Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 176
Netizens-Digest Saturday, October 3 1998 Volume 01 : Number 176
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] "News" article hides the deep seriousness of the events
Re: [netz] The Internet Domain Name System (2) (fwd)
Re: [netz] The Internet Domain Name System (2) (fwd)
[netz] The US DNS Proposal and the Canadian Govt's (DNS) Principles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 01:25:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] "News" article hides the deep seriousness of the events
The following appeared on a mailing list of an Internet Society chapter.
This seeming news report reflects the likely "coverage" of the US gov't
effort to pull off a privatization of the administration and control of
the crucial functions of the international public Internet. The article
carefully presents one side of a many sided battle as the only side. It
talks about a consensus which those involved know does not exist. Similar
articles are likely to appear in the major media so as to aid the US gov'ts
plan to achieve the narrowing down of the Internet to a commercenet before
the great majority of the people have a chance to even know this privatiza-
tion is being attempted. If such an article becomes common it would be an
indictment of the state of the major media as well as of the secretive and
totally corporate serving level to which the US gov't has descended.
Contrary to the impression given by the following article, the US Dep't of
Commerce has said there are at least three proposals that it has received
and will be posted at its website for comment. --- Jay
- -----------------------------
Internet naming plan is submitted
Clinton administration has asked private sector to draft plan
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 One of the founders of the Internet Friday presented
the Clinton administration with a consensus plan to privatize management of
the global networks critical addressing system.
================
Under the plan submitted Friday, the addressing system would be overseen by
a new non-profit corporation based in California.
JON POSTEL, who heads the government contractor that currently runs
the system telling computers where to route all Internet traffic, said the
plan had been hashed out by many groups and companies to meet the
administrations requirements for phasing out U.S. management of the global
network.
These documents reflect the consensus judgment of the global
Internet community, Postel wrote in a letter to Commerce Secretary William
Daley obtained by Reuters.
AGREEMENT REQUESTED
In June, the administration asked the private sector to reach
agreement on a plan to run the addressing system. The end of U.S. management
reflected the Internets transition from a government-sponsored research
project to a lively international medium for commerce and communications.
The Commerce Department is expected to take comments for a short
period and then decide whether to accept the plan, possibly with some
changes. Commerce officials were not available for comment Friday.
Under the plan submitted Friday, the addressing system would be
overseen by a new non-profit corporation based in California. The
corporation would have broad authority to reform the system, including
creating new Internet top-level domains, the two- or three-letter suffixes
at the end of every Net address, such as .com and .edu.
This organization will be unique in the world a non-governmental
organization with significant responsibilities for administering what is
becoming an important global resource, Postel wrote.
19-MEMBER BOARD
The plan proposed that the new corporation will be run by a board of
19 people. The board will be chosen by an initial group of nine people,
including members from Europe and Asia.
U.S. members include popular technology consultant and author Esther
Dyson and Frank Fitzsimmons, senior vice president at Dun & Bradstreet Corp.
Other members who have agreed to serve include Gregory Crew, chairman
of Australian Communications Industry Forum Ltd.; Hans Kraaijenbrink,
chairman of the Association of European Public Telecommunications Network
Operators; and Linda S. Wilson, president of Radcliffe College in Cambridge,
Mass.
On Wednesday, the Clinton administration announced it was still
negotiating with the other major contractor overseeing the addressing
system, Network Solutions Inc. Officials expect to reach an agreement with
the Herndon, Va., company by Oct. 7.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 10:12:26 -0300 (ADT)
From: Michael Gurstein <mgurst@ccen.uccb.ns.ca>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Internet Domain Name System (2) (fwd)
Thanks for your kind comments, Ronda...
Your work has been background and inspiration for any thinking I've done
on this subject. And thanks also for your very useful and informative
commentary on my remarks.
A minor point, "governance" is poli-sci speak for the "system" by means of
which things are "governed".
There has in recent times been a reluctance (mostly with a Ronnie Reagan
and Maggie Thatcher inspiration) to recognize the very real role which
"governance" must play in providing a means for developing, legitimizing
and enforcing rules for orderly and responsible conduct.
