Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 170
Netizens-Digest Thursday, August 13 1998 Volume 01 : Number 170
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Report on Mtg in Geneva to Privatize the DNS(nerve center of Internet)
[netz] Report from INET98
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:32:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Report on Mtg in Geneva to Privatize the DNS(nerve center of Internet)
Following is an account of what went on at the International Forum
for the White Paper in Geneva last week to privatize the nerve
center of the Internet, the DNS and the DNS root system
It is important that folks who care about the Internet and its
future find a way to open up public discussion about what is happening.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
- --------------------
Report from the Front
Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privitize the Internet
DNS and root Server System
by Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com
There's a battle being waged today, one that is of great
importance to the future of society, but most people have no idea
it is taking place.
I just returned from Geneva, Switzerland where a meeting was
held Friday July 25 and Saturday July 26 to create the
organization that Ira Magaziner, advisor to the U.S. President,
has called for. It's an organization to privatize key aspects of
the Internet, the Domain Name System (DNS) and the control of the
root server of the Internet. The meeting was the second in a
series that are part of the the International Forum on the
White Paper (IFWP) (1).
The U.S. government, without discussion by the U.S. Congress,
the press or the public, and contrary to the direction of the
U.S. court (in the case ACLU vrs. Reno) is throwing a bone to the
private sector and offering them the possibility of making their
millions off of the Internet. And while in Geneva, I saw folks
from several different countries grabbing at the bone, in hopes
of getting themselves some of the same kind of exorbitant profits
from selling gTDL's (generic Top Level Domains) that the National
Science Foundation (NSF) bestowed on Network Services Inc (NSI)
several years ago by giving them the contracts for selling gTLDs.
There's money to be made, or so these folks seem to think,
and so any concern for the well being of the Internet or its
continued development as "a new medium of international
communication" (ACLU vrs Reno) has been thrown to the wind by Mr.
Magaziner, IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) under the
direction of Mr. Postel, which has the U.S. government contract
to administer the Internet Addresses and Names and to administer
the root server, and the others who, without any ethical
considerations or social obligations are rushing through this
process and sqelching discussion and dissent.
It's called "consensus" we are told. I went to the session
setting up the Names Registry Council provisions for the bylaws
of what we are told is to be the new private organization
controlling these key aspects of the Internet. At the beginning
of the meeting, I made the mistake of objecting when all were
asked to register their consensus with the provision for a Names
Council. I wanted to hear some discussion so I would know what I
was voting on. I was scolded by one participant for asking for a
discussion as, he claimed that they were *not* here for people
who had not read the bylaws proposal that appeared online only a
few days before. I had read the bylaws proposal but was naive
enough to think that one would hear discussion and clarification
before being asked to declare one's adherence. In that way I
thought one would know what one was agreeing to. Instead,
however, I soon learned that that was *not* how business (or
really religion) was being developed in the session I attended.
After harrassing me for asking for clarification and
discussion, the meeting continued. The Chairman asked people to
brainstorm and list the functions for the council. When I asked
that the activities of the council be reported online and that
there be online discussion with anyone interested being allowed
to comment on all issues concerning the council, the scribe
miswrote what I had proposed. When I asked it be corrected, I
was told by the Chair that there was no "wordsmithing" allowed,
i.e. that it wouldn't be corrected. After a number of people had
listed functions for the council, it was announced that the
meeting would vote on the functions to determine if there was
"consensus". Then a vote was rammed through on the items.
However, instead of counting the numbers for or against each
function, there was a declaration of "consensus" if, we were
told, it seemed as if there were 60% of those voting who had
voted for the listed function. For the first few functions those
opposed were allowed to voice their objection. The meeting was
being tape recorded, we were told, and there would be a record
kept of it. But that soon ended as someone in the room objected
to hearing any objections. The Chair said that this was how this
was done at the telecom meetings he knew of, as there the players
were large corporations with large bank accounts that could
afford big law suits. Here, however, it seemed those in control
of the meeting judged this was not the case. A short break was
called. After the break it was announced that those with
objections could no longer voice them on the record during the
meeting but were told to come up after the meeting was over.
So the vote continued on, consensus continued to be declared
for most of the items voted on, despite the fact there were those
indicating their opposition to all of these items. But the record
would no longer contain any note of the objections. The Chair and
others marvelled at the roll they were on. Even though it was
time for the meeting to end, one of the Chairs of the plenary
meeting allowed this meeting to continue as it on such a roll.
