Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 175
Netizens-Digest Saturday, October 3 1998 Volume 01 : Number 175
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] The Domain Name System
Re: [netz] The Domain Name System
Re: [netz] The Domain Name System
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 15:30:49 -0300 (ADT)
From: Michael Gurstein <mgurst@ccen.uccb.ns.ca>
Subject: [netz] The Domain Name System
I haven't really followed the 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
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 16:18:01 -0700
From: "richard bohn" <richard-bohn@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Domain Name System
Dear Michael,
A full bodied sense of hope filled my being when I absorbed your clear, calm
and compassionate views on the subject of internet governance. I agree with
everything you so clearly stated.
The seeds we plant now should be placed in benevolent soil ; a earth
prepared for planting by the fertile blessings of the combined good
intentions of all the earth's people, directed towards the enthusiastic yet
patient cultivation of a global civilization capable of the nurturing of
each individual in their journey towards physical, intellectual, emotional,
sexual and spiritual fulfillment and plenitude.
To restrict the discussion , views,and eventual decisions, will give birth
to a faulty assumptive cartography, with resultant loss of direction and
waste of time. We don't have , as a planetary body, the time and energy
(resources) to squander on monetary , political and ultimately, fear based
solutions.
I believe this is the time for open communication of all, expressing their
wishes , and giving voice to a burgeoning cellular revival. A revival of
village-like, inspired community, based on common trust, benevolence and
respect for all life.
Thanks Michael for the gift of hope.. Richard Bohn
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 00:10:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Domain Name System
Dear Michael and others on the Netizens Mailing list
(And I'm also cc'ing the universal accessing mailing list since
this was already sent to him.)
Responding to post by Michael Gurstein <mgurst@ccen.uccb.ns.ca>
on Fri, 2 Oct 1998 15:30:49 -0300 (ADT):
It was a welcome treat to see your post as I have been following
the discussion about the new private corporation that the U.S.
Govt is setting up to turn the Internet into a goldmine for
economic commerce (with no regard for the worldwide communication
that the Internet makes possible that so many of us find so crucial
and which must be protected if it is to survive.)
In the whole discussion that has gone on for months, I have
never seen anyone mention the consequence of what this privatization
will do for the goals of spreading the Internet both within countries
and to other countries not yet or sparcely represented.
When the U.S. Govt privatized the NSFNET in the U.S. in the 1990-1995
period, there was similarly no discussion that considered what
affect that would have on the hope for universal access in the U.S.
And it was acknowledged that the privatization would lead to only
those living in profitable areas getting connected to the Internet,
and rural or poor or less profitable areas would not have a way
to get connected.
That has come to pass in the U.S. Even in a large city like NYC
there are major sections of the population that have no possibility
of access to the Internet, and the same situation is repeated in
other areas around the U.S.
During the time of the privatization there was an NTIA (National
Telecommunications Infrastructure Administration) online meeting
where people online were allowed to discuss their views.
Many people around the U.S. expressed their disagreement with the
planned privatization and told of how that would prevent many
people in the U.S. from getting connected to the Net.
(See chapters 11 and 14 in "Netizens: On the History and
Impact of Usenet and the Internet". The URL is
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook)
The U.S. Govt went ahead with the privatization anyhow. It
was only interested in objectives that would enrich the largest
corporations in the U.S. (There is a chapter on this in Netizens.
It is chapter 12. The URL is http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook)
That privatization is now a model for the privatization that the
U.S. govt is currently carrying out. Only this time the essential
functions of the Internet that are being put into the control
and ownership and administration of a U.S. created and people
private corporation will affect all Internet users.
Today I sent the proposal I did to the NTIA and they promised to
post it along with the other proposals (they claim there is the
proposal from Jon Postel which has the "consensus" of the
Internet community, despite most people on the Internet know
nothing about it, and another proposal made up by some folks
and their lawyers who have been on the IFWP (International
Forum on the White Paper) mailing list.
I have heard that the NTIA will allow commments on the various
proposals. It would seem very important that people around the
world find a way to find out what is happening and if they
deem it makes sense, to post their views. I will try to send
more information as soon as I get it about the URL at the
NTIA where the prosposals will be found.
What you say about the need to realize that this issue of
the privatization of the Domain Name System will impact
the goals of universal access and is intimately bound up
in who will make decisions about the Internet and on what
basis, which you term "governance", is quite helpful.
It is important that people realize the broader issues
involved in the U.S. Govt's privatization of what is
the result of cooperative and collaborative efforts.
Also many people have asked me the implications of the
privatization on their use of the Internet. They have
asked how this will effect them so they can try to
figure out whether it is important to be concerned with.
It would be good take up this question as my understanding
is that what is happening will be of very great significance
as the folks controlling this corporation will have the
ability to make decisions that will have us at their mercy.
They will be able to make decisions that can obsolete
large numbers of computers. They can make decisions that will
cost us much more money than we are already paying for
the Internet access that our government funds paid so
much to make possible and that our contributions make
valuable. Also they will have the power to cut chosen
people and computers off the Internet, and to give away
domain names to people not in the countries represented
by the names but to be sold to the highest bidders.
But what you say about governance is very important.
