Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 186
Netizens-Digest Sunday, October 18 1998 Volume 01 : Number 186
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Domain games: Internet leaves the U.S. nest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 11:46:59
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] Domain games: Internet leaves the U.S. nest
The CSS Internet News (tm) is a daily e-mail publication that
has been providing up to date information about the 'Net since
1996. Subscription information is available at:
http://www.networx.on.ca/~jwalker/inews.htm
The following is an excerpt from the 'News
NOTE: Registrations for the On-line Learning Series of Courses
for November are now being accepted. Information is available at:
http://www.networx.on.ca/~jwalker/course.htm
- ---------------
Domain games: Internet leaves the U.S. nest
October 16, 1998
Web posted at 11:45 AM EDT
by Elinor Mills
http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9810/16/darpa.idg/index.html
(IDG) -- The United States government gave birth to the Internet
nearly 20 years ago and is finally pushing it out of the nest. But
determining how it will fly on its own is opening up a can of worms.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) within the U.S. Department of Commerce is currently
considering how to mesh together several proposals for a new
nonprofit corporation to oversee the Internet's growth, including how
to manage domain names and addresses. This is an increasingly
lucrative area, particularly as URLs and e-mail addresses become as
common as phone numbers and serve as important branding devices.
"Our goal is to try to broaden consensus as much as possible ... to
effect a compromise," said Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's senior
policy adviser. "The areas of disagreement can be bridged."
A public comment period for the proposals ends Tuesday and the
government should be prepared to make an announcement on the outcome
within a week or two, according to Magaziner.
Currently, the Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA) oversees
Internet names, addresses, and protocols, and Network Solutions Inc.
(NSI) hands out names in the four global generic top-level domains
of .com, .org, .net, and .edu. Both are under contract with the U.S.
government. Last week, the NSI contract was extended for two years
and NSI, while it will continue to serve as registry, agreed to share
registration of those domains. A registry administers and allocates
domain names, and a registrar signs up customers.
IANA and NSI, the two biggest players in the arena now, are hardly
the only ones. They are among a diverse group of interested parties,
representing different countries as well as different facets of the
Internet industry.
"There really are a huge number of different stakeholders, some with
complementary, most with conflicting, requirements -- the old
Internet guard, the trademark lobbyists, those that see the DNS as a
license to mint money, those that see NSI as bogey men, the freedom
fighters trying to build a whole new worldwide government (yes,
government) through this process -- oh, and don't forget the 240-plus
country registries trying to deliver service to their nation states,"
said Patrick O'Brien, CEO of Domainz, the registrar for the .nz
domain, the top-level domain for New Zealand, in an e-mail response
to a reporter's questions.
Existing Internet leaders want to preserve the status quo, and
start-ups want to get a piece of the action, agreed Jay Fenello,
president of Iperdome, which offers personal domain names and is
seeking to offer .per as a top-level domain.
"On one side of this debate are entrepreneurial companies, trade
organizations, governments," and NSI, Fenello wrote in an e-mail
column of his own. "On the other, a small group composed of the
Internet old guard and some regulatory agencies of the United
Nations ... Their goal is to preserve their long-term status on the
Internet. In the middle is the U.S. government."
To get out of the hot spot, the U.S. government is looking for a new
body to assume responsibility for managing the Internet. As with
industries and infrastructures in many emerging markets, officials
are turning toward privatization of the Internet. Following the
release of a much-criticized green paper early this year, Magaziner
issued a white paper in June that went further in suggesting a more
global approach to Internet management. The white paper
(www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm#3) asked the
private sector to come up with a new governing body to replace IANA.
The goal was to create a body to govern the Internet that would be
global and end complaints that Internet oversight is too
U.S.-centric, as well as an organization that would be
self-sufficient and that would work in an open way. The other major
requirement was that Internet stakeholders reach a consensus on a
plan.
Things were looking up as individuals from around the world
converged at meetings in Reston, Va.; Geneva; Singapore; and Buenos
Aires, Argentina, to discuss their ideas as part of the International
Forum on the White Paper (www.ifwp.org).
Following the fourth meeting in late August, things apparently fell
apart. After participating in all the meetings up to that point,
IANA withdrew from the process and skipped a fifth meeting that was
held in Boston on Sept. 19 designed to wrap up the IFWP meetings,
according to O'Brien of Domainz in New Zealand.
IANA continued on its own and issued a proposal on Sept. 17. Joining
IANA in releasing that draft was NSI, whose contract was due to
expire at the end of September. The government's deadline for a
proposal on a new Internet governing body was scheduled to coincide
with the expiration of the NSI contract.