Then to the Plenary meeting. Here there was joy and praise
for this democratic process from the Chair and spokespeople from
the different sessions. When I tried to go to the microphone and
say that the consensus in the session I had been in to determine
functions for the Names Council represented "no discussion
allowed and no noting of those who objected," the Chair of the
Plenary Meeting told me I was not allowed to speak there.
This all followed the invitation that had been extended in
the press lunch on Tuesday, July 21 at INET, where all members
of the press were invited to come to the Friday and Saturday
sessions of the IFWP and were were invited to participate.
However, by Friday and Saturday the invitation clearly had
changed, especially if one had a question or objection to raise
about what was happening.
And this is how the supposed new private organization that
is to administer and make policy for the Domain Names System that
is the nerve system of the Internet and the Root Server System,
is being created. No one with any but a private commercial
interest (in normal language, a conflict of interest) is to be
allowed to participate in the process, no discussion to clarify
what people are being asked to vote on is allowed to take place,
and no objections could be voiced in the session creating the
Names Council, which is one of the crucial aspects of the
organizational form, as it is groups with a commercial interest
in the sale of gTLD's who have decreed to themselves
the right to set policy and recommend actions regarding the
gTLD's.
What's the significance of this process as a way to create
an organization to take over control and administration of the
nerve center of the Global Internet?
The Internet was developed and has grown and flourished
through the opposite procedures, through democratic processes
where all are welcomed to speak, where those who disagree are
invited to participate, and to voice their concerns along with
those who agree, where those who can make a single contribution
are as welcome as those with the time to continually contribute.
(See Poster "Lessons from the early MsgGroup Mailing List as a
Foundation for Identifying the Principles for Future Internet
Governance" by Ronda Hauben, INET '98.)(2) Also historically, the
processes for discussion on key issues regarding the development
of the Net are carried out online, as a medium of online
communication is what is being built.
This is all the opposite of what is happening with the
privatizing of the DNS and throwing it to the corporate interests
who are the so called "market forces". Here only those who can
afford thousands of dollars for plane fare can go to the
meetings, and once at the meetings, one is only allowed to
participate in a way that registers agreement. At the sessions I
attended there was no discussion permitted so no one knows if
what they think they are voting on is indeed what it appears to
be and there is no opportunity to clarify one's views on an issue
as there is no chance to discuss the pros and cons. And for those
for whom English is not the first language, or for someone who
disagrees with what is happening, there is mockery and the
attempt to make them feel unwelcome.
This is *not* the way to create a new and pioneering
organization to administer and control the nerve center of an
international public communications infrastructure that has been
built with the tax money and effort of people around the world.
When those who have questions or think what is happening is a
problem are not allowed to speak, it means that there is no way
to know what the problems are to be solved, or what can be
proposed that can offer any solution.
The U.S. government has initiated and is directing this
process with no regard for the concerns and interests of the
poeple online or not yet online. Instead only those with profit
making blinders over their eyes are able to stand the glare this
rotten process is reflecting.
During his speech at the opening session of the IFWP in
Geneva, Mr. Ira Magaziner said that the U.S. government no longer
has any obligation to the well being of the people in the U.S.
and he left the room, claiming that the U.S. government would not
be involved in the process to create the new organization. But
the bylaws of the new organization, made available only a few
days before the meeting, and thus not long enough for those
traveling to the meeting to have had a chance to study or discuss
them, were presented by IANA and its lawyer. IANA is the U.S.
government contractor proposing the structure of this new
"private" organization. Thus the U.S. government is deeply
involved in this process but not in any way that fulfills its
obligation to provide for the well being of the American people.
Meanwhile there is a lawsuit against the NSF brought by a company
which sees itself as the MCI of the Internet. The lawsuit claims
that anyone who wishes should be able to go into business
creating gTLD's. The fact that the DNS is a hierarchical
architecture to keep the number of root level lookups for the
Internet at a minimum is irrelevant to those bringing the lawsuit
and to the U.S. government who is offering out to private sector
corporations competition in selling root level gTLD's. And the
primary functions rammed through at the Saturday meeting was that
the Names Council is being created to make policy and
recommendations for how to increase the number of gTLD's, despite
the fact that those proposing this structure had a commercial
self interest in the issues and thus a conflict of interest in
being involved in proposing or setting public policy regarding
the future of the Internet.
