Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 217
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, December 1 1998 Volume 01 : Number 217
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] FYI?
[netz] Dave Farber to Ronda Hauben
Re: [netz] Dave Farber to Ronda Hauben
[netz] Interesting articles in Forbes and Chronicle of Higher Education
[netz] onwards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 23:59:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] FYI?
FYI?
[The following announcement is a spoof today, but with the
current developments going on to privatize essential functions
of the Internet,* which isn't a spoof, but real, one can only
wonder at what is next. ]
The U.S. Executive Branch has served notice today that it is
looking to form a private corporaton to take over the management
of the Presidency of the United States. The press secretary
explains that the office has become too fraught with problems
and that this is a task the Administration believes can better
be done by the private sector. They invite proposals from
the private sector. These proposals will be kept online
for comment for one week and then the Administration will
decide which proposal best meets the objective of privatizing
the government of the United States. Only those who believe they
can turn a profit at the management will have their proposals
considered seriously. But the private corporation that will
win the contract for providing for the presidency of the
United States must be willing to consult with all other
commercial and private sector interests to be able to claim
in good faith that their proposal represents the consensus
of the private sector.
Citizens or those who have no commercial gain possible from
getting this government contract are not considered
"stakeholders" and will not have their proposals considered.
Once the winning proposal is judged adequate by the U.S.
Department of Commerce, all the assets of the Executive
Branch of the U.S. government will be turned over to
this new private corporation.
The Administration has deemed that the private sector must
lead in the privatization of the U.S. government, and so
it will not participate in the plan for how to privatize
the presidency, but instead welcomes the private sector --
i.e. those corporations with deep enough pockets to be sure
if they lose out in the bidding, they will be able to sue --
these are welcome to determine all aspects of the privatization
plan.
The senior policy advisor to the President will be
available to consult with those who feel they are the most
powerful and wealthiest to try to help them to achieve
consensus with others who are less well endowed.
Proposals are due next Monday, but one must be clear in
the proposal to distinguish this privatizing plan from that
that the U.S. government has already accepted to privatize
other key government assets.
*See for example:
Memorandum of Understanding, Dept. of Commerce and ICANN
URL:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:09:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Dave Farber to Ronda Hauben
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 15:40:46 -0500
To: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>, ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
From: Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: IP: My presentation at the PITAC on Wednesday on DNS
issues - in rtf format
Cc: list@ifwp.org, netizens@columbia.edu
In-Reply-To: <199811292029.PAA17435@panix3.panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
There were a lot of people I did not mention. bluntly I left your material
out out for lack of sharp focus to your remarks I also take exception to
your comment below on commercial interests. I don't believe Stef has any
thing commercially to gain.even though I don't completely agree with him.
It was NOT a report to the Exec Branch but some informational material to
the PITAC membership . It is not an issue we have focused on or intend to
focus on at this point.
At 03:29 PM 11/29/98 -0500, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
>Dave - was this your report about what was happening with ICANN
>to the Executive Branch of the U.S. Govt? (I was in Europe when
>I first received this from IP, but it is important to understand
>why the report was somewhat one sided, so I am asking my questions
>below, even though it is a few weeks later.)
>
>
>Is there any reason you left out any mention of my proposal,
>or any critique of the Geneva IFWP meeting?
>
>You have left in here only a report on those who are commercially
>interested in the issues, rather than including those with
>no commercial interest.
>
>
>On Nov. 7, 1998, Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Domain Names: Implications on the health of the Internet
>>David J. Farber
>>Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunications at
>>The Moore School of the=20
>>University of Pennsylvania
>>Presented at PITAC Nov 1998
>
>What exactly is the PITAC?
>
>>History of change
>>=B7 Name and IP Assignment IANA -- historical duties=20
>>=B7 Formation of NSI and community unhappiness with semi-monopoly
>>=B7 desire of the USG to =93get out=94
>>=B7 IAHC -- privatization try one
>>Government action as a result
>>=B7 Green paper issued 2/98=20
>>=B7 White paper issued in 6/98 =20
>>=B7 After heavy commenting on GP. =20
>>=B7 Limited functions to be transferred to a new non-profit =20
>>=B7 to be organized by private sector =20
>>Many activities started
>>=B7 Postel with assistance from JonesDay started planning for the =93n=
>>ew IANA=94
>>=B7 IFWP informally formed to reflect international non government=
>> concerns=20
>>=B7 three large open meetings -- Reston, Geneva, Singapore=20
>
>The Geneva meeting declared "consensus" and was fundamentally hostile
>to participation and discussion that would be necessary to really
>figure anything constructive out.
