In my last post I discussed how, with the NSA’s PRISM surveillance program, the United States has likely unilaterally killed the Internet as we know it.
It didn’t have to happen. There were a series of events that led to us getting to a point where a democratic government – the self-professed leader of the free world – feels it can carry out activities like this with impunity.
The Internet is a new entity. From a public policy and legislative perspective, we’re just figuring it out. In Canada, we’re struggling with how to deal with cyber-bullying and globally we’re redefining copyright in light of the Internet. In terms of a disruptive technology, the Internet is about as big as it gets. That said, there are some activities for which there is offline precedence, and I think most of us would argue that surveillance is one of those activities.
Governments – even transparent, democratic ones – have always engaged in surveillance activities. They are sometimes an unfortunate necessity to maintain law and order. However, wiretaps have had a high degree of judicial oversight. In Canada, police need to meet a higher standard to obtain a wiretap warrant than a regular warrant. It’s the same for opening a private citizen’s mail, and for a host of other surveillance techniques.
And as a society, we have long recognized the seriousness of these activities.
In fact, outrage at RCMP activities in the 1970s, including unauthorized mail openings and electronic surveillance without warrants, resulted in the Royal Commission into Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the MacDonald Commission), and ultimately the creation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).
It’s not long ago that, in the west at least, we found this type of activity so repugnant that we were willing to go to war over it. Stasi-like surveillance, and what it meant for personal freedom, was at the core of the Cold War. It was, in essence, a conflict fought over the level of state control over an individual’s freedom.
Now, we seem complacent in government monitoring of our activities, even if it is Stasi-like.
The fact is we know that the NSA is copying virtually every message sent from the U.S. to anywhere overseas. Cell phone data, Facebook updates, Google searches, emails – pretty much all communications – are tracked and stored by the U.S. government. And in case you thought you were safe because you’re Canadian, if you use any of these services your data is tracked and stored even if you reside in Canada. Social networking sites like Facebook store users’ data on servers in the U.S., and much of Canada’s Internet traffic transits through the U.S. even if the final destination is elsewhere (this is something CIRA has been actively working to change – see this).
Let me be clear about one thing. It’s not that governments should not have the power to monitor citizens under certain circumstances and with the appropriate oversight – it’s an unfortunate necessity to maintain law and order. But we’re not talking about surveillance with appropriate oversight. We’re talking about an opaque and deliberate system to gather and monitor the activities and communications of potentially everyone who is online.
Why should a government feel it is above judicial oversight to monitor its citizens’ activities, just because they’re online?
Because apparently, we’re fine with it. At the very least, we’re complacent with it.
I could write an entire post about why we should care, but others have already done so, and the reasons are both many and compelling.
Not only should we care, in my opinion we should be outraged.
Is it that we don’t care, or that we don’t understand, or has our moral compass shifted enough in the past two decades that we’re now okay with governments tracking our every move?
I’d like to hear your thoughts – why do we seem so complacent with government surveillance?
In my next post, I’ll discuss the research we carried out with Ipsos Reid to better understand what Canadians think about the PRISM program, and governments monitoring their online activities.
The Internet as we know it is dead.
Not long ago, I would have argued the opposite to be true.
The free and open Internet was in what I felt to be a strong position just last month. The open democratic nations of the world had just come off the success of defending the multi-stakeholder model at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) coordinated World Conference on International Communications (WCIT-12). And, as I discussed in a previous post, I was cautiously optimistic about the future of ICANN, the organization at the centre of the Internet governance ecosystem.
These were both signs that the Internet – and in particular the Internet governance ecosystem – was reaching a strong and healthy point. Now we are faced with the fact that the world’s most powerful democracy, the United States, has been systematically monitoring the Internet activity of both its own citizens and those of other nations.
The implications of the NSA’s PRISM surveillance program on the Internet governance world can best be explained by revisiting the events at WCIT-12.
WCIT-12 was a landmark meeting in the history of the Internet. A new version of the regulations that govern telecommunications activities globally was proposed and soundly rejected by many of the world’s democratic nations for provisions that would have extended the reach of the ITU over the Internet. This rejection was widely heralded as an endorsement for the current governance model applied to the Internet – the multi-stakeholder model – over a multi-lateral, United Nations model of governance.
