Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 161–173 | Cite as

Looking to the Internet for models of governance

Article

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.

Keywords

design for values governance intellectual property internet open code privacy security standards technology and society 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J. Besen. What Good is Free Software. In W. Hahn, editor, Government Policy Towards Open Source, pp. 12–33. Brookings Institute, 2003Google Scholar
  2. S. Bradner. The Internet Standards Process: Revision 3. Updated October 1996, ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2026.txt (cited 10 January 2000)Google Scholar
  3. G.C. Bowker and S.L. Star. Sorting Things Out: Classification And Its Consequences, MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. J. Camp. Trust and Risk in Internet Commerce. October 1999. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. draft available http://www.ljean.org/trustRiskGoogle Scholar
  5. Cargill, C. 1989Information Technology Standardization: Theory, Process, and Organization,Digital PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaum, D. 1992Achieving Electronic Privacy.Scientific American2677681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Compaine, B.M. eds. 1988Issues in New Information TechnologyAblex PublishingNorwood, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. 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)Google Scholar
  9. David, M., Shurmer,  1996Formal Standards-Setting for Global Telecommunications and Information Services.Telecommunications Policy20789815Google Scholar
  10. DiBona, C., Ockman, S., Stone, M. 1999Open sources: Voices from the Open Source RevolutionO’Reilly & AssociatesCambridge, MAMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Etzioni, A. eds. 1999The Limits of PrivacyBasic BooksNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. S. Garfinkel. Fiascos. Wide Open News. 14 November 1999, <http://www.wideopen.com/story/102.html>.Google Scholar
  13. Hawkins, R. 1998

    Standards for Communication Technologies: Negotiating Institutional Biases in Network Design

    Mansell, R.Silverstone, R. eds. Communication by DesignOxford University PressOxford157186    Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Internet Architecture Board and Internet Engineering Steering Group, The Internet Standards Process–Revision 2, RFC 1602, IAB, IESG, March 1994Google Scholar
  16. ITU Telecom Conference. Backgrounder: Third Generation Mobile. www.itu.int/telecom-wt-99/homepage.html (cited 24 November 1999). International Telecommunications Union, 1999Google Scholar
  17. Kahin, B.Keller, J.H. eds. 1997Coordinating the InternetMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaner, C., Pels, D. 1998Bad Software: What to Do When Software FailsWiley Computer PublishingNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.htmlGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee, Semantic Web, National academy Domain Name and Internet Governance meeting, February, 18, 2002Google Scholar
  21. 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. HarvardGoogle Scholar
  22. Lessig, L. eds. 1999Code and Other Laws of CyberspaceBasic BooksCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis, B.Keller, J.H. eds. 1996Converging InfrastructuresMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Markoff, J. 1999When Privacy is more Perilous than the lack of it.New York Times43Google Scholar
  25. MITRE, Use of Free and Open Source Software in the U.S. Department of Defense, January 2, 2003. MITRE, New Bedford, MA.Google Scholar
  26. National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. For the Record: Protecting Electronic Health Information. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1997.Google Scholar
  27. National Research Council, System Security Study Committee. Computers at Risk. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1991Google Scholar
  28. Neumann, P.G. eds. 1995Computer-Related RisksAddison-WesleyNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.htmGoogle Scholar
  30. 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)Google Scholar
  31. Schmidt, S.K., Werle, R. 1998Coordinating Technology: Studies in the International Standardization of TelecommunicationsMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. 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=519024Google Scholar
  33. Shapiro, Hal Varian,  eds. 1999Information RulesHarvard Business PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  34. Updegrove, A. 1995Standard Setting and Consortium Structures.Standard View143144Google Scholar
  35. Weiss, M., Cargill, C. 1992Consortia in the Standards Development Process.Journal of the American Society for Information Science43559565Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations