Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Looking to the Internet for models of governance

  • Published:
Ethics and Information Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

If code is law then standards bodies are governments. This flawed but powerful metaphor suggests the need to examine more closely those standards bodies that are defining standards for the Internet. In this paper we examine the International Telecommunications Union, the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and the World Wide Web Consortium. We compare the organizations on the basis of participation, transparency, authority, openness, security and interoperability. We conclude that the IETF and the W3C are becoming increasingly similar. We also conclude that the classical distinction between standards and implementations is decreasingly useful as standards are embodies in code – itself a form of speech or documentation. Recent Internet standards bodies have flourished in part by discarding or modifying the implementation/standards distinction. We illustrate that no single model is superior on all dimensions. The IETF is not effectively scaling, struggling with its explosive growth with the creation of thousands of working groups. The IETF coordinating body, the Internet Society, addressed growth by reorganization that removed democratic oversight. The W3C, initially the most closed, is becoming responsive to criticism and now includes open code participants. The IEEE SA and ITU have institutional controls appropriate for hardware but too constraining for code. Each organization has much to learn from the others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • J. Besen. What Good is Free Software. In W. Hahn, editor, Government Policy Towards Open Source, pp. 12–33. Brookings Institute, 2003

  • S. Bradner. The Internet Standards Process: Revision 3. Updated October 1996, ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2026.txt (cited 10 January 2000)

  • G.C. Bowker and S.L. Star. Sorting Things Out: Classification And Its Consequences, MIT Press, 1999.

  • J. Camp. Trust and Risk in Internet Commerce. October 1999. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. draft available http://www.ljean.org/trustRisk

  • C. Cargill (1989) Information Technology Standardization: Theory, Process, and Organization, Digital Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Chaum (1992) ArticleTitleAchieving Electronic Privacy. Scientific American 267 76–81 Occurrence Handle10.1038/scientificamerican0892-96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B.M. Compaine (Eds) (1988) Issues in New Information Technology Ablex Publishing Norwood, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Some Frequently Asked Questions About Data Privacy and P3P. Updated 7 November 1999. http://www.cpsr.org/program/privacy/p3p-faq.html (cited 21 December 1999)

  • M. David Shurmer (1996) ArticleTitleFormal Standards-Setting for Global Telecommunications and Information Services. Telecommunications Policy 20 IssueID10 789–815

    Google Scholar 

  • C. DiBona S. Ockman M. Stone (1999) Open sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution O’Reilly & Associates Cambridge, MA Occurrence Handle0928.68027

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • A. Etzioni (Eds) (1999) The Limits of Privacy Basic Books New York

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Garfinkel. Fiascos. Wide Open News. 14 November 1999, <http://www.wideopen.com/story/102.html>.

  • R. Hawkins (1998) Standards for Communication Technologies: Negotiating Institutional Biases in Network Design R. Mansell R. Silverstone (Eds) Communication by Design Oxford University Press Oxford 157–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine, Committee on Improving the Patient Record Division of Health Care Services. The Computer-Based Patient Record: An Essential Technology for Health Care. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1991.

  • Internet Architecture Board and Internet Engineering Steering Group, The Internet Standards Process–Revision 2, RFC 1602, IAB, IESG, March 1994

  • ITU Telecom Conference. Backgrounder: Third Generation Mobile. www.itu.int/telecom-wt-99/homepage.html (cited 24 November 1999). International Telecommunications Union, 1999

  • B. Kahin J.H. Keller (Eds) (1997) Coordinating the Internet MIT Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Kaner D. Pels (1998) Bad Software: What to Do When Software Fails Wiley Computer Publishing New York

    Google Scholar 

  • League for Programming Freedom, Against Software Patents. Communications of the ACM, 1992: 35, July. http://www.cise.ufl.edu/\simgmh/ethics/patent/against-software-patents.html

  • Lee, Semantic Web, National academy Domain Name and Internet Governance meeting, February, 18, 2002

  • Lee, Perspectives on the Future of Internet Navigation. Meeting of the Committee on Internet Navigation and the Domain Name System: Technical Alternatives and Policy Implications. February 28, 2002. Harvard

  • L. Lessig (Eds) (1999) Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace Basic Books Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Lewis J.H. Keller (Eds) (1996) Converging Infrastructures MIT Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Markoff (1999) ArticleTitleWhen Privacy is more Perilous than the lack of it. New York Times 4 3

    Google Scholar 

  • MITRE, Use of Free and Open Source Software in the U.S. Department of Defense, January 2, 2003. MITRE, New Bedford, MA.

  • National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. For the Record: Protecting Electronic Health Information. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1997.

  • National Research Council, System Security Study Committee. Computers at Risk. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1991

  • P.G. Neumann (Eds) (1995) Computer-Related Risks Addison-Wesley New York

    Google Scholar 

  • A.J. Pincus. The Role of Standards in Growth of the Global Electronic Commerce: United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, 1999. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/testimon/106f/pincus1028.htm

  • J. Postel and J. Reynolds. A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over IEEE 802 Networks. Updated February 1998, ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1042.txt (cited 17 December 1999)

  • S.K. Schmidt R. Werle (1998) Coordinating Technology: Studies in the International Standardization of Telecommunications MIT Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • R.C. Shah and J.P. Kesan. Nurturing Software: How Societal Institutions Shape the Development of Software. Communications of the ACM (forthcoming). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=519024

  • Shapiro Hal Varian (Eds) (1999) Information Rules Harvard Business Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Updegrove (1995) ArticleTitleStandard Setting and Consortium Structures. Standard View 143 144

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Weiss C. Cargill (1992) ArticleTitleConsortia in the Standards Development Process. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43 IssueID8 559–565

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean Camp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vincent, C., Camp, J. Looking to the Internet for models of governance. Ethics Inf Technol 6, 161–173 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3250-3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3250-3

Keywords

Navigation