This is the degeneration that the U.S. government's pro
commercial policy on the future development of the Internet has
led to. There is no concern by Magaziner for the fact that
millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money (and taxpayer money of
people around the world) and effort has gone to create and
develop the Internet. The policy of the U.S. government is
to try to stop the use of the Internet as a medium of
international communication for ordinary people and to deny its
technical needs and processes. This is contrary to the directive
of the U.S. court that the U.S. government "should also protect
the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as
well as media magnates." (ACLU vrs. Reno)
The next meeting of the IFWP is set for Singapore in August
1998. Magaziner has given this ad hoc self appointed group a
deadline to have an interim organization in place by September
30. So the Internet is to be auctioned off as officials in
the U.S. government oversee the grabfest.
But there are people who care about the Net and its
continued growth and development as a medium of international
communication. And it is in the hands of these Netizens that any
future health of this crucial communications infrastructure that
makes possible an unprecedented level and degree of international
communication must rest. The public needs to know what is going
on and it is important that Netizens find a way to both intervene
in this give away of public property and let the rest of the
world know what is happening.
- ------------
Notes
(1)The White paper was issued by the U.S. government. It begins:
"On July 1, 1997, as part of the Clinton Administration's
"Framework for Global Electronic Commerce" the President directed
the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the domain name system
(DNS) in a manner that increases competition...."
(2) Write to ronda@panix.com for copy of Poster. Also see
"Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet",
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ or in print edition ISBN
0-8186-7706-6.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:29:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Report from INET98
Report From INET98
by Jay Hauben
jrh29@columbia.edu
>From July 20 to 24, INET98, the eighth annual conference of the
Internet Society (ISOC), was held in Geneva, Switzerland. It was
followed on July 24 and 25 by a meeting of the International
Forum on the White Paper (IFWP).
The Internet Society was formed in 1992 "to facilitate and
support the technical evolution of the Internet as a research and
education infrastructure" (Charter of Internet Society, 2A). It
has grown with the Internet and still today there is an
increasing number of ISOC chapters being formed continually
throughout the world. Even though the current Internet Society
leadership is most concerned with the efforts to commercialize
and privatize the Internet, there were many attendees at INET98
especially from developing countries and international bodies
who defended the value of continuing the public Internet. At the
Developing Countries Seminar that preceded the main INET98 sessions,
frequent comments were made explaining the need for the involvement
of public bodies if the Internet is to spread more universally. One
argument was that poor urban and rural people anywhere in the
world can not be Internet customers. However they would benefit
from and contribute to the Internet as a communications medium
and the Internet could better integrate them into the rest of
the world.
Historically, the vision of the "library of the future" has been
a constructive force contributing to the deveolpment of network
technology and the Internet. Surprisingly, the world library
community seemed sparsely represented at INET98. For example,
there were education and health tracks but no track or sessions
directly addressing the concerns and contributions of libraries
and librarians to Internet development. The importance of the
Internet to libraries was stressed however by a library person I
met at the conference from Benin, a country in West Africa. He
explained that the university library, one of the largest in his
country possesses only 23,000 books and 340 periodicals. He made
it clear how important Internet access to digitalized books and
journals can be to students and scholars in his country. He also
spoke about regional isolation in Benin and the value of email as
part of a solution to the communications problems between regions.
There were eight parallel tracts at the conference in addition to
the daily plenary sessions. One session of the User-Centered
Issues track was devoted to Internet use by people with
disabilities. The presentations were almost exclusively
arguments and appeals that web pages be constructed with great
care. Columnar or crowded web pages or those relying heavily on
graphics or illustrations are difficult or impossible to access
for people using special readers. For example, page scanners used
by people with limited or no sight read a whole single line
sequentially even when the page is in columns. Also, many current
web pages are especially confusing to people who have learning
disabilities. The speakers urged web page creators to view their
pages with a lynx text browser or emulator since many people in
the world can only access the world wide web via a text browser.
Also sometimes the use of page scanners and other special
equipment is only possible with text browsers. Finally, not only
in the discussion of access for people with disabilities but
elsewhere in the conference a criticism of frames was made. The
use of frames it was pointed out sometimes excludes access from
older equipment but also does not allow accuracy of bookmarking
or ease of printing defeating some of the value of the web.
A technical session on "Quality of Service" covered
differentiated service. Current routers are not yet but can be
programmed to queue arriving packets according to classes of
service. Depending for example on how much a sender pays, his or
her packets could be given priority over the packets of lower
paying senders. This new scheme would allow high bandwidth
applications priority treatment while email or library search
packets would be queued for later transmission or retransmission.
