Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 305
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, June 8 1999 Volume 01 : Number 305
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community vrs Netizens
[netz] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community vrs Netizens
[netz] Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
[netz] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
Re: [netz] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 21:55:54 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community vrs Netizens
Ronda,
> Thus it is flies in the face of the history and development
> of the Internet and of the history and development of
> science and government as they have evolved since the
> earliest days in the U.S.
Your colleague Eben Moglen wrote a nice piece last year on the
Information Railroad, at http://old.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/
The image of the trappers and traders getting the Amerindians
sozzled on firewater while taking over their lands also comes to
mind. Interesting in this connection is a recent post by Eric
Brunner at
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/icann-
current/msg00079.html
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 22:28:51 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community vrs Netizens
> Eben Moglen wrote a nice piece last year on the
> Information Railroad, at http://old.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/
>
Sorry, the resource is ~/barbecue.html , altho one may also find
~/yu-encrypt.html relevant to the question of 'net hegemony.'
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:10:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com> wrote:
>An Open Letter to Elliot Maxwell, U.S. Dept of Commerce
>
>as part of her open letter to e lliot maxwell who have know Tont rutkowski
>quite well since circa 1985 and therefor certainly does not need R honda
>hauben to interpret tony's remarks to elliot ronda claims;
What happened in 1985?
I have wondered why Elliot Maxwell has kept such a low profile in the
ICANN situation. Announcements when Ira Magaziner was leaving
were that Elliot Maxwell would replace Ira, but be headquartered
in the Dept of Commerce. He does seem to be headquartered there,
but has been basically hidden from public view except for a
few newspaper articles quoting him.
Why?
The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on March 31
had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt officials couldn't
set up a corporation like the FCC-Schools and Libraries Corporation.
That this was in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act.
Were the Green and White paper issued to try to go around that law?
Does anyone know how to find a copy of the Government Corporation
Control Act?
Ronda
See Cone of Silence: ICANN or Internet Democracy Failing
by John Horvath in Telepolis
URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/2837/1.html
and ACN 9-1
URL: http://www.ais.org/~ronda/acn/ACN9-1.txt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:57:01 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
Ronda,
> The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on
> March 31 [1998] had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt
> officials couldn't set up a corporation like the FCC-Schools and
> Libraries Corporation.
>
> That this was in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act.
>
> Were the Green and White paper issued to try to go around that law?
>
You have to go by 'the letter of the law.' It doesnt say USG cant
simply give assets to a private corp, only that it cant *create* the
corp to give them to. Conflict? What conflict?
Its interesting reading, nevertheless:
=======
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy090140.000/hs
y090140_0.htm
[Mr MAGAZINER: W]e proposed the adding of five names, and
then a second question came, which was, in the CORE proposal,
for example, there is one group, essentially one organization that
would manage the databases for all registry top-level generic
names, and it would be a nonprofit organization, I think in the
public trust, is the way it's described?
There are good arguments to go in that direction, but the
concerns were that if you have just one organization managing all
the registration databases, that you wouldn't have the benefits of
competition and the kind of innovation that competition can bring,
and the efficiencies that competition should bring. So, what we
proposed, based on those arguments, was that you would allow
five new organizations to come into existence, each of which was
managing a name, a generic top-level name, and you would have
NSI continuing to manage the database for .com, although it would
have to allow anybody to register into it.
And then you would have at least six competitors, and that
would exist only during an interim period. After the interim period,
once the new organization gets up and going, it will review all these
policies so that what we were doing was just for a transition period,
to get competition moving. And in that sense, I guess what's being
said is that it sets up monopolies because you'd have only one
organization managing the database for a name, a specific name.
That's true. On the other hand, the CORE proposal would have only
one organization managing all names, nonprofit.
[...]
Chairman PICKERING. Thank you. There are two objectives that
have been raised in the panel discussion. One that we need to
make this transition as quickly as possible, and we need to remove
the government involvement, and get a new structure in place, a
new protocol, new dispute mechanisms in place as quickly as
possible.
As many of you know, the NSF/NSI cooperative agreement
expires today. I believe, at least my understanding is, that it will
automatically extend 6 months. Mr. Magaziner, do you think that
we can have a new system in place by September 30? Can we
have the consensus?
Mr. MAGAZINER. Well I though our goal is to get as close to
that as possible, and what we've done as a safeguard in our
proposal is to say that the contract would not be renewed as of
September 30, and that there would be some oversight of the
Commerce Department, which would continue for a limited period
of time, until the new organization and the new system were fully
up and going.