I have articulated my reasons for supporting the multi-stakeholder model over a multi-lateral one many times, but my argument boils down to this: no other governance model puts the people and organizations that directly benefit from the Internet’s success in charge of it. The multi-stakeholder model is the only governance model that can support the development of a free and open Internet that has the potential to provide the world with all of the benefits it has to offer. Other models, including the multi-lateral model, are too open-to-influence by issues and actors that exist outside of the Internet ecosystem. Full stop.
WCIT-12 is just one example in a decade-long struggle for control of the Internet between – and, yes, this is an over-simplification but it works – open and transparent democratic nations and more authoritarian nations.
One of the main concerns at WCIT-12 – and voiced by the U.S. – was that new regulations could enable a system where (as I blogged at the time) “countries which do not have a strong commitment to human rights and democracy” would be able to put much of the global Internet traffic under significant surveillance.
Fast forward eight months, and we’re dealing with the news about the PRISM surveillance program. The irony of the fact that the country that led the charge against the new regulations for fear that it would give nations the authority to monitor Internet activity (among other reasons) is, of course, palpable.
Beyond the irony, the implications of the PRISM program run deep. The fact is the United States government has unilaterally invalidated the argument that the Internet must remain free and open for the good of the global community. While the U.S. has been doing its best to ensure nations are unable to monitor Internet activity, it has been working with the private sector in an effort to gather and monitor targeted Internet activity.
At the very least, this is a nail in the coffin of the multi-stakeholder model. They have effectively paved the way for the next attack on the multi-stakeholder model. The result?
Eventually a Balkanized Internet. An Internet that no longer provides access to global markets for business in the developing world. A global Internet that excludes people fighting authoritative regimes for basic human rights. An Internet that is no longer the incredible driver of positive economic and social change.
This is the first blog in a series of three I will be posting on this subject. In my next post, I will be discussing the apparent apathy among the citizens of open and democratic nations (Canada included) with regard to online surveillance.
On September 16, CIRA will host an important event in Montréal and I hope you can join us. For the first time, we are combining the Canadian Internet Forum (CIF) and CIRA’s Annual General Meeting (AGM). This is also the first time we will hold the CIF outside of Ottawa. By combining these two events, we are able to bring the important discussions the CIF has become known for to a new audience.
We have an exciting line-up, including panels on cyber-security policy in Canada and domestic Internet governance. We have also added a second, business-related stream that includes sessions on getting your business online and web analytics for your online business. Confirmed panellists include leading Canadian legal, security, policy and business experts. You can view the full list here.
In addition, Paul Brigner, the Regional Bureau Director, North America at the Internet Society will deliver an overview of the international Internet governance ecosystem.
I’m pleased to say that we have confirmed a couple of very good keynote speakers, including:
- Avinash Kaushik, a “Digital Marketing Evangelist, Google, Co-founder, Market Motive, and Bestselling Author.”
- Virginia Heffernan, Former New York Times’ columnist, and Author.
More speakers may be announced as we get closer to the event. And, of course we will also be taking care of CIRA-related business at our AGM.
As always, the event is free and open for all to attend. Registration is now open. More details are available here.
I’d also like to remind you that our Board of Directors election process is underway. The Member nomination period wraps up today (August 12) 12 at 6 p.m. ET to nominate either yourself or someone else to serve on our Board. For more information, please visit our elections website. Some changes to our elections rules are highlighted on our elections website – I encourage you to review them.
I hope to see you in Montréal.
A strange feeling came over me after I got home from ICANN 47 in Durban, something I haven’t felt after an ICANN meeting before.
The feeling? Optimism.
I’m optimistic, albeit cautiously so, about the future of ICANN and by extension, hopefully that of Internet governance in general.
If the meeting in Durban is any indication, we’ve come a long way in the past year. There were no outbursts of the type that characterized previous meetings. There were no indicted war criminals invited to dinner. And though it may be too soon to say for sure, I don’t think a letter will be sent to the government of South Africa about the quality of the hotel.
For a number of reasons, I think we have reached a turning point in the effectiveness of ICANN in the Internet governance ecosystem.
The meeting in Durban was very well organized. Although much of the heavy lifting in organizing an ICANN meeting is done by the local host, I can tell you from my experience as the host for ICANN 45, the staff at ICANN plays a large – and important – role in making sure the event is a success. Durban certainly was.