Complaints that the proposal appeared to protect NSI's top-level
domain monopoly prompted IANA to release a fifth and final proposal
(www.iana.org/bylaws5.html) nearly two weeks later in which NSI was
not involved. IANA also submitted to the government a list of nine
people it recommends appointing to the interim board.
Meanwhile, attendees of the September meeting in Boston -- calling
themselves the Boston Group -- released their own proposal
(pax.cavebear.com/bwg), which draws heavily on the IANA plan for
creating a for-profit corporation. However, it requires that at
least one board member should come from each of the main geographic
regions and specifically states that the corporation will have a
membership -- a matter that is left open in IANA's proposal.
IANA unhesitatingly claims that its proposal represents a consensus.
The critics represent merely a "small fringe of extreme views," said
Jon Postel, an IANA administrator, in testimony he submitted in
writing last Wednesday to the U.S. House of Representatives'
Subcommittee on Technology.
The Internet Society and the Information and Technology Association
of America (ITAA), which manages the Global Internet Project,
supports the IANA proposal.
"We believe that the IANA proposal -- along with the agreement
reached between the U.S. government and Network Solutions Inc. --
will ensure the stability of the Internet as it continues its
dramatic growth," the ITAA said in a statement.
"I don't know if anyone could have devised something that was a
truly all-satisfying process," said Carl Oppedahl, a lawyer who has
handled Internet trademark domain name issues. Oppedahl, who is a
partner at Oppedahl & Larson in Frisco, Colo., said the IANA proposal
is the best offer.
"We're watching the birth of a new nation. It's just like Thomas
Jefferson and other people writing the constitution, except instead
of affecting one country on one continent, it affects the world,"
Oppedahl said.
But complaints have been loud and more widespread. The critics, many
of whom participated in the IFWP meetings, are dissatisfied with
IANA's vision of a board, which they claim is not adequately held
accountable for its actions. They also allege that IANA shut them
out of the process of drafting the proposal and composing the
candidate list for the initial, interim board.
"On IANA's side, as far as building their proposal I liken it to a
closed room with a sealed door with a letter slot in the door" into
which suggestions could be inserted, said Karl Auerbach, an Internet
technologist and member of the Internet Engineering Task Force who
signed the proposal submitted by the Boston Group.
When IANA releases its drafts, "trumpets sound, a golden door opens.
and an announcement is made," Auerbach added.
"There's some serious concerns with the IANA proposal -- it's
self-perpetuating, there's no accountability," said Ellen Rony,
co-author of The Domain Name Handbook: High Stakes and Strategies in
Cyberspace who archived the IFWP documents and activities at
www.domainhandbook.com/ifwp.html. "I've been following this for
two-and-a-half years and I fear that if the government doesn't
listen and do something to make some broader acknowledgment for the
other folk outside the IANA proposal, then we're going to have more
of this clamor for the next two years."
Similar complaints about IANA's proposal came from Mikki Barry,
president of the Domain Name Rights Coalition.
"What is at stake is freedom of expression, due process, and
accountability," Barry wrote in an e-mail in response to questions.
"The new corporation, if taken from the IANA Draft 5, is not
accountable to the Internet Stakeholders. There are no provisions
for free speech, and very few for due process."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation also submitted complaints about
the IANA proposal, making similar arguments. Its suggestions can be
viewed on its Web site at www.eff.org/pub/GII_NII/DNS_control.
Meanwhile, the Open Root Server Confederation submitted its own
proposal last week. The group, which favors adding new top-level
domains and opening up the registry responsibilities of .com to
competition, borrowed items from other sources for its proposal. It
added fiscal accountability and due process requirements as well as
protections for personal privacy and human rights and also specified
a requirement that the corporation have a membership.
"The members of the Open Root Server Confederation believe that the
process has gone astray," wrote Einar Stefferud, an Internet veteran
and retired consultant who founded the group.
Stefferud traces the current problems between the stakeholders to
the freezing of any additions to top-level domains.
"It's not a problem of greedy people," Stefferud said. "It's a
matter of regulation causing the monopoly. In the meantime, there's a
backlog of people wanting to get into the root [where top-level
domains originate and all servers point to access them], and there's
no system for it.
"IANA did a good job for a long time, but it did not grow with the
Internet and didn't adjust to the new effects of Internet growth and
the fact that name space was too small," Stefferud added.
"Everything is at this point a fine mess -- the DNS mess."