>
>(My Report from Geneva is at
>http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ifwp_july25.txt )
>
>>=B7 Small network based groups =20
>>=B7 ORSC =20
>>=B7 BWG etc.=20
>
>You left out my proposal which was submitted at Ira Magaziner's request
>and also submitted to the NTIA and posted there
>
>And it was a constructive and helpful proposal providing for a
>prototype to build an international public administration for the
>DNS functions, rather than excluding users, the public sector etc.
>as the private IFWP process has systemmatically done.
>
>The proposal is at
>http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/dns_proposal.txt
>
>
>>Warning that a failure of community action -- IP
>>=B7 could destabilize the internet though uncoordinated private=
>> actions
>>=B7 cause intervention of governments though national and=
>> international
>
>You left out that the ramming through of ICANN can destablize
>the Internet by imposing a hostile control structure over the
>cooperative and collaborative processes that are necessary
>for the Internet to function and to grow and flourish.
>
>>actions =20
>>=B7 WIPO and ITU involvement in IAHC/POC=20
>>Bylaws of new organization drafted
>>=B7 5 versions produced by Postel group=20
>>=B7 various changes proposed by other groups
>>=B7 a set of meetings with NSI
>>=B7 submitted to USG along with proposals by ORSC and BWG
>>ICANN formed
>=B7 USG responds favorable to IANA proposal =20
>=B7 asks that ICANN consult the ORSC and BWG along with other parties=
>
>The USG helped to create the IANA proposal (as IANA is its own
>contractor).
>
>You left out that my proposal was ignored by the NTIA.
>
>And that the USG didn't ask ICANN to figure out the importance of
>the proposal I submitted to include all who wanted to participate,
>and to build online processes to include all users in what was done.
>
>Also you left out that my proposal didn't exclude the public, by
>limiting itself to the private, but included all.
>
>
>=20
>=B7 incorporation of differences when possible -- many have been done
>already=20
>=B7 Interim Board formed
>=B7 set of telephone meetings and physical meetings to gain community=
> input
>prior to adoption of bylaws
>Where are we
>=B7 Still a lot of disagreement among and within the groups=20
>=B7 a residual of distrust
>=B7 ICANN Board is working to reduce the above
>What are the outstanding issues
>=B7 openness
>=B7 accountability
>=B7 freedom of expression
>=B7 membership
>=B7 structure of SOs
>Why do we care
>=B7 the DNS problem is a predictor of future public sector not for=
> profit
>organizations
>
>
>The IFWP process is forming a private sector organization, *not* a public
>sector organization.
>
>That is the fundamental problem with what is being done with regard
>to the IFWP, and as such it excludes the public, users, etc. from
>the process.
>
>Try to post on the IFWP mailing list with public concerns or in
>favor of users, or in support of the history and development
>of the Internet being built on, and you find that the U.S. govt
>has carefully structured the whole process, to exclude the public
>and public concerns.
>
>To maintain the Internet there is the need to have an open nad
>inclucive process, *not* something that is limited to the
>so called "private" or commercial sectors as those to be
>controlling the Internet.
>
>>=B7 it raises the issue of the existence of a community and it=92s=
>> stability
>>=B7 it will decide whether =93adult=94 supervision of the internet is=
>> needed
>>the stability of the internet structure is critical for:
>>=B7 the economic growth of the business
>>=B7 the use of the network for commercial and research purposes
>>=B7 it is the highway on which our IT economy depends on
>
>The good role played by the U.S. govt in the growth and development
>of the Internet was to encourage and help to develop grassroots
>processes for determining what was needed for the Internet to
>grow and flourish.
>
>That is fundamentally changed by the IFWP process and the Framework
>for Electronic Commerce which takes a particular application
>and sector and puts them in control of the Internet's essential
>functions.
>
>This is a fundamental paradigm shift in the development of the
>Internet and you don't mention that this is being carried out
>without any discussion allowed of whether this should be happening.
>
>The Internet community has *not* been consulted about whether
>this should happen, only they are told they can make input
>into *how* it happens. And then their input is ignored anyway.
>
>But the more fundamental issue is who has decreed that this
>should happen?
>
>And why have they decreed this?
>
>
>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
_____________________________________________________________________
David Farber
The Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems
University of Pennsylvania
Home Page: http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~farber
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:03:06 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Dave Farber to Ronda Hauben
Jay Hauben forwarded:
> bluntly I left your material out out for lack of sharp focus to your remarks
Bluntly, that's the issue, isnt it? Talk our language, or we don't have to talk
to you. Our language happens to be 'expert,' or 'professional' or 'business' or
'commercial,' therefore Ronda and the hoi polloi are out of it, never mind that
the *ideas are easy enough to understand/
Thanks, Dave, for the sharp focus, not to say the sound bite..
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 08:40:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Interesting articles in Forbes and Chronicle of Higher Education
There was an interesting article in Forbes about the ICANN and
privatization - the article has a quote showing that there is
recognition of the great power that controlling the essential
Internet functions will give to ICANN: Quoting Zittrain of
Harvard's Berkman Center, the article explains, "ICANN is careful
to say they're just assigning names and numbers, but that's like
saying you have a narrow scope of running the printing presses that
happen to print money. It's a lot of power." The article also
contains quotes of those who say that the privatization is no problem.
http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/98/nov/1130/feat.htm
The article is inaccurate as it claims that there were
no alternative proposals, such as the one I submitted.
I wrote them a letter to the editor about this and we'll see
if there is any response. The alternative proposal, for
example, that I submitted is up at the NTIA web site at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben.html
By omitting the fact of alternative proposals, the Forbes
article claims that there was no choice for the U.S. government,
but it had to take the flawed ICANN proposal. In fact, the U.S.
government discouraged alternative proposals by creating a very
rigid framework of requirements for a proposal, and then
threatened people that if they didn't go along with creating
only one proposal there would be trouble. Despite the threats,
there were alternative proposals submitted, and especially
the very different proposal that I submitted. The U.S.
government had the obligation to carefully examine the
proposals submitted, all of them, including the one that
was significantly different in form and content. If one
is trying to solve a real problem, one can't cut off where
the solution to that problem may come from.
However, the U.S. government failed to welcome, and then
examine the alternative proposals, and the result
is that they have a serious problem with the proposal
they claim they are going to work with to design the
new form for control of the essential functions
of the Internet.
The Forbes article glides over this dilemma by quoting
Vint Cerf saying that if the ICANN messes up, then
someone, like the service providers, will come and fix
it. But this denies that the obligation is to protect
these essential functions of the Internet, not to
put them in the hands of those who will make a mess of
them. The article doesn't mention that Cerf is a Vice
Pesident of MCI/Worldcom which is part of the Global
Internet Project (GIP)
The GIP claims they will fund ICANN, and are thus
a clue to who feels they will benefit from the
privatization of the essential functions of the Internet,
despite the jeopardy this might represent for the Internet.
(The assets of the Internet essential functions are worth
billions of dollars so the fact of someone having to
fund ICANN from private funds is a strange situation,
as that is setting the basis to transfer these immensely
valuable public resources over to them.)
It has been important to at last see a few articles in the U.S.
press recognizing the serious problem that the transfer
of such valuable public assets to a private entity represents
for the Internet. These articles are some of the articles that
have appeared in the press after the Nov. 14 ICANN open meeting
in Boston. Another interesting article that appeared was in
the Nov. 27, 1998 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education
about the Boston Open Meeting on Nov. 14. The headline of the
Chronicle article "Debate Flares Over Group That Hopes to
Oversee the Internet" was the first article I saw in the
Chronicle on the issue and the first that noted that there
is controversy over the privatization plan of the U.S. government.
Articles such as these are beginning to alert the public to
the problem that exists, and that is very important as it is
the only way that there is any real hope of solving the problem.
There needs to be a broad public discussion, both online and
in the press for the public that is not yet online, to examine
the importance of the Internet, the nature of the Internet and
the visions for the future of the Internet. In this context
the plan by the U.S. government to privatize the key functions
of the Internet which will cede control of it to a narrow
sector of the population needs to be examined to determine if
this jeopardizes the Internet and thus has to be changed to
a plan that will concern itself with the best interests of
the Internet and will serve all the users around the world who
depend on the Internet, as well as those who still need to
gain access.
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: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 23:37:29 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] onwards
Now that the DNS is over and done, is it time to look at some of the other
issues that may come up? I guess Ronda isnt going to give up, but maybe
Netizens can serve as a stomping ground so that - as long as she's game to go
to the meetings and testify to the committees and so forth - she can show that
hers is not just a *single voice in the wilderness. In short, if ICANN is to
represent the interests of "millions of users and suppliers who [were] not part
of that old structure" *what interests do we have*?
I was browsing around and found some old but suggestive leads:
a) ICANN is specifically *not* a name Registry; are there aspects of registy
performance we should tune into, or emendments to the bylaws to protect one
thing or another to be proposed?
b) does the 'IFWP process' continue to serve a role?
c) where do the ccTLDs stand now? Do we defend ISO 3166?
d) What direction should we pursue in regard to an *elected Board? Does Dr
Frankel still have the public confidence?
e) Assuming that ICANN is or will be a defendant in the pgMedia suit (and that
the judge needs all the help he can get ;-)), is there anything we might want
to do as 'amicus curia' ?
I have appended my notes from several sites, but don't take them as sufficient;
the full texts are all worth reading.
kerry
- ---------------
http://www.domainhandbook.com/genevanotes.html
IFWP: A Personal Narrative
July 24-25, 1998
Milton Mueller, Associate Professor, Syracuse University
School of Information Studies. mueller@syr.edu **
[...]
The old Internet rather offhandedly created a globally distributed collection
of economic and political actors with a vested interest in maintaining, insofar
as possible, the power pyramid devolving from IANA. These "status quo"
interests are now fully participating in the IFWP process in order to protect
and preserve their position. This includes, at the centre, the old IANA itself,
which in the weeks leading up to Geneva took the lead by preparing its own road
map for how the transition should take place. It also includes the regional
numbering registries -- RIPE for Europe, AP-NIC for Asia, and ARIN for the US --
which have exclusive control of IP number blocks for their regions, and which,
in preparation for the White Paper transition, created a plan for a "Global
Address Registry Council." Current country code TLD registrars are also in this
category. Having received a valuable territorial monopoly on domain name
registration from the old IANA, the ccTLD holders are keen to protect their
little stake in the Internet. Prior to IFWP Geneva, European and Asian ccTLD
holders organized interest groups. During the IFWP sessions ccTLD holders
argued for, among other things, special membership classes and guaranteed seats
on the Neworg Board.
Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with IANA preparing a draft
proposal for the structure and by-laws of a "new IANA." Likewise, there is
nothing illegal or immoral about the regional IP numbering registries or ccTLDs
preparing proposals regarding their role in the transition. They are all
legitimate stakeholders, and their interests are directly affected. We must,
however, clearly identify these groups as a faction or set of factions, and
understand that their viewpoint does not represent the Internet as a whole but
is, rather, a fairly self-interested and narrow one. If the IFWP process is to
be fair and effective, the viewpoints of these vested interests must be
balanced against other viewpoints and compete fairly with them. And herein lies
one of the central problems with the IFWP process. Because of their strategic
position within the existing Internet administrative hierarchy, the status-quo
factions can dominate the process. [*]The new organizational framework has to
somehow represent the interests of millions of users and suppliers who are not
part of that old structure. Indeed, it is vital that the process represent what
the Internet can become, not just what it is now.[*]
[...]
Postel attempted to separate two distinct problems:
1.The need to get an organization in place that can continue coordination by
September 30.
2.The need to handle domain name policy issues that don't need to be settled by
September 30. That set of problems could be approached by defining a charter
for a *domain names council* and how it would operate over the coming months.
[...]
