5
Academic Year
2013/2014PhD Course in
Politics, Human Rights & Sustainability
Thesis Title
"From Global War to Cyber Civilian Power: the ICANN's Inclusive Process of Networking Empowerment within the Internet Governance Ecosystem."
Author
Pablo Andrés Mazurier
Supervisor
7
INDEX
INTRODUCTION. ... ... 11
1. Object & Methodology. ... 11
2. Context. ... ... 12
3. Thesis Structure. ... 13
PART I. HISTORICAL AND SYSTEMIC BACKGROUND. CHAPTER 1. Internet's Historical Evolution and Social Framework. ... 15
I.1. Introduction. ... .. 15
I.2. The Cyberspace. ... ... 16
I.3. The Origin and Evolution of the Social Dimension of Internet. ... 18
I.3.1. The military and academic period. ... 19
I.3.2. The Commercial Period. ... .... 33
I.3.3. The Social Period and the Dawn of Internet of Everything. ... 39
I.3.4. The Construction of the Internet Governance System. ... 43
I.3.5. The Transition. ... 58
I.4. The Social Dimension of Cyber Conflict ... 59
I.5. The Social Dimension of Innovation... 62
I.6. Conclusion. ... ... 68
PART II. THE HYPOTHESIS. CHAPTER 2. The Cyber Civilian Power. ... 70
II.1. Introduction. ... ... 70
II.2. The Notion of Cyber Civilian Power (CCP). ... 71
II.2.1. CCP as an inclusive power. ... 71
II.2.2. CCP as a process. ... 80
II.2.3. CCP as a network. ... . 84
II.2.4. CCP as a process of empowerment. ... 87
II.3. Why to call it a “civilian” power... 89
II.4. Constructivism, Leadership and the CCP. ... 92
II.5. Conclusion. ... ... 95
PART III. THE RESEARCH CHAPTER 3. The Cyber Civilian Power Through Chehadé's Discursive Leadership. ... 96
III.1. Introduction. ... ... 96
III.2. Inclusiveness. ... 96
III.2.1. First approach to inclusiveness. ... 97
III.2.2. Open attitude to listening and dialogue. ... 97
III.2.3. Inclusiveness as promotion of local participation and opportunities for all the stakeholders. ... 99
III.2.4. Legitimacy through Participation and Efficiency. ... 101
III.2.5. Inclusiveness as staying closer and giving support. ... 102
III.2.6. Inclusiveness as balance and multi-equal-stakeholder model. ... 103
III.2.7. Inclusiveness as a new culture of openness, transparency and accountability. ... 105
III.2.8. Inclusiveness towards other institutions and nations. ... 108
8
III.2.10. Inclusiveness through institutional globalization and international
engagement. ... ... 115
III.3. Process. ... ... 118
III.3.1. The Inclusive Process. ... 118
III.3.2. ICANN’s Mission rooted in a Continuous Daily Process. ... 121
III.3.3. The Daily Voluntary Work in the Background. The Treasure and Source of Legitimacy of ICANN. ... 122
III.3.4. The Process of Continuous Commitment to Serve. ... 124
III.3.5. The Process of Constant Improvement. ... 126
III.3.6. Horizontal Process. ... .... 127
III.3.7. To Learn, To Work Together. ... 128
III.3.8. The Inclusive Process to Set the Vision and the Work to Do. ... 129
III.3.9. Legitimacy Through Inclusive Process and the Right Work at the Core Technical Functions. ... 130
III.3.10. The Constant Process of Moving Forward and Evolve. ... 130
III.4. Networking. ... ... 132
III.4.1. A unique, distributed and polycentric model. ... .... 132
III.4.2. Internet Governance in accordance with Internet Architecture. ... 133
III.4.3. Devolution and Subsidiarity... .... 135
III.4.4. Common and limited responsibilities. ... 136
III.4.5. Distributed networking architecture to prevent centralization. ... 140
III.5. Empowerment. ... 142
III.5.1. Capacity-Building Dynamics. ... .... 142
III.5.1.1. Capacity-Building to Increase Inclusive Process. ... 143
III.5.1.2. Capacity-Building to Promote Global Engagement. ... 144
III.5.1.3. Capacity-Building to Increase Accountability and Transparency. ... 147
III.5.1.4. Teaching the Essence of the Multistakeholder Model. ... 148
III.5.1.5. Capacity-Building to Increase Local Empowerment. ... 149
III.5.2. Awareness-Raising Dynamics. ... . 150
III.5.2.1. Empowering People's Life. ... 150
III.5.2.2. Promoting and Protecting the Multistakeholder Model. ... 151
III.5.2.3. Empowering through Engagement. ... .... 154
III.5.2.4. Promoting Individual Responsibilities and Interdependence. ... 155
III.5.2.5. Promoting a New Attitude of Interacting and Working. ... 156
III.5.2.6. Learning from the Internet Community Historical Background. ... 156
III.5.2.7. The Core of Chehadé’s Policy of Awareness-Raising. ... 158
III.5.2.8. Thanking and Congratulating. ... 159
III.5.3. Value-Sharing Dynamics. ... 160
III.5.3.1. Internet as a great gift to the world. ... 160
III.5.3.2. Internet as a platform for economic progress. ... .... 162
III.5.3.3. Internet as an environment for human solidarity and union. ... 163
III.5.3.4. ICANN as a world resource. Responsibility in Operative Excellence. ... 164
III.5.3.5. Reinforcing the Balanced Approach. ... 165
III.5.3.6. The virtue of working together to serve the community. ... 167
III.5.3.7. The Uniqueness of ICANN’s Governance: Diversity with Efficiency. ... 168
III.5.3.8. Spirit of Solidarity and Empathy. ... 169
III.5.3.9. Building Consensus. ... ... 169
III.5.3.10. Confidence. ... ... 170
III.5.3.11. Coordination and Leadership. ... 171
III.5.3.12. Openness. ... ... 171
III.5.3.13. Accountability and Transparency. ... 172
III.5.3.14. The Public Interest. ... ... 173
III.5.3.15. The immutability of core values... 175
III.5.3.16. The most important innovation of Internet: its model of Multistakeholder Governance. ... 176
III.5.3.17. From the Humility of the Pioneers to the Responsibility of the of the Whole Community. ... 176
9
III.5.4.1. Empowering inner community. ... .... 178
III.5.4.2. Empowering the Host Nation and Region. ... 179
III.5.4.3. Promoting and Celebrating Others’ Achievements. ... 180
III.5.4.4. Reinforcing Community Ties with the Other Institutions. ... 182
III.5.4.5. Symbolic Apology and Commitment to Empower the Inclusive Process of Governance. ... 183
III.5.4.6. Empowering Local Areas through Increasing Inclusiveness. ... 183
III.5.4.7. Energizing the relationship with the technical sector. ... 184
III.6. CCP Through Symbols. ... ... 185
III.6.1. Metaphors about the Inclusiveness. ... ... 186
III.6.1.a. The Rosetta Stone. ... ... 186
III.6.1.b. His own pluri-national identity. ... 187
III.6.1.c. An Oasis, not a fortress. ... ... 187
III.6.1.d. A father to his children. ... ... 188
III.6.1.e. No Doors, No Walls. ... 188
III.6.1.f. On the same boat. ... ... 189
III.6.1.g. Arab proverb. ... 189