It would be our desire for that to be as limited a time as
possible, but if we're concerned about stability, we've got to make
sure that we just don't pull the plug on this system before the new
system is in place. That would be, in our view, irresponsible.
Chairman PICKERING. To that end, is there any legislative
authority that you may need, for example, if there's a new nonprofit
entity that will help in the organization or setting up the new
structure? There is a ruling within the FCC that when they tried to
set up a similar program to administer the links to schools and
libraries, that theyit was a rule that they did not have the
authority to do so. From your interpretation, do you have the
authority, currently, to establish a nonprofit entity to do this, or do
we need to take some legislative action in this regard?
Mr. MAGAZINER. Let me ask the Commerce Department about
this.
Ms. BURR. Thank you. I think there are two questions of
authority here, but the Green Paper does not call for a government-
chartered corporation or for the government to establish a
corporation. Rather, it calls for a private-sector developed not-for-
profit corporation based on membership associations. And under
that plan, government authority would not be needed to create
that corporation.
Chairman PICKERING. How would this be different from the FCC-
created nonprofit corporation for schools, referred to as the Schools
and Libraries Corporation? GAO recently issued a legal opinion
stating that the nonprofit corporation was created without statutory
authority and in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act.
Ms. BURR. The FCC actually established those corporations.
The FCC incorporated them, worked to draw up the bylaws and
charters and all of that, and was involved in the creation. And that
is not what is proposed in the Green Paper. This Green Paper calls
for a private sector established
Mr. COURTER. Can I comment on that, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman PICKERING. Yes, Mr. Courter.
Mr. COURTER. Thank you. The private sector has established one
and it's CORE. I mean, I guess that's my major point. We don't
have to wait to do it. It took 18 months, cooperation of everybody
involved with the Internet around the world, and it's done. The one
major criticism or concern that Mr. Magaziner had with respect to
the CORE proposal on this whole issueand we, obviously, are
the most free-enterprising, competitive of the proposals I've
seenis the fact that he would like more than one registry. And we
would invite that, as long as those other registries have standards,
as CORE has imposed its own internal standard, that would not be
a problem. So I would hope that we could sit down, Mr. Magaziner,
the Commerce Department, perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, and
resolve this thing in a very short period of time.
Chairman PICKERING. Thank you. Dr. Kahn.
Mr. KAHN. Yes, if I could just briefly comment. I think that the
fundamental issue here, ultimately, is governance of the Internet,
and that the essential element that's going to show up here is not
whether this is private sector versus government, or even whether
there's a need for oversight; everybody agrees that that's the case.
| And I suspect
| that almost everybody would agree that that oversight ought to be
| in the private sector, too. The question is what happens when the
| oversight doesn't work properly. And that's the place where I think
| there's been very little discussion. If you look at the different |
plans, they're not very clear about thatboth of them. In the case
of the CORE plan, the ITU is a holder of an MOU, but my
understanding is that the plan is not for the ITU to be able to weigh-
in in any significant way, and I think many people would probably
raise some objections if they tried to, for a variety of reasons. And
the same thing will have to work out in the Green Papers, exactly
what that oversight mechanism is. So, until you can resolve that, it
seems to me it's really hard to know exactly what the right
structure and plan and process is to put in place.
[...]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:38:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>Ronda,
>> The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on
>> March 31 [1998] had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt
>> officials couldn't set up a corporation like the FCC-Schools and
>> Libraries Corporation.
>
>> That this was in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act.
>
>> Were the Green and White paper issued to try to go around that law?
>
> You have to go by 'the letter of the law.' It doesnt say USG cant
>simply give assets to a private corp, only that it cant *create* the
>corp to give them to. Conflict? What conflict?
But the U.S. government has been creeating ICANN and that is
why it is doing what it is doing behind the scenes and secretly.
The meetings with Postel and NSI were the govt meeting with them
to get them to create the corporation. And Postel and NSI were
both under contract to the U.S. government and doing what the
government was requiring them to do as part of their contracts.
> Its interesting reading, nevertheless:
It seems important to see the law as it seems clear that the
whole effort of the Green and White papers has been to try
to evade the law.
No Internet community has created ICANN. The U.S. govt has
created ICANN.
=======
>http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy090140.000/hs
>y090140_0.htm
>[Mr MAGAZINER: W]e proposed the adding of five names, and
>then a second question came, which was, in the CORE proposal,
>for example, there is one group, essentially one organization that
>would manage the databases for all registry top-level generic
>names, and it would be a nonprofit organization, I think in the
>public trust, is the way it's described?