When I was at the Internet Society Annual Meeting and
Conference in Montreal in 1996, I went to a panel
held by the U.S. govt and the largest U.S. service
providers. The NSF official there said he was gathering
the largest U.S. service providers into a meeting
so they could decide how they would *govern* the
Internet.
During questions I complained about how he thought he
could be making the decision of *who* should govern
the Internet and that he was choosing those to bestow
this power on.
One of the large service providers who was a speaker
on the panel made fun of me and said that I could
always vote with my feet by choosing a different
service provider if I didn't like what the service
providers are doing.
When Usenet was first formed, it was understood to
be a "users" network. It was the users who were
to make the decisions.
Now we are being told that users are only "customers"
and we can vote with our feet if we don't like
the service our current overlord provides.
This is a backwards step to be sure and one that will
have only harmful effects for the Internet. Already
the U.S. Govt process of privatization of the Internet
has made a mess of the domain name distribution
procedure, so that we get junk mail from domain name
holders who have given phony names and addresses and
phone numbers. But NSI has made money on their
registrations and that is all they have been concerned
with. However, this is a problem of the NSF administration
of the NSI contract, not only a problem of NSI's
activities.
So it is good you raise these issues. They are very
important and it would be good to see some serious
discussion of them.
>I haven't really followed the 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.
They have been very tedious and difficult to follow as they
are spread out over many mailing lists and it is hard to keep
track of where these are.
>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.
This is helpful as you show the narrow framework these discussions
are being put into.
Certainly this is not the framework of what is best for the future
of the Internet as a means of worldwide communication.
>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.
This is genuinely helpful. I wondered why the term "internet governance
was being used by the parties planning this privatization. But as
you point out this is infact a form of governance and it is
making decisions that reflect a certain amount of power being put
in the hands of those making the decisions.
But it would be good to clarify the use of the terms "Internet
governance."
>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.
Both of these are a narrow focus. And as you point out the second
issue - of "competition" in DNS allocation will only make
much worse a situation where the integrity of the Domain Name
System has already been seriously challenged.
>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.
Nice - this is what is needed.
>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
Nor was it discussed in the White or Green papers issued by the
U.S. Govt.
>"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
There has been no such discussion either as part of the U.S. issued
White or Green papers or as part of the discussion I have seen
of those on the lists of those discussing the privatization.
>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.
Yes. Nice to see this stated. This is true also with respect to
the White and Green paper and there is no interest in any of the
issues you mention. Also it is especially good to see you point
out the implications especially for "enhancing public participation
in civil society to which the Internet can and very likely will
be put." This was the hope of many when the Internet developed,
even of the earliest folks working on it, and the U.S. Govt has
had no interest in considering this important issue or supporting
its development.
Also, on Sept 30, the Youngstown Freenet closed. It was from
the Youngstown Freenet that I was able to access the NTIA
online conference in 1994 and participate in it. With the closing
of such important portals between community folks and the Internet,
it will be less likely that the kind of work to increase the
input of citizens in government decisions will be able to occur.
It is very sad to see that the result of the policy of privatization
of the Internet in the U.S.
>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.
This is helpful. There are *no* good models for the U.S. Govt
plan to create a private corporation for Internet governance.
Such a situation is basically hostile in many ways to the Internet
and its development.
Instead of trying to learn from the models and forms that have
grown up with the development of the Internet itself, the U.S.
Govt is abandoning those and instead imposing a form hostile
to public and cooperative nature of the Internet.
The proposal I submitted is an effort to look at the forms
that the Internet has developed from and see how those can
be helpful in solving the problem of how to share the governance
of the Internet so it is not limited to one country, but
is more internationally and cooperatively shared.
It would be helpful to have comments on my proposal. If
folks want I can send it to this list, or give a URL
for it. Let me know which is better. (I have made some
changes in the proposal from the original draft version
I circulated.)
>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
No it seems very important that this be done. And I would
want to add that there has been a helpful form of governance
that has developed on and as part of the Internet. It would
be good to bring in the current and past experiences with
Internet governance that people have had.
>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.
This is very interesting. The talk I have heard on the IFWP
and related lists is about how to carve up the Internet,
how to carve up the distribution of domain names, of IP numbers
etc.
This all is and will have a significant effect on the functioning
of the Internet as a means of worldwide communication.
>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
And I smile as I remember the Internet Society Conference in
Geneva this summer, when multiple members of the Board of Directors
of ISOC told the International Press that they shouldn't concern
themselves with the planned changes for the DNS as it wouldn't
affect them.
So we are being told not to pay attention. This makes one smell
a very smelly fish :-)
>fault line, which governments and individuals are at this moment trying to
>find some way of coping with, should not go unnoticed.
Governments and the EU and the U.S. Govt etc seem to be taking
this very seriously, but I don't see anyone alerting their
citizens to the importance of all this.
>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.
Nice to hear you say this.
So the questions is raised how do we encourage the opening up
of the dialogue and public discussion?
>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.
Yes!!!! And it is within the power of governments to help encourage
and make possible this kind of discussion. The NTIA online conference
in Nov. 1994 (above I mentioned a helpful URL.) was the beginning
of an example of what is needed.
>Mike Gurstein
>Mgurst@ccen.uccb.ns.ca
Thanks Mike for sending this to us - it is a breath of fresh air :-)
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
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #175
******************************