III.6.1.h. Not a planet on its own. Not an island. ... .... 189
III.6.1.i. Harmony of different voices. ... 189
III.6.2. Metaphors about the Process. ... ... 190
III.6.2.a. Growing good things. ... 190
III.6.2.b. Taking off the jacket. ... .... 190
III.6.2.c. Walking a new journey together. A new season. ... 191
III.6.2.d. Times of Change. ... ... 192
III.6.2.e. The Waterfall Model. ... 192
III.6.2.f.Comparing ICANN with a person growing. ... 193
III.6.3. Metaphors about Values. ... 193
III.6.3.a. Strong focus on doing instead of just talking. ... 193
III.6.3.b. Changing ICANN’s DNA. ... 193
III.6.3.c. Mandela as a symbol of conciliatory spirit for ICANN. ... 194
III.6.3.d. Gandhi as a symbol of coherence and commitment. ... 194
III.6.3.e. Feeling like Columbus and Marco Polo. ... 194
III.6.3.f. The Same Values Remains. ... ... 195
III.6.3.g. Our volunteers are heroes. ... .... 196
III.6.3.e. The American Dream. ... ... 196
III.6.3.f. Combining fairytale with responsible netizenship. ... 197
III.6.3.g. Forging the middle ground. ... .... 197
III.6.4. Metaphors about Empowerment. ... .... 197
III.6.4.a. The example of Malala. ... ... 198
III.6.4.b. Empowering local realities. ... .. 198
III.6.4.c. Multistakeholderism as the "marrow" of ICANN. ... 199
III.6.4.d. Training wheels. ... ... 199
III.6.4.e. Crowd Governance. ... 199
III.6.4.f. Driving the Car of Progress. ... ... 200
III.6.4.g. The "Feet" of the Model. ... ... 200
III.6.5. Metaphors about the Internet. ... ... 200
III.7. Conclusions. ... 201
CHAPTER 4. The Cyber Civilian Power in Action. ... 203
IV.1. Introduction. ... 203
IV.2. ICANN Internationalization. ... ... 205
IV.3. The Risk of Fragmentation. ... 215
IV.3.1. Engagement with ITU. ... ... 215
IV.3.2. Awareness-raising Actions. ... 217
IV.3.3. Snowden Revelations and Engagement with Brazil. ... 222
IV.3.4. Engagement with China. ... 228
10
IV.4. The Transition. ... 231
IV.4.1. Engaging with ICANN Community. ... ... 231
IV.4.2. Engaging with the USG. ... 240
IV.4.3. Engaging with the Internet Governance Ecosystem. ... 246
IV.5. Confronting the outcome of the thesis with experts' opinions. ... 257
IV.6. Conclusion. ... ... 259
CONCLUDING REMARKS. ... 262
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... ... 269
ANNEX 1 ... ... 276
11
Introduction.
These introductory notes to this doctoral thesis, entitled "From Global War to Cyber Civilian Power: ICANN's Inclusive Process of Networking Empowerment within the Internet Governance Ecosystem", are divided in three items: the object and methodology of the study, the background context and the structure of the work.
1. Object & Methodology.
The object of this thesis is to probe the existence of a specific kind of power within the internet governance ecosystem. This new power, that I call Cyber Civilian Power, is defined as an inclusive process of networking empowerment. My aim is not only to determine its characteristics but also to provide scientific evidence supporting its existence and scope of application. The main question to answer in this work is: "In the current context of Internet Governance and taking into consideration the internal and external interactions within its community, is it possible to identify a new typology of power?" This question is answered by the hypothesis which is the object of this thesis.
Other related questions to solve are: "Which are the characteristics of this power?" "Who is entitled to apply it and how?" "Which are the typical effects of its application?" "Which evidence could be provided to support the hypothesis of its existence?"
All these questions will be answered in extension through this work and in brief at the conclusive remarks.
The methodology implemented is mostly qualitative, with the configuration of a cognitive framework that will be tested by analyzing specific documentation: the speeches of ICANN's CEO Fadi Chehadé during the years 2013 to 2016. In the ANNEX 1 you can find the titles and the hyperlinks to these 128 videos. I have decided to focus my work on this typology of documents because they provide not only a complete explanation of the context, the message, the meta-message and the public effects they
12
were producing while shooting, but also because they were the typical channel of communication during Chehadé's presidency. Notwithstanding this, I would like to emphasize that the overall outcome and results of the analysis of these documents is backed up in the opinion of other key ICANN's senior managers consulted, on and off the record, during the research period of this thesis.
2. Context.
What we commonly call the internet is a global network that connects more than seventy thousand networks in the cyberspace by an agreed set of protocols, in particular the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP), parameters, names and numbers. This structure has a decentralized organization, but there are a few institutions specifically created by the Internet Community to keep the internet running constantly, effectively and safely. One of this institutions is the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is the responsible for the coordination of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority's (IANA) functions in coordinating and promoting the correct development of the Domain Name Systems (DNS) worldwide, with responsibility and ultimate compliance to control the generic and country code Top-Level Domains (gTLDs and ccTLDs). Due to its vital role for the overall management of the internet, ICANN was always at the centre of many geopolitical disputes between, on the one hand, the United States and the Western World who support a free, decentralized, multistakeholder, open internet governance structure and, on the other hand, those countries (Russia, China, Iran and others) and international institutions who prefer a more centralized, intergovernmental and state-controlled internet.
The most remarkable issue regarding ICANN results on the discovery of how this atypical global institution, which was mainly conceived to manage technical problems, had to evolve and, in consequence, learnt how to deal with traditional, solid powers, in order to preserve the potentiality of the internet as a common good for all humankind, as the most powerful and innovative way to communicate and as the essential platform for the development of any society in this new century.