[Tamar] Frankel is not a veteran of the Internet policy wars but was thrust
into the middle of the IFWP process shortly after the release of the White
Paper. Originally drawn into the process due to her expertise in corporate
governance, she has now become a member of the IFWP steering committee and the
nominal presiding officer or figurehead at its public events.***
[...]
The provision giving the Board the power to set policies and procedures
regarding domain names did not so clearly favor the bottom-up paradigm,
however. .. Everyone accepts that the Board will have the power to delegate
TLDs, but there was little agreement about how much control it will have to
dictate standards and practices of any specific TLD. The workshop was not even
able to reach a consensus about maintaining the ISO 3166 standard as the basis
of country code TLDs.
[...]
It is abundantly clear where we agree and where we disagree on this issue, and
no amount of discussion is going to change anyone's mind. Indeed, the more the
issue is debated, the more the interests of Internet users and stakeholders
become differentiated from, and opposed to, the interests of large-scale
trademark interests. Throughout Geneva, one sensed that even the POC and CORE
interests were backing away from trademark interests because of the obstacle
they present to the creation of new TLDs.
...an attempt [was made] to find a middle ground between the trademark
interests and their opponents. Perhaps, we reasoned, if we could come up with a
clear enough definition of cyber-squatting and its characteristics, we could
find a way to eliminate it that would not also threaten the interests of
innocent registrars, registries, and Internet domain name holders.
This provision came under concerted attack from a variety of sources. In the
end, it was stricken from the list of consensus items. A new consensus item,
specifying that the Neworg should cooperate with TLD entities to form databases
with up-to-date contact and registration information, was added. In fact, there
was already agreement on this point in Reston, but the agreement was so obvious
and tacit that it was never put onto the list. Notably, however, the Geneva
workshop explicitly refused to specify that the contact information databases
should be standardized.
- ------------
**
http://www.pgmedia.net/law/Mueller-Declaration.html
Declaration of Milton Mueller on behalf of plaintiff pgMedia, Inc.
11 May 1998
[...]
5.In order to function properly as an Internet address, each domain name must
be unique. Domain names are most useful when they are comprised of semantically
meaningful character combinations, such as books@the-library.com or
alarmsystems.com.
6.Domain names as used on the Internet are not only addresses, but also
function as a form of expression or communication. Domain names convey ideas
and transmit organizational identities. They can be and are put to creative
uses. They are often selected to attract attention, and in some cases they form
phrases. Domain names can make reference to people, institutions, and events.
[...]
16. ...The courts have found that valid trademarks override prior registration
of a domain name when there is a danger of dilution and consumer confusion.
Mark owners thereby have ample protection from any infringing uses of domain
names. Further, as with every other form of media, from magazines to television
to t-shirts, it is the responsibility of the trademark owner, not the
government or the media provider, to police violations of a mark. Any
restriction that attempts to address trademark concerns through TLD
restrictions will only inhibit the economic efficiency of the Internet while
inexcusably limiting free speech.
17.Lastly, there is no valid government justification of TLD restrictions based
on the prospect of heightened customer confusion. The categorical integrity of
the original TLDs has been breaking down for the past three years. There is no
longer any meaningful distinction between the type of content a user is likely
to find in a domain registered under .com, org, .net, or any of about 200
possible country code TLDs....
- -----
http://www.pgmedia.net/links/
[Random pageful]
lbterrainstrwindribb.sound
letem.talk
level5.access
life.insurance
lifepack.film
liisa.mag
lillis.graphics
limo.service
limousine.service
lisa.illusions
live.cam
living.things
local.home
logistics.world
luna.tech
m.art
macht.krieg
madcow.usa
mail.4all
make.love
- -------------------
**
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/congress/100798burr.htm
Testimony of J. Beckwith Burr, Associate Administrator (Acting) National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
Oct 8, 1998
[...]
The White Paper issued a challenge to the global private sector to create a new
corporation to undertake management Internet DNS functions, and the Department
of Commerce has posted those proposals, the results of that challenge, for
open, public consideration and comment. I would like to thank all of the
members of the global Internet community for the extraordinary effort they have
invested in this process in recent months. In particular, Professor Tamar
Frankel deserves special mention as a key coordinator for the International
Forum on the White Paper.
============
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #217
******************************