We are seeing the fall-out from this in the current economic crises (and
catastrophes in places like Indonesia) and we are about to see the
development of a new "governance" regime in the global financial sphere
(in part pushed by those who, under other circumstances, have been the
primary opponents of such developments--global financial houses, Wall
Street, a significant portion of the academic Economics establishment).
It is ironic and very dangerous. Just as the global economic system
is shuddering on the brink of virtual collapse as a direct consequence of
the "privatization" and "commercialization" of global capital markets (the
Long-Term Capital Management people were in the process, until the US
Federal Reserve intervened, of defaulting on obligations which appear to
be in the order of $ 1 TRILLION dollars)...our governments are about to
allow (as an ideological "overshoot") what may in the long run be an
equally risky and even dangerous process of "privatization" and
"commercialization" to occur with Internet governance.
This is truly Roadrunner and Wily Coyote land....
I think what has been and will happen in the global financial sphere may
be a very useful model for what can and should happen with the future of
global Internet "governance".
If this is telling us anything, it is that now is not the time for hasty
or "theory" driven actions which will determine the future of something
as important for all of us as the Internet.
Mike Gurstein
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 09:59:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Internet Domain Name System (2) (fwd)
I agree that it is important to clarify the issue of Internet governance,
Mike, as it has been a term bandied about a lot but I haven't seen
much effort to define it and clarify what it means.
>Your work has been background and inspiration for any thinking I've done
>on this subject.
That is helpful to hear because this problem has needed the cooperative
effort and discussion, and it has been hard to figure out where and
how that can happen. Good that you have come to the rescue :-)
>And thanks also for your very useful and informative
>commentary on my remarks.
Your remarks were one of the first breaths of fresh air I have
heard on the issue of the U.S. Govt planned privatization of
the essential functions of the Internet.
What is needed is the examining of the what this means and who
will benefit and who will be harmed, and how this impacts on the
well being and future future development of the Internet. None
of these broader issues have been raised in the processes set
up by the U.S. Govt to obtain its objective of further privatizing
what is an international public treasure.
.
>A minor point, "governance" is poli-sci speak for the "system" by means of
>which things are "governed".
This is helpful. If there is anything that will help understanding
this, please let me know. In fact the Internet is a system,
and it has had a governing system, much of which involves user
contribution and participation.
Some of what the U.S. Govt is up to is trying to fundamentally
change that governance system.
Interesting in light of what you point out later in this message,
the governance system for the Internet has been one of the most
successful and in many ways is comparable to the achievements of
5th Century B.C. - except that this system is functioning of a
global scale, as well as providing for internal democratic processes.
So the governance system of the Internet is an achievement to
be admired and emulated, and instead the U.S. Govt is systemmatically
dismantling it, and trying to replace it with the kind of governance
system that are in disarray and in disrepute around the world.
>There has in recent times been a reluctance (mostly with a Ronnie Reagan
>and Maggie Thatcher inspiration) to recognize the very real role which
>"governance" must play in providing a means for developing, legitimizing
>and enforcing rules for orderly and responsible conduct.
How interesting. Because this seems connected to this third wave
ideology (which I am only slightly familiar with) but which seems
to say that government can fail in all its functions as it is only
disappearing anyway. And there will be third wave type organizations
that will replace government.
The problem is that the public has no recourse in these new third
wave types of organizations, and the big corporate entities are then
free to do what they wish with lots of government protection for
their abusive activities.
>We are seeing the fall-out from this in the current economic crises (and
>catastrophes in places like Indonesia) and we are about to see the
>development of a new "governance" regime in the global financial sphere
>(in part pushed by those who, under other circumstances, have been the
>primary opponents of such developments--global financial houses, Wall
>Street, a significant portion of the academic Economics establishment).
I haven't followed this so it is helpful you make this comparison.
Can you say more about the new "governance" that is being proposed in
this situation?
>It is ironic and very dangerous. Just as the global economic system
>is shuddering on the brink of virtual collapse as a direct consequence of
>the "privatization" and "commercialization" of global capital markets (the
>Long-Term Capital Management people were in the process, until the US
>Federal Reserve intervened, of defaulting on obligations which appear to
>be in the order of $ 1 TRILLION dollars)...our governments are about to
I didn't realize that this crisis is of this magnitude.