This fast process of institutional maturity was achieved, in my opinion -and this thesis will contribute to probe it-, by the adequate conjunction of three factors: the
13
creation of a cyber civilian power that was efficiently applied by a discursive and collaborative leadership to empower the whole internet community and secure the success of the multistakeholder model of internet governance in facing multiple global challenges.
3. Thesis Structure.
The text is structured in three main parts. The first part is dedicated to analyze the historical and systemic background. A complete description of how the cyberspace is structured in three social dimensions and the historical evolution of the internet are the main topics in the first chapter. My intention will be to put together a variety of dispersed and incomplete bibliographic material to offer a strong explanation about the genesis of the internet community, which is essential to understand how it works, feels and interact to different social contexts during its evolution.
The second part anchors the rest of the thesis theoretically. The second chapter sets out a description of the object of this study, the Cyber Civilian Power. By analyzing its four components (Inclusivity, Process, Network, Empowerment) with the support of constructivist theory's insights, we will understand its range of application and how it leads to succeed in the specific context of the internet governance. This Cyber Civilian Power (CCP) does not only incarnate the values of the internet community explained in the first chapter, but also generates dynamics of empowerment through the inclusive process and within the poly-centered network.
But for a correct application of the CCP, a distinctive typology of leadership is needed. In fact, the specific patterns of action and the values that frame the CCP are developed through the constant work of a discursive and collaborative leadership emerged within the multistakeholder model of internet governance. This typical constructivist kind of leadership focuses its energies on creating meaning about the role of the community, the values of the system, the commitment of each participant and the achievement of the common interests through a constant, daily, inclusive interaction of all the actors in the internet ecosystem.
The third part brings into focus the research which provides evidence of the existence and application of the CCP. The material supporting the research consists in
14
the public appearances of ICANN's President and CEO, Mr. Fadi Chehadé, most of them recorded during the tenure of his mandate, from 2012 to 2016. They are in total 127 videos, publicly shared online and detailed in Annex I at the end of the text.
The third chapter is dedicated to study the constant constructivist work of generating meaning within the internet community and with the rest of the international powers and global public opinion. By using Discourse Analysis' techniques, this chapter will identify the many occasions Chehadé made a reference to each component of the Cyber Civilian Power, trying to evaluate and understand its meaning, its context, its range of application, its importance, within a broader process of engaging the community and promoting its collective action. As a result of this constant discursive work, the community was embedded of the vocabulary, the arguments, the values and the sense of responsibility that, all together, empower themselves and the whole ecosystem in the realization of the Cyber Civilian Power.
The fourth and conclusive chapter analyzes the CCP from a different methodology that is used in the third chapter. The demonstration of the existence of the CCP will be provided by its effects on three different critical periods for ICANN: its internationalization, the risk of fragmentation of the internet and the transition of IANA's functions from a U.S.-centered stewarship to a completely independent global multistakeholder system managed by ICANN. In these three processes, the CCP has demonstrated its power through the final results, which were the delocalization and change of nature of ICANN, the reinforcement of a unique, open, inclusive and institutionally undisputed internet for the benefit of all, and the successful transition to a new global and independent institution, who becomes a new academic reference for the evolution of global governance theories. Moreover, the CCP has proved more than that. It has also promoted a new culture of inclusiveness, of working together, of empowering a poly-centered, global, extremely complex and innovative constellation of networks. And, by doing so, the identities of many key actors have also changed and the good intentions of others were praised and promoted. These are all elements which proves the consistency of this new Cyber Civilian Power, its solid theoretical adequacy with the constructivist framework and its efficiency to face the new challenges emerging in the global internet governance scenario.
15
CHAPTER I
Internet’s Historical Evolution and
Social Framework.
I.1. Introduction.
This first chapter is dedicated to the study of the Internet’s historical background, from the creation of the first networks and the development of the technical community to the current organization of the cyberspace in three social: the Internet,1 the dimension of cyber conflict and the innovation.
The study of this historical background is essential to understand the deep roots of practices, dynamics, mindset and values that are incarnated within the Internet ecosystem, which have a transcendental influence on the main object of this thesis, the cyber civilian power.
This chapter is divided in three parts: the first part is dedicated to an introductory explanation about the concept of the cyberspace. In the second part, the historical evolution of the Internet will be studied, dividing it in six main phases –the military, the academic, the commercial, the social, the geopolitical and the transitional periods-. The last section of this chapter is completed with the analysis of the other two social dimensions of the cyberspace: the cyber conflict area, that can also be called cyberwar, and the innovation dimension.
At the end of this chapter, we will be able to understand the historical trend, the praxis and the axiology of the social dimensions of the cyberspace, in order to start then, in the second chapter, with the study of the Cyber Civilian Power.
1 Apart from the semantic and even political debate referred in Kurbalija, J . (2014), An
16
I. 2. The Cyberspace.
In common parlance, people tends not to distinguish cyberspace from the internet. However, the latter is a part of the cyberspace, which is defined as a "global and dynamic domain (subject to constant change) characterized by the combined use of electrons and electromagnetic spectrum, whose purpose is to create, store, modify, exchange, share and extract, use, eliminate information and disrupt physical resources."2
Usually defined as the fifth dimension,3 cyberspace has no hierarchical ordering principle4 or, in words of Kenneth Waltz, no common "system of law enforceable"5. Cyberspace is structured in a complex arrangement 6 which contains six different elements.7 In common parlance, what we call Internet is the fourth element of cyberspace, a network that unites all the other networks in the cyberspace by keeping unique certain protocols, standards, names and numbers.
These characteristics generate a whole own logic to the overall ecosystem and determine specific dynamics, behaviors and expectations of the actors and institutions.
Cyberspace can be divided in three social dimensions: the Internet; the Innovation and the Anarchic area of Cyber Conflict.
From a constructivist perspective, more than a "social dimension" or a "structure", we should talk about a social arrangement. Because it highlights the fact
2 Mayer, M. et al. (2014), How Would you define Cyberspace?, Experimental online
Laboratory, Pisa, available online at:
https://www.academia.edu/7096442/How_would_you_define_Cyberspace
3 One of the first articles defining Cyberspace as the “fifth dimension of Warfare” was
Fogleman, R.R. (1995), “Information Operations: The Fifth dimension of Warfare”, Armed Forces Communi cations - Electronics Association, Washington, Volume 10, Number 47. Available online: http://www.i war.org.uk/iwar/resources/5th -dimension/i w.htm
4 Mayer, M. et al. (2014), op. cit. 5
Ref. Kenneth Waltz, in Mayer, M.(2014), idem.