> There are good arguments to go in that direction, but the
>concerns were that if you have just one organization managing all
>the registration databases, that you wouldn't have the benefits of
>competition and the kind of innovation that competition can bring,
>and the efficiencies that competition should bring. So, what we
>proposed, based on those arguments, was that you would allow
>five new organizations to come into existence, each of which was
>managing a name, a generic top-level name, and you would have
>NSI continuing to manage the database for .com, although it would
>have to allow anybody to register into it.
But it's not that "competition" brings innovation, but that
government support for science and scientists brings innovation.
That is the history and development of the Internet.
> And then you would have at least six competitors, and that
>would exist only during an interim period. After the interim period,
>once the new organization gets up and going, it will review all these
>policies so that what we were doing was just for a transition period,
>to get competition moving. And in that sense, I guess what's being
>said is that it sets up monopolies because you'd have only one
>organization managing the database for a name, a specific name.
>That's true. On the other hand, the CORE proposal would have only
>>one organization managing all names, nonprofit.
But the assinging names is an administrative function, not
a testbed for so called "market", especially when it is
being set up by some organization. So it seems that the
ICANN is the new deus ex machina of the "market" ? Makes
one think that there is no such thing as a "market"
functioning anywhere.
At least not in these times.
>[...]
> Chairman PICKERING. Thank you. There are two objectives that
>have been raised in the panel discussion. One that we need to
>make this transition as quickly as possible, and we need to remove
>the government involvement, and get a new structure in place, a
>new protocol, new dispute mechanisms in place as quickly as
>possible.
But you can't remove government because they have a problem
and no idea how to solve the problem. And instead of deciding
how to solve the problem, they decided to hide the government
role, which means that it is impossible to solve the problem.
As the whole effort becomes how to hide the government role,
*not* to solve the problem.
> As many of you know, the NSF/NSI cooperative agreement
>expires today. I believe, at least my understanding is, that it will
>automatically extend 6 months. Mr. Magaziner, do you think that
>we can have a new system in place by September 30? Can we
>have the consensus?
> Mr. MAGAZINER. Well I though our goal is to get as close to
>that as possible, and what we've done as a safeguard in our
>proposal is to say that the contract would not be renewed as of
>September 30, and that there would be some oversight of the
>Commerce Department, which would continue for a limited period
>of time, until the new organization and the new system were fully
>up and going.
Sounds awfully like the U.S. government is doing the creating of
this new entity :-(
And it is that it should be actively trying to figure out what
is needed, *but* not in a way to evade its laws.
There is a reason the law forbids what the U.S. govt is doing.
> It would be our desire for that to be as limited a time as
>possible, but if we're concerned about stability, we've got to make
>sure that we just don't pull the plug on this system before the new
>system is in place. That would be, in our view, irresponsible.
> Chairman PICKERING. To that end, is there any legislative
>authority that you may need, for example, if there's a new nonprofit
>entity that will help in the organization or setting up the new
>structure?
>There is a ruling within the FCC that when they tried to
>set up a similar program to administer the links to schools and
>libraries, that theyit was a rule that they did not have the
>authority to do so. From your interpretation, do you have the
>authority, currently, to establish a nonprofit entity to do this, or do
>we need to take some legislative action in this regard?
So Chairman Pickering acknowledged that the U.S. Government didn't have
the authority to set up an entity.
I had found another reference that said that the ruling was
a GAO ruling about the FCC.
> Mr. MAGAZINER. Let me ask the Commerce Department about
>this.
> Ms. BURR. Thank you. I think there are two questions of
>authority here, but the Green Paper does not call for a government-
>chartered corporation or for the government to establish a
>corporation. Rather, it calls for a private-sector developed not-for-
>profit corporation based on membership associations. And under
>that plan, government authority would not be needed to create
>that corporation.
But the U.S. govt created ICANN. And that is what the Green Paper
and White Paper set up. They set up all the criteria and the
only proposal that was acceptable was the one that they chose
and claimed was the closed to what they required. Seems pretty
much like they created ICANN and they did.
> Chairman PICKERING. How would this be different from the FCC-
>created nonprofit corporation for schools, referred to as the Schools
>and Libraries Corporation? GAO recently issued a legal opinion
>stating that the nonprofit corporation was created without statutory
>authority and in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act.
