Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 265
Netizens-Digest Sunday, January 31 1999 Volume 01 : Number 265
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: more resources
Re [netz] A Call to Arms?
Re: Re [netz] A Call to Arms?
Re: Re [netz] A Call to Arms?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:42:29 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: more resources
Following on Pat G's list, another site re NII / Digital Millennium
Copyright Act is
http://www.harvnet.harvard.edu/online/moreinfo/boyledeb.html
- -- a fine example of how government/ industry works, or doesnt work.
(Just by the bye, its also demonstrates what careful reasoning actually
looks like...)
Boyle has several other good pieces on cyberlaw at
http://www.wcl.american.edu/pub/faculty/boyle
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:43:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re [netz] A Call to Arms?
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.95.990119165328.27773A-100000@blastula.phys.columbia.edu>,
Bino Gopal wrote:
>>But having said that, something is still troubling me--something
>>recently highlighted by the latest email to the list. In it, someone
>>said that they too were wary of what was going on, but that they were
>>afraid that this whole mailing list may be a waste of time.
>My personal opinion is that this list is fine for discussion and
>expression of opinion. There is no one on this list (that I know of)
>who has enough influence over the "powers that be" (whoever they might
>be) to make substantial changes in how things will be done (at least
>in the short term).
Do you know who the "powers that be" in this situation are Greg?
Do you have an idea of who wants this? Is it Clinton? Or Gore? Or
both? Or others?
>>Now that's something that's crossed my mind, seeing how frustrated
>>Ronda has been in her attempts to get 'the powers that be' to listen.
>>I believe this consideration of efficacy is very important, and
>>relates to my next point.
>Keep in mind that Ronda is but one of many individuals who have
>expressed opinions on what should be done, and the other individuals
>have felt at least as frustrated as she has. Some of them have gone
>to the trouble of suing those individuals and organizations who they
>felt were depriving them of their rights. So Ronda is not the only
>person who feels like no one's listening to them.
Greg, are there law suits that you know of about what ICANN is doing?
Or about what the NTIA is doing?
Do you have any other info on who has sued about wqhat?
When I was at the meeting at the Berkman Center last Saturday, someone
asked me if I know if there were any law suits on this all yet.
Also they asked if I knew who was behind what is happening with
creating ICANN and why this is being done.
>>Here is the one thing I would like to hear:
>>A clear, concise, brief description of what the _real_ danger is in
>>all the goings on and doings of the US Gov and all these supporting
>>organizations.
A new problem that was raised by someone at last Saturday's Boston
meeting was that usually regulators go through FBI checks and
if they abuse their obligations they are subject to criminal
penalties.
That ICANN is being created as a regulatory agency with no
government to oversee it or have the checks on it for
abuse of power.
That a membership organization is not an appropriate form
and neither is a corporation for a regulatory agency.
o
<...>
>I have had some discussions with other people in the Internet industry
>about the ICANN, etc. Some of them have been around since the days of
>the Internet as a research project. Opinions are mixed. Some people
>believe it is a bunch of hoopla over nothing. Others have varying
>degrees of concern. Some have expressed similar concerns as yours,
>that it's not possible to get simple explanations of what is
>happening.
It's not clear how many people have had the expereince that would
help them to understand what the serious problems are with
what is being done.
But someone I spoke to at the Saturday Boston meeting last week
said that familiarity with government helps one to understand
that this is a situation that cannot be dealt with by a membership
organization.
Also I have been in situations where the boundaries between public
and private were breached and the result was that very serious
violations of people's rights occurred.
And there was even an article in the WSJ earlier this week saying
how Magaziner had done some very serious things with the Advisory
Councils he created in the health care debacle. And my sense
is that this is a much more serious problem that is being created.
>>Having established that, we can use the list as a focal point for a
>>serious organized movement to get people to _listen_, and inform
>>others.
>What would you tell them? How would you convince them that they
>needed to be concerned, particularly if it would require them to study
>a large set of technical specifications, mail archives, and
>litigation?
No it doesn't that that. It only takes thinking about what is
being created and the lack of any oversight over folks who have
the U.S. government giving them a lot of power and the fact
that the U.S. government is functioning without any authority
to do what it is doing, etc.
>I have had some discussions about this with people who aren't in the
>Internet industry. They don't understand what is happening and don't
>have any reasonable way to understand. It's not as if they can drop
>whatever they're doing and study almost 40 years of history, including
>some very complex technical and policy issues.