6
Choucri, N. (2012), Cyberpolitics in International Relations , The MIT Press, Cambridge -London, p. 7.
7 These four elements are:1) physical infrastructures and telecommunications devices that
allow the connection of technological and communication sys tem net works; 2) computer systems and the related functional software; 3) networks between computer systems, also called intranets; 4) net works of networks that connect computer systems; 5) access nodes of users and intermediaries routing nodes; 6) constit uent data (or resident data). Ref. Mayer, M. (2014), op. cit .
17
that even an area of anarchy in cyberspace is also arranged by the actors through their interactions and rules. Even in cyber anarchy there are rules.8
In the first part of this chapter the attention will be focused on the Internet’s social dimension. The other two dimensions will be explained at the end of this chapter. This triple division makes of Cyberspace a multilevel and complex system, due to the fact there are not only different logics reigning in the three realms but also the overall structure allows actors to have different, and often opposite, roles and status depending on the specific scenario they are called to interact. For example, the United States Government (USG) deploys simultaneously the roles of promoter of international cooperation on cybersecurity issues, of hegemon in issues of technological innovation, as an active player in cyberwarfare, and of guardian or steward on the good use of main critical Internet infrastructure.
Internet is the overall collection of networks of networks within the cyberspace and it combines human associative capabilities with technical skills9. In the words of the pioneers of its development, the Internet is at once a "world-wide broadcasting capability, a mechanism for information dissemination, and a medium for collaboration and interaction between individuals and their computers without regard for geographic location."10 Similar to the cyberspace domain, internet is composed by four structural layers.11 Notwithstanding the fact that there are many basic components of Internet,12
8
Ref. "Appearances aside, international anarchy is a social arrangement -an institution - on a grand scale." Onuf (2013), Making Sense, Making Worlds. Constructivism in Social Theory and Interna tional Relations, Routledge, p. 7.
9 Pastor -Satorras, R. and Vespignani, A. (2007), Evolution and Structure of the Internet.
A Statistical Physics Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , p. ix.
10
Leiner, B. M. et al. (2003) ""Origins of the Intern et" in A Brief History of the Internet version 3.32", The Internet Society, available online at: http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/ what -internet/history-internet/brief -history-internet#
11
These four layers are 1. Physical: physical foundations and in frastructures that enable the cyber playing field; 2. Logical: the logical building blocks that support the physical platform and enable services; 3. Informational: the information content stored, transmitted or transforme d; and 4. Social: entities and users with various interests who participate in this arena with different roles and status. Clark , D. (2010), Characterizing Cyberspace: Past, Present and Future , MIT Working Paper Series, Version 1.2, March 12.
12They are: a) a set of transcontinental data channels called the "backbones of the
Internet”, operated by telecommunication companies; b) local, regional and metropolitan -area net works attached to the backbones, managed by Internet Service Providers (ISPs); c) routers, s witches and other specialized hardware that route traffic among the backbones and ISPs; d) TCP/IP Protocols, standards, s witching programs and
18
what is important for our work is to understand that there are four layers, and the second layer is technically the most important, due to the fact that it keeps united and coherent the rest of the layers.
I.3. The Origin and Evolution of the social dimension of Internet.
After clarifying these essential definitions regarding the Cyberspace and its social dimensions, the next step is to explain the historical evolution of the Internet, putting together all the dispersed bibliography in a chronological order. This exercise will help us not only to have a clear big picture about the evolution of the many different social dynamics, but also to have an adequate idea of how important certain values, social processes and persons are in the context of the Internet ecosystem.
In many occasions, the history of Internet evolves in parallel with computing innovations, in particular during three moments: first, at its origins with the deployment of mainframe computers;13 secondly, during the boom of personal computers and Internet commercialization period -1980s and 1990s- and, third, from half the 2000s thanks to the transition to mobile devices, Cloud Computing and Internet of Things/Internet of Everything.14 The evolution of the Internet is also related with the geopolitical context in general and the dawn of the Internet governance in particular. These topics will be analyzed in the next chapter.
The evolution of the Internet is also related with the geopolitical context which will be analyzed in particular in the next chapter.
algorithms to route the traffic and rule the use of Internet services; e) a political system
of governance and management to operate the Intern et; f) software and hardware for the end user; g) a social and business model, with regulations, uses, institutions, dynamics, knowledge, symbols, and other socio -cultural impositions which model the system. With exception of the fifth and seventh componen ts, the rest are technical components and were structured depending on the circumstantial needs during the evolution of the system. Aspray, W. and Ceruzzi, P.E. (eds.) (2008), The Internet and American Business , The MIT Press, Ca mbridge Massachusetts, p. 1 2.
13 Huge machines called “mainframes” because of the “large metal frames on which the
computer circuits were mounted.” "The machines were […] large, requiring their own air -conditioned rooms and a raised floor, with the connecting cables routed beneath it ." Ceruzzi, P.E. (2012), Computing. A Concise History, MIT Ed., Boston, p. 54.
19
Thanks to its decentralized design, internet works as a self-organized system with no central authority. It has an exponential growth due to the new connection lines, called links, and computers, called nodes, which are increased every day.15
This evolution can be divided into six main phases: military, academic, commercial, social, geopolitical and transitional.
I.3.1. The military and academic period.
The origins of both Internet and Computing are inherently linked with war.16 During the World War II, the British government created a special unit of code-breakers in Bletchley Park, a country house located between Oxford and Cambridge, with the top secret mission to decipher secret messages transmitted by the German machines Enigma and the Lorenz enciphering machine, code-named Tunny by the British. In 1942 they succeeded in breaking the first messages with the help of the Bombe, an electro-mechanical device designed by Alan Touring specifically for such aim. In 1943, after being working day and night for ten months, British engineer Thomas Flowers and his team built Colossus, the world's first large-scale programmable electronic digital computer.17 Colossus’ speed and performance were vital to help decoding German messages within hours.18 The existence and functions of this machinery were classified top secret by the British government and Flowers couldn't receive nor claim any public recognition for its invention during his lifetime, watching in silence how American ENIAC was acclaimed as the first computer ever built.19
After the war, the United States government understood the importance of two decisive requisites to lead the progress of the world. First, the key to success in any
15 Pastor -Satorras, R. and Vespignani, A. (2007), op. cit., p. ix. 16
Aspray, W. (2008), op. cit., p. 9.