There was even difficult work accomplished – both the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the Registry Agreement (RA) were approved – a big step forward and a sign that ICANN has moved beyond some of the past tensions and sticking points with regard to the launch of the new gTLDs. On the importance of the RAA and the RA, Fadi Chehadé said it best: “We can see the last mile before the first new TLD is activated in the Internet’s root.”
I also have to give a nod to Fadi for putting together what appears to be a high-performing team – something I identified as a key priority for Beckstrom’s replacement last summer. In a relatively short period of time, key positions have been filled, and as far as I can tell from both the quantity and the quality of the work coming out of ICANN, the team has gelled under Fadi’s leadership.
I found the tone of the dialogue to be more respectful.
The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), a body that has a history of not being heard or understood, received credible, timely feedback from the ICANN Board about its advice on new gTLDs and the New gTLD Program. This is the sign of (dare I say it?) a respectful dialogue between the two bodies – not something I expected based on past experiences.
While I’m on the subject of new gTLDs, one of the striking events for me at ICANN 47 was the handling of the .AMAZON application. The GAC’s advice was clear – the .AMAZON TLD should not be awarded to Amazon.com, Inc. as it can be confused with the geographic region – and in all likelihood, ICANN will follow this advice.
While this is the right decision in my opinion, it didn’t stop the Amazon.com, Inc. representatives from publicly criticizing ICANN and the entire gTLD process.
Not surprising. However, what was surprising was how we were all able to listen, and to move on with the business of the day. Keep in mind, this is a large and powerful multinational corporation (who happens to hold the trademark for the name) calling out ICANN. It’s a sign that the organization has matured.
Having said all of this, I must stress that ICANN is not above criticism. Even if we’ve reached a turning point, the fact remains it will be a while before the old tensions dissipate and all stakeholders show up to meetings in the spirit of openness and trust. But, we have to give credit where credit is due. ICANN has been making a significant effort to reach out to the broader community, and is generally listening to feedback and adapting to it where applicable. It showed in Durban.
Fact is it was a relatively boring meeting, but boring in a good way. The fireworks that characterized past meetings have been replaced with substantive and respectful dialogue on policy issues. And you know what? That’s exactly the way it should be – it shows the multi-stakeholder model can work.
I’m looking forward to ICANN 48 in Buenos Aires.
As the operator of the registry for the .CA top-level domain and the domain name system (DNS) infrastructure that supports it, I am uncomfortable, though not surprised, with the knowledge that a government is monitoring the activities of Internet users.
And while recent reports about the National Security Agency’s top-secret PRISM program actively monitoring Internet users in the United States and (by default) citizens of other countries – Canada included – are on the front page of newspapers around the world, Internet surveillance is not exactly new. It has been happening in one form or another since the early days of the commercial Internet in the mid-1990s.
However, the fact that online surveillance isn’t new does not: a) make it right, or b) mean that we shouldn’t do our best to make sure it doesn’t happen.
The Internet is far too important for us to become complacent. No other technological invention of the past millennium has had the social and economic effect that the Internet has had.
That said, for all of its complexity, the Internet is really driven by a series of transactions – either the exchange of information in personal communications or the exchange of technological/ informational communications at the DNS level. Those transactions work because there is a high degree of trust among the parties that operate the Internet.
Trust is the very foundation of the Internet.
Having an unknown, unauthorized party access to what is essentially private communications erodes that trust, and with it, the very foundation of what makes the Internet work. I believe eroding that trust – and with it the tremendous social and economic benefit the Internet brings – is too high a price to pay for national security.
It reminds me of this quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
There is one way to protect ourselves, to some degree, from having our data fall under the jurisdiction of a foreign country. We must ensure more of it travels to its destination via Canadian routes.
Many Canadians may not realize that much of Canada’s domestic Internet traffic flows outside of the country. This is simply the way the Internet works. For example, a single email can be broken down into thousands of data packets, and each packet will take the fastest and most efficient route to its destination where that email will be reassembled. The majority of the time, that route involves travel through another country.
In our case, this often means our confidential data travels through the U.S., and is subject to any surveillance and laws in that jurisdiction.
Historically, it was often more economical for Canadian Internet Service Providers to move domestic traffic over established international links. Canada’s Internet is therefore heavily reliant on foreign infrastructure, and as a result, much of our Internet traffic flows through other countries.
