisner, Product Manager of Tucows Inc.

Update / Local Time: Friday, June 26, 2009 at 10:25 AM — Jeremy Hitchcock, CEO at Dyn Inc., discusses DNSSEC deployment and related workshop at the ICANN meeting with Russ Mundy of Sparta.

Update / Local Time: Friday, June 26, 2009 at 5:38 AM — Graham Chynoweth, General Counsel, Dyn Inc. discusses ICANN's domain name registrars constituancy with Mason Cole, VP of Oversee.net.

Update / Local Time: Friday, June 26, 2009 at 5:15 AM — Graham Chynoweth, General Counsel, Dyn Inc. discusses issues regarding geographic names and identifiers with Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE, Special Envoy for the Information Society, French Foreign and European Affairs Ministry.

Update / Local Time: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 5:50 AM — Jeremy Hitchcock, CEO at Dyn Inc., discusses Internet abuse with Rod Rasmussen, President and CTO of Internet Identity. Rasmussen is also co-chair of the Anti-Phishing Working Group's (APWG) Internet Policy Committee and serves as the APWG's Industry Liaison.

Update / Local Time: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 5:27 AM — Jeremy Hitchcock, CEO at Dyn Inc., discusses domain name registry and registrar separation with Alexa Raad, CEO of .ORG The Public Interest Registry and Brian Cute, VP of Afilias.

Update / Local Time: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 5:10 AM — Graham Chynoweth, General Counsel, Dyn Inc. discusses the new ICANN CEO with Par Stéphane VAN GELDER, General manager of INDOM.

Update / Local Time: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 1:48 AM — Jeremy Hitchcock, CEO at Dyn Inc., discusses DNSSEC with Lance Wolak, Director of Marketing & Product Management at .ORG The Public Interest Registry.

Update / Local Time: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 1:48 AM — Jeremy Hitchcock, CEO at Dyn Inc., discusses new Top-Level Domains and the effects of root DNS with Lyman Chapin, Interisle Consulting Group.

Update / Local Time: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 3:18 PM — Graham Chynoweth, General Counsel, Dyn Inc. discusses hot topics at ICANN 35 Sydney with Jean-Christophe Vignes, EVP & General Counsel, EuroDNS.

Update / Local Time: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 3:18 PM — Jeremy Hitchcock, CEO at Dyn Inc., discusses hot topics at ICANN 35 Sydney with Greg Aaron from Afilias.

Update / Local Time: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 5:51 AM — J. Scott Evans, Yahoo!'s Senior Legal Director, has a discussion with Gray Chynoweth, General Counsel from Dyn Inc.

Update / Local Time: Monday, June 22, 2009 at 4:30 PM — Gray Chynoweth writes: "At first blush, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Globally Protected Marks List (GPML) do not seem to have anything in common. The first is a politician of debated repute that is seeking to quell disputes over the legitimacy of his election. The second is a recommendation that seeks to protect trademark owners and consumers from an explosion of infringement and source confusion that could be wrought by the introduction of new Top-Level Domains (TLDs). However, upon a closer analysis, they do share one common flaw: both have arguably failed to appropriately prioritize the right to free speech." Read More...

Update / Local Time: Sunday, June 21, 2009 at 10:08 AM — Philip Corwin, Counsel, Internet Commerce Association, has a discussion with Gray Chynoweth, General Counsel from Dyn Inc.

Update / Local Time: Thursday, June 18, 2009 at 6:38 AM — Jeremy Hitchcock (CEO, Dyn Inc.) and Gray Chynoweth (General Counsel, Dyn Inc.) preview ICANN 35 in Sydney. The video is part of Dyn Inc.'s continuing effort effort to improve ICANN transparency by video blogging from ICANN meetings.

Update / Local Time: Thursday, June 18, 2009 at 6:05 AM — Jeremy Hitchcock writes: "As I've been getting ready to catch my plane for ICANN 35 (Sydney), I can't help but thinking that there are a lot of things going down these days that will dramatically affect makeup of the Internet for years to come. Next year at this time, the root could be a very, very different place. A few of the items that will be getting deconstructed, discussed, debated Down Under are outlined below." Read More...

Brought to you in partnership with Dyn Inc. Please add your feedback and suggestions using the comment form provided on this page or contact us directly.

Read full story: Computerworld

Given the content of Darren's article I thought it would be useful to post it in full here for CircleID readers:

The Digital Britain final report has now been released by Lord Carter and outlines Government's plans to introduce a new Universal Services Commitment (USC) ensuring 100% UK broadband coverage with speeds of at least 2Mbps by 2012. The existing USC which applies only to BT and Kcom will be replaced and the burden will be shared by the industry as a whole.

• Digital Britain: Final Report June 2009 (PDF)
• Digital Britain: Impact Assessment June 2009 (PDF)

The long awaited report confirms the ongoing speculation of the 2Mbps USC and confirms that this will be achieved by a number of technologies including home wiring improvements, Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC) and mobile and satellite solutions to reach the most remote areas. Over recent months there has been mounting speculation as to how this expected USC would be achieved and funded. Possibly the most shocking outcome of the report is the news that public funding will be used to find the most cost effective technology to bring 2Mbps broadband to the UK's 'not-spots'.