17 Copeland, B.J. (2006), Colossus. The Secrets of Bletchley Park’s Codebreaking
Computers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 1.
18
As Ceruzzi notes, the Bombes " were in a sense Enigma machines running in reverse" used to "decode German mes sages were encrypted by the Enigma machine". The Colossi, by contrast, " were protocomputers, programmed to decode teletype traffic". Ceruzzi, P.E. (2012), op. cit., pp. 36 -7.
19 While a machine is designed to solve one problem, the term "computer" is used t o
machines "that can be flexibly reprogrammed to solve a variety of problems." Eckert and Mauchly designed the ENIAC to be "programmable by plugging the various computing elements of it in different configurations, effectively rewiring the machine for each new problem". Ceruzzi, P.E. (2012), op. cit., p.47.
20
future international conflict would depend indefectibly rather on the use of intellectual capabilities than on the military capacities. And secondly, a well-funded and networked environment for research and innovation was reputed critical to promote both social progress and national defense. Following this logic, in 1946, the US Air Force created RAND - derived from "research and development"-, a nonprofit research corporation.20
In 1957, when the Soviet Union put into orbit the first artificial satellite, Sputnik, American society and authorities remained in shock. To deal with this “science gap”,21 crucial to determine the fate of the Cold War, the Eisenhower Administration decided to focus all its efforts and resources on research and innovation. One of its most transcendental policy decisions was the creation of the Advance Research Projects Agency (ARPA) -later renamed DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency-22, on February 7 1958, to promote and underwrite scientific research in all disciplines, and to foster technological advancement on all fronts related with defense.23 Most of the decisive early steps towards the internet revolution occur within RAND and DARPA environments.
In 1959, Paul Baran joined RAND's computer science department and developed the concept of distributed communications or distributed networks,24 as a solution to maintain survivable communications and the capability of retaliation in a hypothetical scenario of nuclear attack between the US and the URSS. The network designed by Baran had neither centre nor centralized control, allowing each node of the network to pick the most suitable route at any moment25 to send the message to destination, reinforcing the robustness, survivability and flexibility of the overall structure.26
In the early 1960s, J. Licklider, a scientist working at the Cambridge Massachusetts research firm Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN), developed the idea of an "Intergalactic Computer Network", a globally interconnected, decentralized set of
20 Abbate, J., (1999), Inventing the Internet , The MIT Press, Cambridge -London, p. 10. 21 Abbate, J. (1999), idem.
22
Darpa official website: http://www.darpa.mil
23
Banks, M. (2008), On the Way to the Web. The Secret History of the Internet and Its Founders, Apress, p. 2.
24 Baran, P. (1960), "Reliable Digital Communications Systems Using Unreliable
Net work Repeater Nodes", Report P -1995, Rand Corporation, p. 3.
25
Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 13.
26 “Survivability [...] is a function of switching flexibility.” Baran, P. (1964), "On
Distributed Communications", Rand Report Series, vol. 5, section I, cit. in Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., idem.
21
computers through which scientists could quickly access data and programs from any site.27 This was a revolutionary concept as it supposed the transformation of the computer, originally conceived as an isolated calculating device, into a new mean of communication.28 He became the first director of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) at ARPA.
As a result of ARPA efforts and due to Licklider’s vision and fundings,29 the first network, named ARPANET, was created in 1963, with the aim of overcoming the difficulties of running programs on remote, scarce and very expensive computers. One of the key innovations of ARPANET was the implementation of the packet switching method, an experimental new way to transmit data across a large-scale network, developed separately30 by P. Baran in the USA and D. Davies in the UK. The messages were divided in packets and sent through the network to its destination, in a more efficient, reliable and fast way than any other media known at that moment.
At that point, a project originally created to fulfill a military need of survivability of communications turned into a more efficient way to organize communication between public agencies and to spread information and a shared use of resources across the American vast territory.
One of the key ideas which has shaped the DNA of the entire Internet community establishes that the network protocols should be simple and adaptable and it derives in part from the military’s “continued concern with survivability”.31
In addition to this logic, the philosophy of promoting heterogeneity and decentralization in network systems derives from military priorities too.32
27 Leiner, B. M., (2003), op. cit. 28
Abbate, J. (1999), op. c it., p. 1.
29 "Licklider had t wo things that made his presence among that group critical.
The first was money: as director of IPTO, he had access to large sums of Defense Department funds and a free rein to spend them on projects as he saw fit. The second was a vision: unlike many of his peers, he saw the electronic digital computer as a revolutionary device not so much because of its mathematical abilities but because it could be used to work in symbio sis —his favorite term — with human beings." Ceruzzi, P.E. (2012), op. cit., p. 76.
30
Balleste, R. (2015), Internet Governance: Origins, Current Issues, and Future Possibilities, Ro wman & Littlefield, ch. 1, ap. 1.4.
31 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 144. 32 Abbate, J. (1999), idem.
22
In 1964 Licklider moved to UCLA and was succeeded in his position as Head of ARPA's IPTO by Ivan Sutherland, who was also working to find the way to share computing power to satisfy researchers' need.
Larry Roberts and Thomas Marrill, two Licklider disciples working at the MIT, were responsible for the first time connection of two computers, the Q-32 in Santa Barbara, California, and a TX-2 at MIT in Boston, establishing a new milestone in the history of computing and confirming the essential role of packet switching method developed by Kleinrock. A year later, Roberts and Marill wrote the first proposal for the construction of a timesharing computers’ network.33
By discussing their ideas with the academic community, they realized that for almost six years MIT, RAND and NPL (National Physics Laboratory in London) were working in parallel “without any of the researchers knowing about the other work”.34
This circumstance serves to show how important joint collaboration in Research and Innovation from decentralized networks was –and is– for the development of the internet.
In March 1969, Roberts became Director of IPTO and reinforced the sharing use of computers "to achieve a critical mass of talent by allowing geographically separated people to work effectively in interaction with a system."35 He implemented a crucial strategy which became part of the Weltanschauung of the entire internet community and the key to success of the whole Internet revolution: an informal,36 collegial,37 collaborative, consensus-based38 and decentralized management style, 39 combining public and private sectors cross-fertilization.40
33 Banks, M. (2008), op. cit., p. 5. 34
Leiner, B. M., (2003), op. cit.
35 Roberts, L.G. (1967),“Multiple Computer Networks and Intercomputer
Communication.”, in Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, p. 2, cit. in Abbate, J ., op.cit., p. 46.