In light of programs like the NSA’s PRISM, I do not believe this is acceptable any longer. It is time for Canada to repatriate its Internet traffic to the best extent possible, given the distributed nature of the DNS.
In my informed opinion, to do this will require more Internet Exchange Points, or IXPs, in Canada. IXPs are large data switches that allow Internet users in the same geographic area to connect directly with each other. An IXP allows local network traffic to take shorter, faster paths between member networks, ensuring more of that traffic remains local. Canada currently has fewer than five IXPs, well below the numbers our international counterparts have (the U.S., for example, has more than 80).
By building a robust Canadian Internet infrastructure, including a nation-wide fabric of IXPs, we can ensure more Canadian traffic stays in Canada, and is therefore only subject to Canadian law. We will also ensure that the trust that underlies the Internet in Canada remains strong, and we can continue to reap the benefits the Internet offers.
A couple of weeks ago, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) hosted the World Telecommunication and Policy Forum (WTPF), a high-level exchange of views on information and communication technology (ICT) related policy issues (read ‘Internet’).
You may recall that I tend to get a tad suspicious whenever the ITU talks about anything Internet related. To date I haven’t been proven wrong – the fact is the ITU is looking to extend its reach over the Internet.
Unfortunately, once again there was a proposal – this time from Brazil – put forward at the WTPF that would result in the ITU exerting some control over the Internet. Titled “Opinion on the Role of Government in the Multistakeholder Framework for Internet Governance,” this proposal received support among more than a handful of member states (including Russia, India, Iran, and Argentina, among many others). It’s worth noting that most developed nations, Canada included, did not support Brazil’s proposal.
On the surface, it looks like the typical scenario of ITU members doing their best to wrestle control of the Internet from the U.S.-based ICANN, and in part it is. However, I believe there’s more to the picture than meets the eye.
I believe the driver behind Brazil’s proposal is actually rooted in the Governmental Advisory Committee’s (GAC) communiqué (PDF) coming out of the ICANN meeting in Beijing.
In Beijing, the GAC issued consensus advice on two proposed generic top-level domains, .africa (from DotConnectAfrica) and .gcc (for Middle Eastern Internet users). It did not do so on two other potential ‘geographic’ domain names, .patagonia and .amazon, for which there are also multiple proposals.
Rumour has it that it was the U.S. members of the GAC that did not go along with the rest of the GAC members, who believed that the geographic proposal for these domain names should be approved. As I understand it, the U.S. instead sided with the trademark holders of the domains in question, resulting in non-consensus advice.
Keep in mind, the ICANN Board has to treat consensus advice from the GAC differently from other advice. They either have to accept the advice, or explain why the advice was not accepted. This gives consensus advice more weight than non-consensus advice, where the ICANN Board can accept it or not, and not have to give any explanation.
Will the trademark holders win these gTLDs? Only time will tell. But, is it possible that the Brazilian proposal at the WTPF was retaliation against the U.S. for it not supporting its gTLD proposals at the GAC?
I believe it is.
What we are witnessing, in my opinion, is the gTLD debate boiling over into the ITU. And I believe this to be a dangerous precedent. The ICANN and ITU worlds are now interrelated.
This entire situation, however, foreshadows what the world of Internet governance would look like if the Internet were governed with a multi-lateral model instead of a multi-stakeholder one; where member states act in their own best interest (as it appears both Brazil and the U.S. are), instead of the best interest of the Internet.
As I’ve said before, the multi-stakeholder model is a big part of the reason the Internet has been so successful. That’s because the people and organizations that stand to benefit from its success are at the table when decisions about how it develops are made. Therefore, acting in the best interest of the Internet IS acting in your own best interest under the multi-stakeholder model.
We are all aware of how the multi-lateral governance model can get bogged down in this ‘eye for an eye’ diplomacy. It doesn’t help anybody, least of all the free and open Internet.
Yesterday, Websense released its third annual Canadian Cybercrime Report Card, and the findings are not encouraging. Cyber-criminal activity is on the rise in Canada and it’s becoming more sophisticated.
Let’s be clear about one thing – the Websense report does not refer to .CA. It is referring to websites hosted in Canada. As the registry for the .CA top-level domain, security is our top priority at CIRA. The brand values for .CA we promote – safe, secure, trusted – are words we live by every day. And we work hard to ensure the safety and security of .CA.