• The Register: UK to rely on mobile operators for universal broadband
• Thinkbroadband.com: Budget announces 2Mbps USO but who pays?
• The Register: Darling supports broadband by raiding Granny's digital fund
• Thinkbroadband.com: Lord Carter backs mobile and satellite for rural areas

We're pleased to see that Government recognises the importance of improving customer experience to all areas of the UK. However, if customers in more rural areas are to actually enjoy the same level of service as those in urban areas then achieving 2Mbps really must be viewed as the first stepping stone. Lord Carter clearly concurs with this view, stating his reasoning for the 2Mbps limit is based on "current consumer expectations, the growing importance of video and increasing multiple use in the home." He continues "At 2Mbps, all homes should be able to fully benefit from the most basic range of applications, services and opportunities offered by broadband."

By 2012 those "basic applications" will have evolved and require even faster speeds and consumer expectations will have increased to demand more than basic applications from their broadband service. Businesses' and consumers' Internet usage habits are changing rapidly as new technologies become available. Where once the Internet was used for shopping and email now we watch TV, download movies and music and make IP based calls, or exchange more and more voice and data packets between offices and individuals. Such activities require faster and more reliable broadband and as the technology develops further this is set to continue. Clearly, customers only able to receive the minimum 2Mbps will still be left behind.

BT's Chief Executive Ian Livingstone recently came out to defend a decision not to provide speeds of up to 100Mbps to homes using FTTH, arguing the demand is not there at the moment and that there are not enough applications that need such speeds. 100Mbps may be a little excessive for current applications but, with the current trends it won't take long to get to the stage where we do require speeds of up to 100Mbps for the applications consumers and businesses want or need to use. By 2012 2Mbps is more than likely to be insufficient for the majority of users and so we will require a new USC and the cycle will start all over again. This will in any event become necessary in the not too distant future. The Digital Britain report says that soon businesses won't be able to operate effectively without 'high-bandwidth access to the Internet'. It goes on to say that, as a consequence of Internet traffic doubling every 21 months, next generation broadband access scalable to 1Gbps is required. Unfortunately the report simply states the obvious requirement, without recommendation, that this will require a reduction in the costs of deployment and the creation of a commercial environment that accelerates return on investment. We're keen to know how Government aims to control those expenses!

• The Register: BT chief: People don't need fibre to the home
• ispreview.co.uk: i3 Group - UK Government Must Commit to 100Mbps FTTH Broadband
• Telegraph: Hulu set for September UK launch

In our view, although the USC will go some way towards helping the UK extremities and current 'notspots' finally receive some degree of a broadband service, it's highly unlikely to completely solve Britain's digital divide. Technologies such as FTTC will inevitably bring higher access speeds to more towns and villages than before but for those households and businesses remaining 'in the sticks', fixed line access will struggle to deliver a better experience. These customers will need to rely on the alternative delivery platforms such as wireless, mobile and satellite.

As always the root of the problem comes down to money. It is and always will be more economically viable to provide the higher quality, faster broadband services in urban areas where return on investment is higher. This means urban areas will almost always receive next generation services first and usually at cheaper prices.

The report attempts to tackle this issue by outlining plans to encourage faster deployment of Next Generation Access (NGA) using fibre, with an aim of providing 90% of the UK with such access by 2017 and 50% by 2012. The detail behind applying a 50p per month levy on all fixed telephone lines (and presumably cable-provided telephone services) has yet to be understood. In the meantime BT is only just beginning FTTC trials (Entanet is actively involved in these) and there's no clear indication at present of full blown rollout timescales. Again, while creative thinking around encouraging next generation access is a positive step forward, it will be interesting to see how businesses and consumers react to being asked to pay for it by such means.

Although this article is concerned with addressing the digital divide, referencing the Digital Britain report without mentioning copyright infringement would be remiss. After all, the need for higher speed and bandwidth capability is driven to a large degree by content delivery. Again the detail behind Government's desires and expectations to protect rights holders and act against alleged offenders needs to be expanded upon. On the surface Government wants ISPs to tackle alleged offenders and aid targeted legal action by keeping records on them. This is nothing new to Entanet—we already take action on all incidences brought to our attention by rights holders and advise those identified to curtail their activities or face the consequence of having their Entanet connection blocked. While we'll continue to do this, we are equally keen to understand further how the regulator might wish ISPs to work together to reduce such activity.

The problem isn't limited only to P2P file sharing as the report sets out though. We're all fully aware of the significance of Usenet groups in distributing material. Various (often costly) technologies may indeed enable ISPs to control access and identify the sources of file sharing but to require them to inspect packets is a completely different game. We don't believe placing the responsibility on the access provider is the answer. Rather, we think the time has come (and is indeed long overdue) for rights owners to review their business models to take into account how they can maximise availability to the market while protecting their copyright and profiting from it.

Having Government-led objectives and strategies to bring better access to all is laudable and good news for ISPs. However, we believe there needs to be much greater understanding of what customers require and how it can be economically delivered. Perhaps playing catch up is an inevitable burden for those in rural areas given our geographic diversity. Let’s face it, it’s never going to be easy to get high speed connectivity to the Outer Hebrides. If only we could be more like Japan! (link). Meanwhile, addressing copyright abuse outright will require an entirely more comprehensive approach in which those holding the copyright need to take greater responsibility and consider how they need to change.

Further reading

• Digital Britain: Interim Report January 2009 PDF
• Digital Britain: What we do
• Digital Britain Forum
• Wikipedia: Universal Service Obligation
• Wikipedia: Digital Britain
• Broadband-notspot.org.uk
• ispreview.co.uk: Study Reveals 3 Million UK Homes Unable to Receive 2Mbps Broadband
• The Register: That Digital Britain report in full

Written by Jon Farmer, Voice Technical Lead, Entanet International Ltd