>allow (as an ideological "overshoot") what may in the long run be an
>equally risky and even dangerous process of "privatization" and
>"commercialization" to occur with Internet governance.
And the U.S. Govt has already gotten into the mess of lawsuits
and other problems from having phased in its privatization plan
of the domain name system via letting NSI charge and make profit
from its contracts with the U.S. Govt.
There is the need for an inquiry into what went wrong with all this
and instead the U.S. Govt is institutionalizing the problem into
a new and unaccountable private corporation that it will control
but will relieve it of liability.
There was an NSF Inspector General's investigation and report about
the domain name problem, and the report was supposed issued in
April 1997. But when I wrote for a copy I got no answer from the Govt
official at the Inspector General's office. And I haven't heard of
any coverage of what was in the report by any sources.
>This is truly Roadrunner and Wily Coyote land....
Yupe. How strange to see such "high roller" type gambling with something
so important as the Internet.
>I think what has been and will happen in the global financial sphere may
>be a very useful model for what can and should happen with the future of
>global Internet "governance".
Can you say more what you mean by "what has been" as I don't know if
I am familar with the details that lead you to say this.
And then what does this analogy lead you to see as the intention that
is being aimed at by the privatization plans?
I have been trying to figure out who is behind what is happening,
and what their aim is. And I am also trying to figure out who has
the power to think they can do this.
What your comparison suggests is that it may be financial interests.
Also it is clear to me that the course of action they are trying to
impose on the Internet is fundamentally hostile to the functional
design of the Internet as an agreement of the most minimal level
among independent networks so they can communicate.
This agreement to communicate is what is being tampered with,
and instead "competition" and "commerce" are being made the
fundamental issue. That is somehow very signficiant as the
Internet is a cooperative effort of networks around the world
to do the minimum needed to communicate. If other requirements
become the primary focus, that can only lead to the fragmentation
of what we know and value that is the Internet.
>If this is telling us anything, it is that now is not the time for hasty
or "theory" driven actions which will determine the future of something
as important for all of us as the Internet.
I agree. And I also find helpful the effort to understand what is
happening and its consequences as that is needed to be able to
know what to do about it.
>Mike Gurstein
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 16:44:15 -0300 (ADT)
From: Michael Gurstein <mgurst@ccen.uccb.ns.ca>
Subject: [netz] The US DNS Proposal and the Canadian Govt's (DNS) Principles
I've now had a chance to look at the Canadian Government's DNS paper.
I've also taken a look at the US Government's proposal concerning the
global DNS governance issue.
While neither document really addresses the concerns that I raised in the
attached note...concerning non-commercial uses and the longer term matters
of Internet and related governance, the US Dept. of Commerce proposal is
(rather to my surprise) probably more supportive of a process out of which
a desireable Internet governance scheme might emerge than is the Canadian
document.
The Canadian document seems almost completely pre-occupied with ensuring a
role for Canadian business in the emerging areas of e-commerce (and even
with ensuring a Canadian presence in the rather miniscule commercial areas
represented by DNS management). The US document is concerned with trying
to work out how to get the Governance issues right...
I'm not sure I agree with how the US document is approaching this (I don't
have an immediately preferable alternative, I'm afraid), but at least it
is asking one of the right questions. That being said, my feeling again,
is that the Canadian position is much much too narrow. It does not
address issues concerning I-Governance and universal access either in
Canada or globally, it does not address the issues of non-commercial use
of the net and it doesn't address the issues of the "politics" of the
governance structures (this being the issue which will need to be
addressed in responding to the US proposal).
The group proposed by the US as the interim board of the new governing
structure is also not reflective of a concern with universal access issues
(there is no representation from developing countries), and is wildly
skewed to those with a commercial orientation to the Internet (6 of 9
representatives are from ICT related firms, one is a former EU bureaucrat
and the other two are academics).
Mike Gurstein
- -----------------------------------------
I haven't really followed the Internet Domain Name System (DNS)
discussions as presented by the Canadian Government or by those debating
the issues (mostly from a US perspective) in the various discussion forums
on the Internet although I've now read the various White and Green Papers.