The lower paying users might experience greater delays but real
time audio or video might be more successful. Supporters of such
differentiated service admitted that the creation of classes of
messages is contrary to the history and technology of the
Internet which up until now has been egalitarian, but they
argued that the technology allows for classes and there are
companies that feel they can find customers who will pay higher
charges to get higher priority. Such an important change it would
appear should not be undertaken without hearing from the whole
spectrum of users and future users but that did not get spoken
to. The question remained how would such a change get decided.
A number of sessions discussed the Internet II project of which
Columbia University is a member. Over 130 academic and non-
academic organizations have joined together to develop a new
network that would achieve speeds or bandwidth up to 1000 times
that of the current Internet. Academic institutions can join the
Internet II consortium for a contribution between $500,000 and
$2,000,000 which severely limits participation to the better
endowed institutions. Commercial entities can join for a
contribution of $25,000 usually in kind. The purpose of the
Internet II project is to insure that educational and research
users would still have a network even if the current trend toward
commercialization and privatization of the Internet might
marginalize their access to the current Internet. The strategy is
to connect the consortium members with their own network not
compatible with the Internet and then win the rest of the world
over to their protocols. However this bifurcation of the Internet
may not be easily repairable. Email and chat and other common
uses of the Internet would stay on Internet I until Internet II
protocols were adopted by everyone which also limits the value of
Internet II.
The University of Geneva provided logistical support for INET98.
Its Computer Department setup and maintained 250 networked
computers at the conference. Using a chip developed at the
University, all the computers could boot several operating
systems such as Windows95 and Linux while being protected against
viruses and previous user activity. The chip allows sending pre-
boot user preferences to the server including the choice to
delete all data from the hard drive and load a mirror of the
chosen operating system and environment from the server. All this
would only be an exercise except that the developers created a
compression scheme that greatly shortens the time to reload a
computer from scratch. The chip seemed to work well and the
computers at the conference were always in use if mostly for
email and web searches.
Despite the rather narrow session topics the great success of
INET98 was the gathering of people from all over the world with
overlapping interests in the Internet and its future. Many people
were disappointed in the level of the presentations, their lack
of historical perspective or technical depth. But there was a
tremendous exchange of business cards and email addresses and a
sense that the Internet was creating a world community and
spreading a new communications technology that could help inter-
connect the peoples of the world if the communications essence of
the Internet were to continue and spread.
The International Forum on the White Paper one and a half day
meeting was not a planned extension of INET98 but a last minute
event. The US government has had oversight and control of the
domain name and root server systems that allow all users on the
Internet to send messages and packets to each other no matter
where they are. This is achieved via a conversion of domain name
addresses into numeric addresses. The US government has confirmed
its intention in a White Paper issued July 5, to end this
historic role on September 30 of this year. The White Paper
presented by presidential advisor Ira Magaziner has as its
purpose the formation of a new private entity to control and
manage the root server and domain name systems which are the
central control and nerve center of the Internet. The IFWP
meeting in Geneva was organized to approve and help give
international support and form to the new private organization.
The method to achieve such support was to disallow any opposition
to privatization. The sessions were chaired in such a way that
all opposition and most discussion was discouraged and there were
frequent calls for consensus. Even when it appeared as many as
half or more people were confused or openly opposed to proposed
structures or powers of the new body the chairs often declared
that consensus had been achieved and that the next issue was in
order. Since the changes being proposed concern the future of the
Internet, eg, whether it would be the interconnection of
different networks or of only networks adhering to commercial
concerns about security, they require careful consideration and
the hearing of points of view from across the Internet user
spectrum. But the IFWP meeting was not set up to allow such
democratic procedure. The meeting ended with the declaration by
the organizers that a large degree of consensus had been
achieved. Those who opposed or disagreed with the process or the
purpose of privatization of the nerve center of the Internet left
the meeting very frustrated. Another such meeting is planned by
the IFWP for Singapore in mid August while other follow up
meetings and activities were planned by other forces. The value
of these IFWP meetings are that they have alerted a body of
people to significant changes that are being planned for the
Internet.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
See also the Amateur Computerist July 1998 Supplement available at:
http://wwwais.org/~jrh/acn/dns-supplement.txt whose appendix has
another report from the IFWP meeting in Geneva.
- -------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #170
******************************