It would seem helpful to see the law and the legal opinion.
> Ms. BURR. The FCC actually established those corporations.
>The FCC incorporated them, worked to draw up the bylaws and
>charters and all of that, and was involved in the creation. And that
>is not what is proposed in the Green Paper. This Green Paper calls
>for a private sector established
But there is no "private sector" to establish anything.
The internet is not a creature of the so called "private sector".
It is a new communication medium created as a result of government
support computer science and needs to have that government support
for computer science continued to make it possible to continue
to grow and scale the Internet.
> Mr. COURTER. Can I comment on that, Mr. Chairman?
>Chairman PICKERING. Yes, Mr. Courter.
>Mr. COURTER. Thank you. The private sector has established one
>and it's CORE. I mean, I guess that's my major point. We don't
This shows there is no such thing as the "private sector".
CORE was established in a series of secret meets and by a
set of insiders some of who were connected to the Internet
Society.
It's like claiming what they imagine exists and then that it
therefore has the right to create what they imagine.
It's a bit circular to say the least.
ha>ve to wait to do it. It took 18 months, cooperation of everybody
>involved with the Internet around the world, and it's done. The one
There was no cooperation of "everyone involved with the Internet"
creating CORE - most people who are involved with the Internet
didn't even know it existed.
>major criticism or concern that Mr. Magaziner had with respect to
>the CORE proposal on this whole issueand we, obviously, are
>the most free-enterprising, competitive of the proposals I've
>seenis the fact that he would like more than one registry. And we
>would invite that, as long as those other registries have standards,
>as CORE has imposed its own internal standard, that would not be
>a problem. So I would hope that we could sit down, Mr. Magaziner,
>the Commerce Department, perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, and
>resolve this thing in a very short period of time.
This seems like a power grab if one ever heard of a power grab.
>Chairman PICKERING. Thank you. Dr. Kahn.
>Mr. KAHN. Yes, if I could just briefly comment. I think that the
>fundamental issue here, ultimately, is governance of the Internet,
>and that the essential element that's going to show up here is not
>whether this is private sector versus government, or even whether
>there's a need for oversight; everybody agrees that that's the case.
Interesting - this is an effort to clarify the question - that the
issue is who will be responsible - who will provide the oversight.
>| And I suspect
>| that almost everybody would agree that that oversight ought to be
>| in the private sector, too. The question is what happens when the
I guess if you only ask a small set of insiders then they will all
agree, but I certainly don't agree that the oversight ought to
be in the private sector.
But it is a help to raise the issue this way - as it leads to
the questions:
1) Do all agree there has to be oversight? (And there need
to be reasons discussed).
2) Who must have responsibility for that oversight and why?
>| oversight doesn't work properly. And that's the place where I think
>| there's been very little discussion. If you look at the different |
>plans, they're not very clear about thatboth of them. In the case
>>of the CORE plan, the ITU is a holder of an MOU, but my
>understanding is that the plan is not for the ITU to be able to weigh-
>in in any significant way, and I think many people would probably
>raise some objections if they tried to, for a variety of reasons. And
>the same thing will have to work out in the Green Papers, exactly
>what that oversight mechanism is. So, until you can resolve that, it
>seems to me it's really hard to know exactly what the right
>structure and plan and process is to put in place.
Nice effort to ask the significant question in this whole issue,
and instead of anyone trying to answer it, those grabbing
for power just rushed ahead and ignored the question Bob Kahn
raised.
It reminds me of the Caucasian Chalk Circle. Who cares for
the Internet. Many people claim to care, but it is crucial to
figure out who does, and that person is in a position to figure
out what is a healthy path forward.
>[...]
Kerry, This was interesting.
And I think it has implications that are important.
Also in the past I have found that if one reads the laws that
are applicable they help to identify the principles that will
help to solve the problem. So it seems important to find
a way to see the Government Corporation Control Act and decisions
about its applicability.
But the bigger question is what is needed. And I think I have
made progress solving that question with the work I have been
doing on the latest paper I have been working on. I have
learned how important ARPA/IPTO was, which made it possible
to give birth to the Internet. And by understanding that
as a helpful and important government institution that
made it possible to interface science and government, it
will be possible to figure out how to create an appropriate
government institution to continue to care for the development
of the Internet and of computer science. And if the U.S.
government can succeed in creating such an institution within
government it sets the basis for other government to figure
out how to do the same and how to collaborate with each other
as they did in creating and building the Internet.
Ronda
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #305
******************************