I'm surprised. I just described what is happening to a relative.
She knows very little about the Internet or about computers.
But I told her how the U.S. government is claiming it will give
control over central points of control of the Internet to a private
entity it is creating. That the private entity is also being given
control over IP numbers (4.3 billion of which 2 billion are allocated)
That $50 a year charge for only those allocated would lead to
$100 billion alone. That the control over the root server system
etc give it additional power. That NSI had an income of $900 million
(almost a billion dollars) just from selling domain names. (gross
income)etc..
Her comment was that this is the greatest giveaway ever.
It wasn't hard for her to understand what is happening at all.
>Anyway, for what it's worth, I think there is value in being able to
>have such discussions, even if they don't amount to anything. That's
>something I will fight for, if it becomes necessary.
I have realized is that the reason the ISOC crowd and the Berkman
Center folks tried to shut me up at the meeting last Saturday is that
they have no reasonable answers to the problem that they are
creating by what they are doing.
It's like being in a den of thieves and talking about the recent
thefts that have happened. Of course there will be an effort
to shut up any discussion of the thefts.
However, I found that other folks told me to keep talking or
asked me to explain my proposal at length when I saw them individually
after the Berkman Center folks had stopped me from speaking while
I was at the microphone.
I guess that is why Voltaire's principle was to defend someone's
right to speak.
>--gregbo
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, 30 Jan 1999 21:08:09 -0500
From: Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>
Subject: Re: Re [netz] A Call to Arms?
Ronda Hauben wrote:
> I'm surprised. I just described what is happening to a relative.
> She knows very little about the Internet or about computers.
> But I told her how the U.S. government is claiming it will give
> control over central points of control of the Internet to a private
> entity it is creating. That the private entity is also being given
> control over IP numbers (4.3 billion of which 2 billion are allocated)
> That $50 a year charge for only those allocated would lead to
> $100 billion alone. That the control over the root server system
> etc give it additional power. That NSI had an income of $900 million
> (almost a billion dollars) just from selling domain names. (gross
> income)etc..
I'm surprised as well. According to the current numbers at
domainstats.com there are about 3 million registrations in .com, about
300,00 in .net, and about 250,000 in .org.
3.55 million at $35 per year works out to around $125 million. This is
not small change, to be sure, but nevertheless not large compared to the
other sorts of things going on the computer and telecom industries. And
who ever proposed a $50 annual charge for an IP number? No one that I
know of. There are indeed some important amounts at stake in IP
allocation, but there is no need to exaggerate them.
Still, we are talking about what is essentially the fulcrum of the
Internet, so it deserves special attention.
A private entity ALREADY benefits from exercising commercial control
over registrations in generic TLDs. The question is how to establish a
new body to provide formal public oversight of these activities,
recognizing that they are essential for the continued existence of a
unified and scalable Internet.
In the past, oversight was provided informally by the Internet
enginering community by way of a semi-formal IANA, with formal
contractual sanction provided by a few USG-authorized agents working
within agencies like the NSF, and now the DOC. In other words, formal
oversight was once coordinated through agencies of the USG, but the
private entities (peers) which constitute the nodes, intersections, and
highways of the Internet looked to the IANA for guidance regarding
standard operatiing procedures, and tended to interact within
IETF-inspired venues when they wanted those procedures to be changed.
That community, as you know, has been attempting for over three years to
terminate NSI's commercial monopoly on .com, .net and, .org
registrations. In my view, that community has also been rather noble and
forthright in attempting to establish new sorts of DNS oversight
mechanisms that would spread the opportunity to accumulate commercial
benefits of domain name registrations beyond the United States, yet
without jeopardizing the stability of the Internet as a whole.
Is this a worthy goal, in your view? Or do you reject my
characterization? And, if you'd humor me by playing along for moment,
please consider why that community (epitomized by people like Dave
Farber, Vint Cerf, and Scott Bradner) has been so deeply frustrated in
its attempt to terminate NSI's monopoly.
Is the problem poor statesemanship (Crocker, Metzger Postel), a poor
choice of allies (ITU, WIPO, INTA), formidable, motivated, persistent
adversaries (NSI, ioDesign, Iperdome), distracting kookery (Williams,
Allisat, et al), hidden interests with ulterior motives (??), or
something else?
I put the question to you this way because you seem to be asserting that
the issue can be boiled down to the wicked privatizers on one side
versus you as the Promethean champion of the public interest on the
other, and I think you consequently miss the fact that there is
considerable divergence among the other parties.