I have very little to add to "that" discussion in that much of it is
presented within a technical or commercial framework of which I have
little knowledge.
However, the discussion around the DNS is also often presented as a
discussion of "Internet Governance" since the framework of funding,
contracts and technical and policy committees/working groups is what
currently passes for the governing framework of the global Internet. The
process of changing and re-forging a means for managing the global Domain
Name System in fact would appear to be a surrogate for the process of
creating a global system of Internet governance. On this latter issue I
do have some observations.
I have a strong measure of concern that the decisions about what will be
the on-going structure of the Internet, is being presented as in the first
instance a technical issue (DNS) and in the second a "commercial" issue,
i.e. how to ensure "competition" in the DNS allocation process.
If we phrase the question in the broader terms of what an appropriate
framework for global governance of the Internet should be, then we are
probably discussing the "real" question. Also this is a question on which
many, not just the technical few who understand the "arcania" of such
things as DNS, may have an informed opinion.
The issues of how the Internet governance strategy being proposed by the
US will impact on an objective of "universal access" in Canada or in other
less economically fortunate countries are nowhere discussed in the draft
Canadian position paper. Also there is no discussion on how a
"privatized" Internet governance will accommodate the need for public
service uses of the Net or even whether a "privatized" model is
appropriate for what is likely to be a highly significant component of
"civic" as well as "commercial" life in the future. There is a theme
running through the document which seems to suggest that the only interest
which Canadians might have in the future of global Internet governance is
somehow linked into commercial needs and electronic commerce. However, of
course, there are a variety of other uses including education, health
services, economic development in lagging regions, public information and
not least the opportunity for enhancing public participation in civil
society to which the Internet can and very likely will be put.
Rather than sliding by inadvertence (or by misdirection) into a global
system of Internet governance which may or may not be appropriate to the
broader and longer term aspirations of Canadians (or others) for the
Internet, it is probably more appropriate to open up the issue of Internet
governance to a more broadly based and encompassing discussion. The
current questioning to which the global financial system as promoted by
the IMF is being subject, and the likely reforms to that system
reflecting the current economic crises, should give pause to those who
want to "cast in stone" current partial approaches to governance
(privatization, commercialization) which may or may not be appropriate in
the longer term.
I think that it is not completely unrealistic to be thinking about the
establishment of a global Internet governance system in the context of the
establishment of the global governance system of the future. As
increasing volumes of commerce and information intensive activities
(administration, education, health) are "virtualized" and distributed on
and through the "net", the significance of localized boundaries will alter
substantially if not diminish significantly. How the "landscape" of the
emerging virtual world is carved up, and more importantly how it is
managed and administered may have crucial long term significance for how
resources are managed and distributed, how participation in decision
making is achieved (or blocked), and how power is exerted in the real
world as opposed to the virtual one.
Decisions made now about what may appear to be relatively obscure
technical matters may have truly profound implications as those decisions
become embedded in practices and procedures (and not to say software and
hardware designs) the cost to alter and significance of which we can
currently barely discern. The implicit reference here to the y2k seismic
fault line, which governments and individuals are at this moment trying to
find some way of coping with, should not go unnoticed.
My own suggestion would be that decisions around issues of Internet
governance be not entered into hastily or without due deliberation and
widespread and informed consultation. The issues are not simply technical
or commercial and should not be allowed to enter into a "default" mode
because of their being placed in too narrow a frame of reference.
The issues of Internet governance require a broad base of consultation
including full and informed participation from those with interests which
are non-technical and non-commercial. In addition they should be seen
within the broadest possible global context including effective
participation from the entire global community.
Mike Gurstein
Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
ECBC/NSERC/SSHRC Associate Chair in the Management of Technological Change
Director: Centre for Community and Enterprise Networking (C\CEN)
University College of Cape Breton, POBox 5300, Sydney, NS, CANADA B1P 6L2
Tel. 902-563-1369 (o) 902-562-1055 (h) 902-562-0119 (fax)
Mgurst@ccen.uccb.ns.ca Http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca ICQ: 7388855
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #176
******************************