One of the people seeking to be able to offer a top-level domain is
Bob Allisat, administrator of the Free Community Network domain name
service provider. Like Fenello's Iperdome, Allisat is offering .fcn
under the .net top-level domain and waiting for recognition of .fcn
as a top-level domain of its own. Meantime .per and others are
visible on alternate root servers that are not recognized by the
official root servers of IANA.
"What they do in the big-business world is fine, but there's room
for indies [independent registrars] and that's what we are," Allisat
said. "It's our turn. We want our things in the same root servers
around the world on our own terms."
Allisat said the stakes are high and that is why IANA doesn't "trust
the newcomers" like himself.
"They want to control it all because if you control the names, the
numbers, and the machines, you've got it. The potential for making
money and influencing where that money goes is enormous," Allisat
said.
The entire debate is over who is going to control the Internet,
Fenello said.
"Cyberspace is going to become a new way for us to be in the world
- -- where we work, play, go to school -- and we need protections for
civil liberties and due process. We need to make sure we get these
built in to the system now before it's too late," Fenello said.
The president of .NU Domain, J. William Semich, criticized the IANA
proposal for not addressing fiscal matters. He submitted comments to
the government seeking to have the new organization publish an
annual business plan that identifies funding sources and come up with
a budget that its supporting organizations approve. Semich's
suggestions are at www.nunames.nu.
Meanwhile, the Internet Service Providers' Consortium, a nonprofit
group with more than 230 members, also came out against the IANA
proposal.
"The proposed DNS organization appears to be a monopoly in both
literal and financial senses," said Kevin Crocker, chief financial
officer of the group, in a statement issued on Saturday. "There are
no checks and balances to ensure proper financial control, review,
and reporting. One decision by the new organization to raise the
rates on a single service could easily send shockwaves through the
entire Internet industry, raising the cost of services for Internet
users everywhere."
Even an NSI representative said the IANA proposal is lacking.
"We have some very serious concerns about the process," said NSI
spokesman Chris Clough. "In particular, we're concerned about how
comments will be treated and whether other drafts will be given due
consideration."
Criticism to the IANA proposal and its process has also come from
international groups other than O'Brien's in New Zealand.
The Latin America and Caribbean Networks Forum, commonly known as
Enred, sent a letter to Postel last week complaining about the lack
of representation from the region on IANA's list of nine board
nominees and in its proposal, which calls for at least one member
from North America, Asia-Pacific, and Europe but not Latin America
and Africa/Middle East.
EuroISPA, the European Internet Service Providers' Association
(www.euroispa.org/papers/icann.html) also seeks more international
representation in the new organization and an established
membership.
The Japanese government also complained about the closed process
that led to the IANA proposal and said the week-long comment period
it offered did not provide adequate time for nonnative English
speakers to scrutinize the numerous documents. The government also
raised questions about jurisdictional problems that could arise with
the organization being based in California as proposed.
"Furthermore, there are concerns that in the event that a party
resident outside the U.S. should take the New Corporation to court
in that country, that court's judgment may not be effective in the
U.S.," the Japanese government statement said. "If cases must
therefore always be brought to court in the U.S., there should not be
the possibility that foreigners could be put at a disadvantage."
The Japanese government also asked that the definition of
"geographic region" be determined on the basis of the future expected
increase in population and the number of Internet users and that the
Asia/Australia/Pacific region be further divided into two regions.
Izumi Aizu, principal of Asia Network Research SDH Bhd, echoed
complaints that the IANA proposal lacks a defined membership and
accountability and the process of nominating interim board members
was not open.
There is "a strong need to have some kind of international forum
that regularly addresses many Internet issues" beyond the domain name
system issue, added Aizu, who also serves as secretary general of
the Asia & Pacific Internet Association (APIA), a Singapore trade
group of Internet companies. Aizu said was not speaking on behalf of
the APIA, which has not made an official statement.
Of the detractors who complain that IANA's proposal was drafted
behind closed doors, Joe Sims, an attorney for IANA, said, "They're
entitled to their opinion. It's a minority view and factually just
plain wrong."
Sims too downplayed the breadth of criticism being leveled against
the IANA proposal.
"There are very small numbers of people raising serious issues out
there," said Sims, a Washington attorney who worked with Postel on
the IANA drafts. "I'm surprised to see the depth of feelings some
people have and the range of opinions. Some of the views are informed
and rational and some of them are not."
Tony Rutkowski, who helped found the Internet Society and is the
director of the Center for the Next Generation Internet, said he
believes the proposal submitted by the Open Root Server
Confederation is the "most carefully crafted and has the most overall
consensus."