36
"In coordinating its contractors, ARPA relied largely on collaborative arrangements rather than contractual obligations", Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 54.
37 “IPTO recruited most of its directors and project managers from the ranks of active
researchers at university and industrial research centers. IPTO managers kept in touch with their colleagues by touring contract sites to evaluate the progress of programs, le arn about new ideas, and recruit promising researchers.” Abbate, J. (1999), idem.
38 "[T]echnical decisions were usually made by consensus." Abbate, J. (1999), ibidem. 39
“The success of the Internet lies in its inherently decentralized nature, wi th th e most significant growth taking place at the outer edges of the net work through innovative new applications and services. Burdensome, bureaucratic oversight is out of place in an Internet structure that has worked so well for many around the globe.” Radu, R. et al.
23
After years of research and improvement of the ARPANET architectural design and the Interface Message Processors (IMPs), in September 1969 Kleinrock and his research team at UCLA were selected as the first node on the ARPANET and the first host computer was connected. The Stanford Research Institute (SRI) provided a second node and one month later, the first host-to-host message was sent from Kleinrock's laboratory in UCLA to the SRI.41
In 1969, UCLA professor Steve Crocker established the Request for Comments (RFC) series of notes, first printed in paper then distributed via email, creating an informal, open,42 and fast distribution channel to share ideas, proposals and results. They provide background technical information and was the arena for the discussion of protocol standards implementation. This mechanism tended to be critical for the development and reinforcement of the academic community and the promotion of their working dynamics and collective values.43 Prof. Jon Postel, other pioneer, was in charge as RFC Editor until his death in 1998.
By the end of 1969, the first four host computers (UCLA, SRI, UC at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah) were connected together into the initial ARPANET. This was the starting point of the computing network of networks.44
In parallel with ARPA efforts, in the period 1968-1973, the National Science Foundation’s Office of Computing Activities had funded 30 regional computing
(2014), The Evolution of Global Internet Governance. Principles and Policies in the
Making, Springer, note 49 in chapter 4.
40
“Not career managers, they [the directors and project managers] generally stayed at ARPA only a few years before return ing to academia or private business.” Abbate, J. (1999) op. cit., p. 54.
41 Leiner, B. M., (2003), op. cit. 42
"The open access to the RFCs (for free, if you have any kind of a connection to the Internet) promotes the growth of the Internet because it allows the actual specifications to be used for exa mples in college classes and by entrepreneurs developing new systems." Leiner, B. M., (2003), op. cit.
43
“We should understand that the network's first role in information sharing was sharing the information abo ut its own design and operation through the RFC documents. This unique method for evolving new capabilities in the net work will continue to be critical to future evolution of the Internet.” Leiner, B. M., (2003), idem.
44
As Kleinrock pointed out: "In 1969 the first man landed on the Moon, the Woodstock Festival took place, the Mets won the World Series, Charles Manson went on a killing spree, and the Internet was born -and nobody noticed!" Cit. in Banks, M. (2008 ), op. cit ., p. 6.
24
centers,45 providing them with supercomputers in order to delocalize and democratize the research.
In December 1970, Crocker finished the NCP (Network Control Protocol), the first protocol for host-to-host connection, allowing developers to create by themselves further applications. One of the first applications was the electronic mail, developed by Ray Tomlinson in 1971, which became not only the paradigm of this innovative "people-to-people" communication but also the largest network application for over a decade.46 Thanks to the "unplanned, unanticipated, and mostly unsupported"47 email service and the new mailing lists, ARPANET was not only considered a resource-sharing network, but also an innovative and easy way to communicate48 which has improved the sense of unity among the users.49 In 1976, Queen Elizabeth II sent out an e-mail, as a prove of the importance and popularity given to this innovation.
In 1971, with fifteen nodes already connected,50 Roberts has impulse a revolutionary innovation to the ARPANET, providing a new way to connect terminals directly to the main system, skipping the host computers. This new type of node, called terminal IMP (or TIP, for terminal interface machine), exponentially increased the users, most of them computer scientists though,51 and traffic connected to the ARPANET. Notwithstanding this success, the network had still suffered from structural limitations, such as the lack of synchronous communication and impossibility for users to modify the IMP or to program their own TIPs for specific functions.
In October 1972, Robert Kahn, co-author of the TCP/IP with Vint Cerf, organized a successful demonstration of the ARPANET at the International Conference on Computer Communication in Washington, DC.52 In the same year, Vint Cerf became
45 Abbate, J. (1999), op. c it., p. 192. 46
Leiner, B. M., (2003), op. cit.
47 In fact, Roberts and his team were more focused on protocols for remote login and file
transfer, considering messages between users "not an important motivation for a network of scientific computers". Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 108.
48
"Along with the ability to easily share files, email had “changed significantly the ‘feel’ of collaborative research with re mote groups". Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 107.
49 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 110. 50 Aspray, W. (2008), op. cit., p. 11. 51
“Nearly all ARPAnet participants in the early 1970s were computer nicks… […] there was very little academic or development activity outside of the realm of computer science.” Abbate (1999), op. cit., p. 101.
25
the chairman of the Internetworking Working Group (INWG), created to structure the process of consensual decision-making in the development of the protocols.
The first community of computer scientists early understood the importance of meeting the needs of a decentralized open-architecture network environment. By dividing the complex system into layers53 and building a meta-level named Internetworking Architecture,54 the core network enabled different networks to interact between themselves regardless of what hardware or software the computers were using and thus providing reliability to the whole system. These openness and decentralization implied “the greatest challenge of the system, as well as its greatest ultimate value”55 structuring a system that "outlives all its constituent parts", being hard to displace or redesign.56 This technical decentralization has strongly influenced the way of organization of the community, preferring horizontal decentralized networked collaborations instead of a vertical centered structure of command and control.57
This open and decentralized structure, focused exclusively on the sharing of resources, had soon been seen by the users as a revolutionary innovation, besides the fact that it generated "both frustration and opportunity for its users".58 It was generating vexation due to the fact that the network was "by no means complete or perfect".59
53 These layers were designed follo wing "a conceptual hierarchy that proceeds from the
most concrete and physical functions (such as handling electrical signals) to the most abstract functions (e.g., interpreting human -language commands from users). […] In the ideal layered system, the opportunities for interaction among layers are limited and follow set rules. This reduces the complexity of the system, making it easier to design, test, and debug. [...] Thus, layering has both technical and social implications: it makes the technical complexity of the syste m more manageable, and it allows the system to be designed and built in a decentralized way." Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 51.