Craig Simon
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 01:07:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Re [netz] A Call to Arms?
Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com> wrote:
>Ronda Hauben wrote:
>> I'm surprised. I just described what is happening to a relative.
>> She knows very little about the Internet or about computers.
>> But I told her how the U.S. government is claiming it will give
>> control over central points of control of the Internet to a private
>> entity it is creating. That the private entity is also being given
>> control over IP numbers (4.3 billion of which 2 billion are allocated)
>> That $50 a year charge for only those allocated would lead to
>> $100 billion alone. That the control over the root server system
>> etc give it additional power. That NSI had an income of $900 million
>> (almost a billion dollars) just from selling domain names. (gross
>> income)etc..
>I'm surprised as well. According to the current numbers at
>domainstats.com there are about 3 million registrations in .com, about
>300,00 in .net, and about 250,000 in .org.
Basically I'm *not* talking about domainstats. I'm talking about IP numbers.
This year folks have reported that they have begun paying a fee for
IP numbers.
>3.55 million at $35 per year works out to around $125 million. This is
>not small change, to be sure, but nevertheless not large compared to the
>other sorts of things going on the computer and telecom industries. And
>who ever proposed a $50 annual charge for an IP number? No one that I
>know of. There are indeed some important amounts at stake in IP
>allocation, but there is no need to exaggerate them.
I don't have the figures of what the $900 million was exactly
from for the NSI profits. So its good you point out the
details of the domain names.
Who proposed a fee for domain names? And a fee that would let NSI
make money off of the registrations.
That was the problem that had to be solved, *not* to spread the making
money to others.
The Office of Inspector General's Report of Feb. 1997 noted the
great amount of money that someone charging a feee for IP numbes
would have access to -- and ICANN has nothing to stop it from
doing all sorts of outrageous things.
(Someone I spoke with recently said - what if they charge a
lookup feee for domain name lookups?)
The point is they are not checked by anything. The government
processes that should stop such abuses are being made
impotent by the U.S. government's creation of ICANN.
>Still, we are talking about what is essentially the fulcrum of the
>Internet, so it deserves special attention.
Here we agree - and I guess I feel this is also a bit of an
understatement from my point of view. I would say that
these essential functions of the Internet deserve the greatest
care and protection.
>A private entity ALREADY benefits from exercising commercial control
>over registrations in generic TLDs.
This should have been stopped. This was a problem, an abuse
that needed to be solved. Not make the problem a million times worse.
>The question is how to establish a new body to provide formal
>public oversight of these activities, recognizing that they are
>essential for the continued existence of a unified and scalable
>Internet.
This is a separate question, and one that could not be phrased
or solved if one is holding IANA hostage by cutting off their funding.
Or if one is trying to spread the loot from domain name registrations
rather than stopping the abuse.
The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee minutes from
1996 said that the U.S. government wanted to protect U.x.S. commercial
interests in the DNS systems ( or of some similar wording, I
don't have time now to check the exact words).
They didn't say they wanted to establsh a new body to provide a
formal public oversight over domain names.
Thus the efforts they have made have been to bring the Internet
Society and some section of the EU and WIPO into a plan to
protect certain U.S. commercial interests, not to do something that
is in the best interests of the Internet.
>In the past, oversight was provided informally by the Internet
>enginering community by way of a semi-formal IANA, with formal
No this is the mistake that runs through all that is going on
with ICANN.
In the past there were formal agencies of the U.S. governmen
responsible for the public administration of IANA. DARPA
was responsible and is under the Department of Defense of
the U.S. government. There are serious obligations and responsibilities
that a U.S. government entity like the DoD has to function under.
A panel speaker at the meeting last Saturday in Boston pointed
out that there are FBI checks on government officials who are
responsible for administering regulatory bodies and that if they
abuse their obligations they can be subject to criminal prosecution.
IANA was under DARPA and DARPA was responsible for what went on in IANA.
And the DoD folks were responsible. There was a line of responsibility
backed up by penalties for abuse.
This is all being thrown to the wind by the so called
"self governance" model or "private self regulation model"
which is essentially setting up a system for abuse as there
is only reward for abuse.
>contractual sanction provided by a few USG-authorized agents working
>within agencies like the NSF, and now the DOC. In other words, formal
Some of the problem is that NSI was allowed to function in a
way that is abusive of the obligations of a government contract.
All that they should have been allowed to do was to have an
administrative fee *not* a way to make profit, from the registrations.