Websense’s report raises a number of troubling points. Canada now ranks tenth in the world for websites hosting malware (that’s up 25 per cent over last year). There is good news, sort of. There has been a 67 per cent decrease in phishing sites hosted in Canada in the past year. Unfortunately, even with this decrease, we still rank tenth in the world. Most disturbing is the fact that there has been an 83 per cent increase in hosting advanced malware. This advanced malware is highly sophisticated and is used to target and steal corporate data.
Why has Canada become a destination for malware hosting?
The authors of the report posit that the bad actors, those that are creating the malware, do not want their malicious plans to be predictable (like they would be if they were hosted in Russia of China). Rather, Canada is considered safe and therefore trusted. Their success rates are higher if the malware originates from a trusted server in Canada than in other parts of the world.
You can access the full report here (PDF).
What does the report mean for us who live and breathe in the Internet ecosystem? Canada is not immune to malicious activity online. In fact, Canada is increasingly becoming a host for malware. While I am less than pleased that so much criminal activity is hosted within our own borders, what bothers me the most is the fact that some bad actors are taking advantage of our reputation as a safe place to host websites
Clearly, we all need to do more. The security of the Internet is the responsibility of those who use it just as much as it is for governments, registries like CIRA, and other Internet stakeholders.
Make sure your anti-virus software on your computer is up-to-date. Always install operating system updates. Don’t open attachments in emails if you don’t know the sender. For more tips on how to stay safe online, check out these tip- sheets we developed with the Ottawa-based MediaSmarts.
At CIRA, we will continue to ensure .CA remains one of the safest top-level domains in the world. That work includes partnering with other organizations (like we did with the DNSChanger virus) and implementing measures to make the .CA registry even more secure.
We do important work at CIRA. Our work supports Canada’s piece of the global Internet – the .CA domain space.
The CIRA Board of Directors is responsible for setting the policies and strategies that guide our work in managing that space on behalf of Canadians. That means they help define the heart of the Canadian Internet.
This year, four directors will be elected to the Board, and all .CA Members are eligible to vote.
We’ll be posting the final list of candidates running for the Board of Directors on September 9, and voting will commence on September 16.
Why am I blogging about this now?
Because there are a few steps in the process between now and the voting phase, and .CA Members play a critical role throughout that process. We’ve developed an interactive ‘roadmap’ of our election to help explain the process.
For this year’s election, I am asking you to do two things.
First, if you are a Member, make sure you vote in September. If you are not a Member, you only have until August 26 to become one and be eligible to vote. We recommend you get your membership application in sooner so you can participate in every stage of the election. Membership is free. All you need is a .CA domain name. Stay tuned to this blog – and your email if you are a .CA Member – for updates as the election process progresses.
Second, talk to your family and your colleagues about becoming a Member and voting. As a nation, we are increasingly spending more of our time in the online world, it is more important than ever to make sure that Canada’s digital identity is strong, and that we all participate in building trusted Canadian values online.
You can help by casting your ballot in the CIRA Board of Directors election.
Today is International Girls in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Day, a day set aside to encourage girls and women to consider careers in ‘tech’. It’s no surprise that women are under-represented in the ICT sector. Many theories have been put forward as to why.
In Canada, about 25 per cent of the ICT workforce are women. This number hasn’t changed much in the past decade, which means we have a lot of work to do.
In terms of overall numbers, CIRA appears to be doing well with regard to employing women. Currently, 40 per cent of our staff is female. However, that number declines to 28 per cent when we just count our Development and Operations Teams.
Personally, I’d like to see that number much higher.
To learn more about what it’s like working in ICT for women, I spoke with a couple of CIRA’s female employees. Below is what they told me, in their own words. Please share these stories with young women that you think can benefit from reading them.
Anne-Marie Walton, Application Developer
Why did you choose a career in technology?
I never thought I would have a career in IT. I wasn’t exposed to computers very much when I was young so I was scared of using computers.
I first discovered IT in university. I wasn’t happy with my major, which was geology, and a friend suggested I try a few courses in computer science. I tried a few courses and loved them so much that I decided to switch my major to computer science. I’m so happy I did!
What is it like working in a male dominated field?
Sometimes it’s challenging. Some people are not very accepting of women in this field. On the other hand, there are some people who are fantastically happy to see women represented in the field. You just learn to be tolerant of people who haven’t entered the current century and try not to take anything too personally.