But Rutkowski said the domain name system is too often emphasized
when actually the IP address system poses more challenging issues,
"because IP addresses are truly a limited commodity. They're used for
actually operating the Internet as opposed to domain names, which are
just a secondary look-up system."
IP addresses, which are distributed to Internet service providers in
large, contiguous blocks for more efficient routing, are generally
more expensive than domain names, according to Rutkowski. In Germany
and Japan, for instance, domain names can sell for several hundred
dollars while IP addresses can sell for thousands, he said.
However, the process of establishing a new organization could serve
as a model for how other Internet-related activities may be handled,
Rutkowski said.
"There are a lot of other kinds of conceivable Web identifiers such
as administration of authentication regimes, regimes associated with
policing and enforcing activities on the Internet, and
interconnection implementation arrangements, also known as peering,"
Rutkowski noted.
Meanwhile, Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard University law professor and
authority on cyberspace, argued in a speech on Saturday that
privatization is not the best way for the Internet to evolve.
Postel told the congressional subcommittee in his written testimony
that "There was one issue on which there seemed to be almost
unanimity: the Internet should not be managed by any government,
national or multinational."
But Lessig said this move away from government guidance is counter
to what the Internet community really needs, which is protection from
special interests in the form of corporations.
"When government disappears, it's not as if paradise will take its
place. When governments are gone, other interests will take their
place," Lessig said in his keynote address at the One Planet, One
Net symposium in Cambridge, Mass., which was sponsored by Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility.
"My claim is that we should focus on the values of liberty... If
there is not government to insist on those values, then who?" Lessig
questioned. "The single unifying force should be that we govern
ourselves."
Elinor Mills is a San Francisco correspondent for the IDG News
Service, an InfoWorld affiliate. Rob Guth, a Tokyo correspondent for
the IDG News Service, contributed to this article.
- ----------------
Also in this issue:
- - Internet Surgeries Now Commonplace Online O.R.
Medicine shouldn't be nebulous or mystical or anything like that.
Knowledge is good. Dr. Robert Lazzara
It's a real-time look at the procedure, but it's only a slice of
real-time Lisa Parker, University of Pittsburgh, Center for
Health Law and Bioethics
- - Microsoft's paper-clip assistant killed in Denver
(IDG) -- DENVER -- An auditorium hall full of Windows developers
witnessed an execution at the Professional Developers Conference
here Wednesday, as Microsoft product managers coolly and deliberately
killed the Microsoft Office Assistant.
- - GTE Abandons Unlimited Internet Access
[October 16, 1998]GTE Friday became the latest Internet service
provider to move away from unlimited pricing plans and put a cap on
usage of its GTE.net service.
- - Domain games: Internet leaves the U.S. nest
(IDG) -- The United States government gave birth to the Internet
nearly 20 years ago and is finally pushing it out of the nest. But
determining how it will fly on its own is opening up a can of worms.
- - Hack puts AOL off limits
update Internet users trying to send email to America Online users
or get to the online giant's site have been plagued by problems due
to a major glitch with the Internet's domain naming system.
- - New Lists and Journals
1) The Neuroscientist
2) Occupational Hygiene
3) Oncology (S. Karger AG)
4) Ophthalmic Research
5) Ophthalmologica
6) Orl
7) Oto-Rhino-Laryngologia Nova
8) Pathobiology
9) Pediatric Neurosurgery
10) Perspectives on Developmental Neurobiology
- - Sunday Supplement
SURVEYS THIS WEEK:
INTERNATIONAL : Half of UK sites are "broken"
: France's Minitel Users to Gain Net Access
: Poll Finds More Australian Men Shop Online
ECOMMERCE : Book Publisher Takes On Amazon
: Lycos Buys Wired
: Portals Fail In Loyalty Stakes
: Microsoft Launches Standard for E-Books
ADS/MARKETING : Web Users Visit News Sites First
: Net Companies Attain 'Mega-Brand' Status
: Banner Ads Increase Audience Reach
TECHNOLOGY :Voice Recognition Technology for the Web
:Global ICT Spending Surges
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.networx.on.ca/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
- -------------------------------
Excerpt from CSS Internet News (tm) ,-~~-.____
For subscription details email / | ' \
jwalker@hwcn.org with ( ) 0
SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the \_/-, ,----'
subject line. ==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
"On the Internet no one / __/~| / |
knows you're a dog" =( _____| (_________|
http://www.networx.on.ca/~jwalker
- -------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #186
******************************