54 Leiner, B. M., (2003), idem. 55
“Almost every concei vable item of computer hardware and software will be in the network. This is the greatest challenge of the system, as well as its greatest ultimate value.” Roberts, L.G. quoted in Dickinson, P.A. (1968), “ARPA Network Will Represent Integratio n on a Large Scale.” Electronics, 30 Septe mber, p. 131.
56
Aspray, W. (2008), op. cit., p. 106.
57 “The dominant organizational method [...] is horizontal net work, rather than the
vertical net works that characterize governments and inter -governmental organiz ations.” Mathiason, J. (2008), Internet Governance. The new frontier of global institution , Routledge, New York, p. 33.
58 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 90.
59 "Using the net work and its host computers was difficult, the support systems were
inadequate, and there was little opportunity to interact with other users. [...] The road to becoming an active ARPANET user was long and hard." Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 84. "Once on the network, users theoretically had access to some of the most advanced computer systems in the United States; however, using those remote systems could be difficult, impractical, or unappealing." Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 86.
26
However, many users also saw the enormous opportunities, developing unexpected60 and even illicit61 ways to use the network’s unexplored potential. There was a new growing sense of community among ARPANET’s users62
avid to explore and go beyond the limits of the network, pushing forward the innovation industry.
The "resource sharing" architecture consisted in large, centralized machines sharing their own peculiar technical capacities to distant users.63 The first large-scale "collaboratories" studies were developed thanks to this organizational structure.64
In 1973, the two first international connections to ARPANET were established with the University College of London and the Norwegian Royal Radar Establishment.65 Roberts expanded the network use to different research areas, from behavioral science to climate dynamics and seismology.66
The users decided to activate themselves to steer the development of more and better applications, generating the first managerial and political conflict within the ecosystem. Pressed by a proposal to discuss the further development of users' services presented by an organization of system developers named USING (Users Interest Working Group), Roberts and the directory of ARPA claimed that they were the only responsibles for making decisions and funding priorities of the ARPANET, limiting the role of the users and research teams only to collaborate within the guidelines and possibilities determined by ARPA.67 For the first time there was a discussion about the convergence of four of the main interests in game: 1) the authority over the project, its efficiency and survivability; 2) the money to fund the research; 3) the openness for decentralized collaboration on innovation; 4) the rise of a collective sense of common good. And the result was clear. ARPANET was still a governmental project. Notwithstanding this, the paradigm of the use of ARPANET was changing from being a
60
For example, sending data bet ween computers in the same site and creating the first local-area networks. Abbate (1999), op. cit., p. 93.
61 The Illinois physicists created their own "virtual link" between their campus and the
Geneva lab, bypassing the carrier's prohibition. Abbate (1999), op. cit., p. 94.
62
“There was a sense of community among many of the ARPANET’s users, but it predated the net work and was based on their shared backgrounds, interests, and offline experiences.” Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 84.
63 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 96 64
Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 100.
65 Hobbes' Internet Timeline, 1973. Available online: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2235.txt 66 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., pp. 101-2.
27
computer system for resource sharing to be a communications network68 for "bringing people together."69 The actual social dimension of the Internet had been conceived.
The underlying technical idea of open architecture networking using a common standard protocol70 was essential to provide reliability and scalability of the network of networks, expanding the frontiers of applications and innovation beyond any logical or geographical constraint.
The next step was the creation of a new version of the protocol used for ARPANET, replacing the earlier NCP network protocol for the TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol), developed by Robert Kahn, director of IPTO since 1972, in collaboration with a research team of computer science grad students at the UCLA's NMC, leaded by Steve Crocker and Vinton Cerf.
Kahn, Crocker and Cerf were working with a selected group of collaborators from different institutions, now commonly known as the Internet pioneers, who were involved in the design of the main network: Stephen Crocker at IPTO, Jon Postel at USC, Robert Metcalfe at Xerox PARC and Peter Kirstein from University College London. This project was conceived in an international scale, receiving decisive inputs on packet switching and traffic from the British NPL and the French Cyclades networks, with the idea of making the network compatible with European standards. British and French researchers contributed also to the discussion of the first internet design principles, underlying the importance of making the network simple to maintain reliable connections and to facilitate internetworking through the implementation of common host protocols on all the networks.71
In 1976, Metcalfe and his team at Xerox PARC have contributed to the project with another critical innovation, the Ethernet system. Based on Metcalfe’s Harvard PhD Thesis, it incorporated the conceptual idea of "having simple network requirements and strong host protocols".72
68 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 111. 69
Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 103.
70 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 49. 71 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., pp. 215-6. 72 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 127.
28
Vint Cerf focused his team’s work on the development of a single universal host protocol to increase the efficiency and flexibility of the system. He split the structure in two, establishing the end-to-end principle, which determines that the network is divided between local networks, or end points, which are responsible for the implementation of the applications, and multiple gateways or routers, designed just for routing the packets between one point to another in the network in the fastest and most reliable way. As a result, in computer jargon, Internet was built as a "dumb" network with "smart" terminals. "All of the intelligence is held by producers and users, not the networks that connect them." 73 This is at the core of the principle of net-neutrality. As highlighted by Drake, the original architectural vision of the Internet implemented by Cerf and others, “was that many separately controlled autonomous systems or networks of which there are now 50,000, can come together by shared protocols to constitute a global network of packet switch networks, such that every device is able to exchange data packets with any other device that is willing to receive them. That is a key point, the willingness of both end points to communicate. With consistent functioning and interoperability on a end-to-end basis, so that you should be able to have applications that work the same for end point users, irrespective of their location, what technology they are using, who their service provider is and so on. Deviations from that idealized notion of an open Internet due to blocking or weakening of the connectivity between end points, between willing end points is, I think, the core concept and concern when talking about fragmentation.”74
So Internet was conceived as a single, unified network of networks thanks to the principle of net-neutrality. As the years go by, the three technical, governmental and commercial types of fragmentation put into risk this idea of unity.75
73
Lessig, L. and McChesney, R.W. (2006), “No Tolls on The Internet”, The Washington Post, available online at: http://www. washingt onpost.com/ wp -dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html
74
IGF 2016, Day 1 Room 5's Session on SW173 Internet Fragmentation: Net Neutrality,
W. J. Drake's presentation, available online:
http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf 2016 day1 room5 ws 173internet -fragmentation -net-neutrality
75 “W hen I think about fragmentation in this way, I would say you have got three
different kinds of sources, technical fragmentation where you have developments in the underlying infrastructure, that imp ede the ability of systems to fully interoperate and exchange data packets and to function consistently, at all end points. That is usually at the lo wer levels. Governmental fragmentation which are policies and action that is
29
In 1977, the new dual protocol TCP/IP (host-to-host protocol and internetwork protocol) has successfully passed the tests, combining radio, satellite and telephone networking communications.76 During the years to come, TCP/IP demonstrated its reliability, essential for the scalability of the project.77 The TCP/UP protocols were open to use without paying a royalty or obtaining a license. When IPTO's Director Robert Kahn decided to incorporate the TCP/IP into the Unix with no restrictions for its use, it became the most popular operating system among the programmers.78
When IBM machines adopted soon the Unix with TCP/IP protocol, it exponentially increased the number of users.79 However, with that initial major expansion of the network, the coexistence between the two different cultures within the project started to show its first symptoms of conflict.