So there was a probelm that had to be solved, and instead of it being
solved it was used by the U.S. government as a power play to
make a much worse problem for those who depend on and understand
the importance of the Internet.
>oversight was once coordinated through agencies of the USG, but the
>private entities (peers) which constitute the nodes, intersections, and
Not "private" entities. There are all sorts of entities, but in general
they are autonomous networks that join together to communicate.
(Many are public or related to public entities like government or
universities, etc.)
>.highways of the Internet looked to the IANA for guidance regarding
>standard operatiing procedures, and tended to interact within
>IETF-inspired venues when they wanted those procedures to be changed.
But the whole process was under obligation to be legitimate that
the U.S. government DoD oversight and responsibility for IANA
provided.
>That community, as you know, has been attempting for over three years to
>terminate NSI's commercial monopoly on .com, .net and, .org
>registrations. In my view, that community has also been rather noble and
>forthright in attempting to establish new sorts of DNS oversight
That community has *not* in general been attempting to do anything.
A small group has been trying to (at the instigation of the U.S. govt)
get themselves a piece of the NSI pie, but not to identify or solve
the problems.
>mechanisms that would spread the opportunity to accumulate commercial
>benefits of domain name registrations beyond the United States, yet
>without jeopardizing the stability of the Internet as a whole.
But "spreading the opportuntiy to accumulate commercial benefits
of domain name registrations" is only spreading the problem,
*not* in any way solving it.
>Is this a worthy goal, in your view? Or do you reject my
No, this is not in any way a worthy goal. It is only a way
of spreading the poison further.
>characterization? And, if you'd humor me by playing along for moment,
>please consider why that community (epitomized by people like Dave
>Farber, Vint Cerf, and Scott Bradner) has been so deeply frustrated in
>its attempt to terminate NSI's monopoly.
But this is *not* in any way a noble goal. The problem that
had to be solved was to end that NSI was making profits in the
first place on this government contract and that what should
be a simple administrative function -- i.e. giving out
domain nemes, like giving out license plates for cars, etc -- has
been allowed to become something to set up a based to try
to grab the central points of control of the Internet from
a legitimate and responsible entity (i.e. a public governmental
entity with responsiblity and obligations and means of punishing
abuses) to put them into the hands of an illegitimate entity
with no means of accountablity, no means of knowing who is doing what,
no means of punishing criminal activity, etc.
>Is the problem poor statesemanship (Crocker, Metzger Postel), a poor
>choice of allies (ITU, WIPO, INTA), formidable, motivated, persistent
>adversaries (NSI, ioDesign, Iperdome), distracting kookery (Williams,
>Allisat, et al), hidden interests with ulterior motives (??), or
>something else?
The problem is that the U.S. government set up a power play for
an illegitimate purpose.
And lots of folks like the 5 IANA advisory council folks, Roberts,
Farber, Cerf, Bradner, Landweber, etc. seem to have gone along
with it and helped carry it out, rather than exercising the kind
of ethical obligation they have as computer scientists to say that
this shouldn't be happening.
Instead they put Dyson at the head of this to privatize the Internet
essential functions as she is out to help certain venture capitalists
privatize public assets in Eastern Europe.
IANA folks have been held hostage to this whole process as their
contract was held up for ransome.
Others who the U.S. govt got to set themselves up as future
registras of gTLD's by paying 10,000 dollars had money on the line
and thus were there to fight to get htheir investments paying.
Who planned all this? Do you know Craig? Does this come out
of Gore's office or Clinton? Magaziner didn't know anything about
the Internet so it didn't come from him. Who does it come from
and why are they playing such games with the Internet?
There are serious questions that need to be answered.
>I put the question to you this way because you seem to be asserting that
>the issue can be boiled down to the wicked privatizers on one side
>versus you as the Promethean champion of the public interest on the
>other, and I think you consequently miss the fact that there is
>considerable divergence among the other parties.
But there have been a number of folks who have also said that
the whole idea of privatizing is a problem. And it is.
These essential functions of the Internet are too important to be
put in commercial hands.
And they need protection by something that has means for asserting
resonsibility and punishing abuse.
They need government and scientific support. That was the basis
for my proposal which was built on the way Usenet and the Internet
were built. And no one in power even looked at it. That
meant they weren't trying to solve any problem. If you are
trying to solve a real problem you don't cut off any avenue
as that is the avenue where the solution may come from.
>Craig Simon
Ronda
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 #265
******************************