Any advice for young women who might be considering a career in technology?
If you love working in the IT environment, don’t let the fact that it is a male dominated field stop you from pursuing it.
Why do you love working in IT?
I love the fact that it’s constantly changing. There are always new problems to solve. It’s challenging and interesting.
Irena Zamboni, Quality Assurance Specialist
Why did you choose a career in technology?
I did a survey in high school about what areas you are good at. It came back as math, science and business.
Engineering was one of those fields that I knew would open doors. It never dawned on me that software was a career.
I did an undergrad in electrical engineering and a Masters in biomedical engineering. During this time, I had a job doing software testing. I really enjoyed troubleshooting software.
You use a lot of critical thinking. No one day of the job is the same. I’m pretty social, and being that it’s a job that works with a lot of other departments in an organization, I really enjoyed that.
Did you have any role models that inspired you to enter the field?
My dad is a mechanical engineer and my mom is a teacher. I was big into Legos, so I think my parents noticed that side of me and encouraged it. I was also inquisitive and I like to use my hands.
In high school, I took a tech class and killed it. I was the only girl in the class and I got the highest mark. The guys were upset.
I didn’t know if I wanted to go into IT at the time, but I took that class to see what the field was about and what the options were.
What is it like working in a male dominated field?
I personally love it. I find guys easy to get along with.
I’m a bit of a tomboy. It never felt odd to be surrounded by more men than women.
I think the biggest thing is to see yourself outside of your gender. My parents never talked about engineering as male dominated, or nursing as female dominated. I just saw (myself in field) as part of the norm.
Any advice for young women who might be considering a career in technology?
Take everything that is available to you and at least try it. Don’t make up your mind about something without trying it. Don’t be afraid of making a change. Don’t do something that makes others happy. Do something that makes you happy.
This week marks an important milestone in the ongoing development of the Internet in Canada. At an event attended by dozens of partner organizations and government representatives, a new Internet Exchange Point (IXP) was launched in Montréal.
CIRA’s director of IT, Jacques Latour, represented CIRA at that event, as CIRA worked with a group of partners to establish the Montréal Internet Exchange, also known as QIX.
Réseau d’informations scientifiques du Québec (RISQ), Quebec’s non-profit scientific information network will operate QIX. Other partners included Fibrenoire, Cogeco Data Services, Metro Optic, RISQ, optic.ca, Groupe Teltech Inc., Cologix, and Google to create this IXP.
In June of last year, CIRA made public our work with interested community partners across Canada to facilitate the creation of more IXPs. QIX demonstrates that we are following through on that commitment and in the months to come, we will continue to work with partners in other cities in Canada, including in Winnipeg.
As I’ve explained in the past, creating more IXPs is fundamentally about making Canada’s Internet infrastructure more robust, secure and resilient and reducing the cost of access for all Canadians. This video from European Internet Exchange Association provides the best explanation I’ve seen about how IXPs work.
The benefits of IXPs are not inconsequential. It’s become old news that Canadians pay among the highest rates in the industrialized world for Internet speeds that are comparatively slow. There were only two IXPs in Canada previously. This has resulted in an inferior Internet infrastructure compared to Canada’s international counterparts. The U.S., by comparison, has 85 IXPs, and Sweden, a country of nine million people and an advanced Internet economy, has 12 IXPs.
Consider that the Internet, which today represents about three per cent of Canada’s GDP, is expected to account for as much as seven per cent by 2016. That equates to $75 billion, twice the size of the forestry industry, an industry upon which this country was built. It’s also larger than the tourism industry. It’s a dollar figure that represents high-value jobs in IT and other related industries. This is wealth that is created here in Canada and, to a great degree, remains here in Canada.
But as I said in February at the kick-off event for our 2013 Canadian Internet Forum, it isn’t just about the money. The Internet is the greatest driver of economic and social change the world has ever seen. Fundamentally it has become the great equalizer. It gives voice to the voiceless and creates opportunity for all.
It is for these reasons that we at CIRA consider the continued growth of Canada’s IXP fabric to be essential for the long-term stability and reliability of a domestic Internet; an Internet that is accessible and affordable to all Canadians; an Internet that will fuel our global competitiveness through the 21st century and beyond.