Academic researchers were pushing for a more open system in order to impulse the sharing of ideas. But, in the opposite side, military authorities were worried about the danger of suffering an attack or being vulnerable to intrusion.80 Paradoxically, the acceptance and wide implementation of TCP/IP to "inexpensive computers and modems", have increased not only the benefits in terms of scalability81 and innovative collaboration, but also the number and variety of vulnerabilities and potential attacks.82 In order to solve this situation, the military authorities decided to divide the main project in two: on the one side, ARPANET would still being using and developing new technologies, and, on the other side, the MILNET was designed as a secure and encrypted environment focused strictly on military functions.83
constrain or prevent certain uses of the Internet to create distributor access information
resources, these are generally targeted at the fifth layer that I talked about, imaginary layer of flo ws, processes, etcetera, although they can impact the lo wer levels as well. And commercial fragmentation, which again involves policies and actions that constrain or prevent certain uses and make it impossible for end points to be able to exchange resources and packets in order to create distributed and access to information.” Drake in IGF (2016), idem.
76 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 131. 77
“The TCP/IP protocols […] have ‘‘scaled up’’ remarkably well: they work for a network many orders of magnitude larger than the one they were written for.” Aspray, W. and Ceruzzi, P.E. (eds.) (2008), op. cit., p. 12.
78 Aspray, W. and Ceruzzi, P.E. (eds.) (2008), op. cit., p. 9. 79 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 133.
80
Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 142.
81 Aspray, W. and Ceruzzi, P.E. (eds.) (2008), op. cit., p. 10. 82 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 143.
30
In the late 1970, DARPA's Internet Program manager Vint Cerf decided to create several coordination bodies, in particular the International Cooperation Board (ICB) and the Internet Configuration Control Board (ICCB), to help managing the complex growth of the Internet.84
At the end of the 1970s and start of the 1980s an innovative typology of low-cost cooperative networks were built, enforcing the expansion of users’ communities. In 1979, two students at Duke University started to distribute USENET, an electronic newsletter that became known as “a poor man’s ARPANET”.85 In 1981, BITNET, the first network for IBM users, was launched, allowing e-mailing and two-paired chatting services over a dial-up connection.86 Soon these networks were also operating abroad, spreading its benefits to other less privileged countries and citizens.87
These new platforms were suddenly attractive thanks to several technical and social aspects: informal organization, limited cost of connection and small membership fee, new possibilities for social interaction, instant updating, newsgroups based on common interests, an open, freewheeling and collaborative spirit, decentralized organization and no obligations nor constraints to the government.88 Notwithstanding most of those networks were unable to intercommunicate with each other due to proprietary rights, their use increased the social consciousness about the vast possibilities these innovations were capable to offer, not only in scientific areas but also for communication and recreation. By the end of the 80s, all platforms were already running on TCP/IP, and when the Internet services were privatized, many of these cooperative networks began to switch to Internet Service Providers.89
The 1980s marked the start of a new computing revolution: the "personal computers", going beyond the 70s' culture of amateur electronics hobbyists to become a key industrial sector for American economy and its globalization. In 1981 IBM launched its own PC and its popularity changed also the way computing was conceived:
84 Leiner, op. cit.
85 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 200.
86 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 201-2. Also Aspray, W. and Ceruzzi, P.E. (eds.) (2008),
op. cit., p. 20.
87 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 203. 88 Abbate, J. (1999), op. c it., p. 200. 89 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 205.
31
no more just an elitist expensive device for technicians, military and academics but an affordable machine for entrepreneurs, small business and recreational activities.90
By 1983, every host of ARPANET was running TCP/IP,91 and, thanks to many commercial contracts signed by the military authorities with major computer companies, by the end of the 80s every computer available on the American market was running TCP/IP.
In this same year, the coordination mechanisms were restructured, replacing the ICCB for a new group of Task Forces with different areas of specialization, coordinated by the Internet Activities Board (IAB).
In November 1983, Jon Postel, Paul Mockapetris and Craig Partrige created the Domain Name System (DNS) -RFC 882-,92 as part of the application layer of the Internet Protocol Suite, to make Internet navigation easier by linking the numerical IP addresses with new domain names.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), one of those new task forces, rapidly gained reputation as the first open community mostly concerned with the evolution and the smooth operation of the Internet. They developed a series of cardinal principles regarding open process, technical competence, volunteer core, informal,93 and a combination of utopian ideals,94 a diffident attitude towards political involvement
90 "Many Americans were eager to own a computer, whether they were fascinated by
the technology itself or whether they were hoping to realize the gains in skill and productivity that it promised” , Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 186.
91 Abbate, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 142. 92
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc882
93 “The IETF is a loosely self -organized group of people who contribute to the
engineering and evolution of Internet technologies. [...] The I ETF is unusual in that it exists as a collection of happenings, but is not a corporation and has no board of directors, no members, and no dues. [...] There is no me mbership in the IETF. Anyone may register for a meeting and then attend. The closest thing there is to being an IETF member is being on the IETF or Working Group mailing lists. [...] In ma ny ways, the IETF runs on the beliefs of its participants. One of the " founding beliefs" is embodied in an early quote about the IETF from David Clark: "We re ject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code". [...] The IETF is really about its participants. Because the IETF welcomes all interested individuals, IETF participants come from all over the world and from many differen t parts of the Internet industry.” IETF, "The Tao of the IETF", online: https://www. ietf.org/tao.html
94 Jon Postel’s Law, recepted by the Internet Protocol RFC 791, in September 1981,
established the custom rule “Be conservative in what you send, liberal i n what you receive.”
