Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 361
Netizens-Digest Monday, July 31 2000 Volume 01 : Number 361
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Slashdot | How Dependent Is The Internet On The U.S.?
[netz] Re: PFIR Statement on Internet Policies
[netz] Joining ICANN to Vote????
[netz] Formal Complaint of abuse of users by ICANN to DoC
[netz] Re: Formal Complaint of Abuse of Users by ICANN
[netz] Re: Formal complaint of abuse of users by ICANN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Slashdot | How Dependent Is The Internet On The U.S.?
http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/07/15/2030252.shtml
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:19:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] Re: PFIR Statement on Internet Policies
Hi Lauren
It is good you are responding to Jay Fenello's questions about your
PFIR proposal.
However, I wrote you as soon as the proposal went out in the PFIR mailing list
and haven't gotten any response.
This is disturbing since if you really do recognize that there is
a problem with ICANN, then it would seem you would look at those
who proposed there was a problem 2 years ago beformed and look
at the nature of what they proposed the problem to be, and see if
that is helpful or not to what you have seen develop.
Otherwise the trouble continues only in a slightly new form.
I have asked that you look at the proposal I submitted to
the US Department of Commerce after talking to Ira Magaziner
and telling him that what he was setting up was only trouble.
He said I had to give him an operational form of what I was
saying or put it in a proposal form. I did so.
It would seem that you would be curious to take a look if
you had some thought that ICANN is now a problem.
The proposal was for a prototype to interactively build an online form,
and builds on the ways that the one line developments like
Unix or Usenet have been built. That something is done that is
simple, not complex, and that there is an effort to create a
prototype to see if it has the right functionality.
I proposed in my proposal that the functionality was to protect
and to be able to scale the vital functions of the Internet such as
the protocols, IP numbers and domain name sytems, etc.-- not to put
them in a setting to be exploited for commercial profit making.
They need to be protected from the vested interests, not put
in their laps.
But also I proposed that an online open interactive process be
built (or built from those that already exist) so there could
be increased input into the process of those safeguarding the
vital functions of the Internet's infrastructure.
My proposal was the result of thought about what the real problems
were that needed to be identified, not about who could be supported
to increase their hold on a public resources.
My proposal was for a process that would create a prototype
which would be able to be developed and function in the pubic
interest.
That means that the commercial entities and the nonprofit entities
and more importantly the users, will have an entity that can
provide for their long term interests. Having each vested interest
involved to protect its short term interest makes providing
for the long term public interest impossible.
Your proposal takes on to give a broader sector a piece of the
pie rather than protetcting that the pie not be cut, but be
able to continue baking so it can develop further.
Not a good analogy, but one that I hope helps to make my point.
In any case, if you don't intend to take a look at my proposal,
I would appreciate knowing why.
I do know of your dedication and contributions to the development
of the Internet over a long period of time and so am hopefully
we can make progress now as well.
Cheers
Ronda
P.S. My proposal is at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
Also I have a number of things relevant online at
http://www.ais.org/~ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:08:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] Joining ICANN to Vote????
The question of "joining" ICANN is an important question.
But the the question of "joining" ICANN JUST TO VOTE which is how the
question has been posed so far seems to give away that there is no chance
to participate in ICANN except to vote.
The simple answer is that it is a step backwards for the Internet to
replace participation with voting. The Internet makes participation
possible at a level not
paralleled in History.
All participation in ICANN has so far been orchestrated and real critics
of privatization have been excluded from the bodies that ICANN formed and
prevented from speaking at most public meetings. To now let us vote for
one of their candidates who will sit as 5 at large among 19 total board
members with the other 12 representing the Industry Insiders seems no
compensation for denying us the right of participation.
It is as if to make the WTO more democratic each region of the world could
elect a representative but there would be 200 country representatives and
350 global corporation representatives. But the problem with the WTO is
not who is on the board but what is its mission. ICANN and WTO have the
same mission: to by pass governments and all laws and regulations so that
unrestricted capital can have dominance of society. Such dominance would
not benefit society as a whole because it lacks social purpose. Instead
serving only the narrow purpose of further enriching the already rich.
My understanding is that for the public interest to be represented it must
be the only interest. All other interests are narrower and are already
represented as part of the public. So to vote in an ICANN election is to
put aside or replace the public interest with a set of private interests.
Also when the lamb lies down with the lion the lamb gets eaten unless the
lion is kept in a cage. ICANN does not have as its mission to keep the
lion of the industry insiders in a cage.
ICANN is fundamentally flawed because the Internet is a crucial aspect of
the lives and livelihoods of a broad cross section of society. ICANN has
taken as a principle of its existence that it will not allow governments
to participate in its decision making. But governments are the only forms
found so far to take on to represent the whole public. Also ICANN denies
that there are users who should and could represent themselves.
The arguments to join all seem an appeal to pragmatism and hope that
somehow voting will make a difference in who or what makes the ICANN
decisions. It is my understanding that participation in decision making
that effects us is the essence of democracy and joining ICANN so as to
vote has nothing to do with participation.
I hope this debate will be joined and continued whether or not the current
ICANN voting registration is even possible.
Jay
,_ /\o \o/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The above graphic is from the director of a French gov't research center.
He says it is the Internet: someone is in trouble and someone else is
coming to help.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] Formal Complaint of abuse of users by ICANN to DoC
I sent the following to Becky Burr yesterday as a formal
complaint about the ICANN abuse of users.
I welcome comments and discussion on the issues raised by the letter
I have sent to Becky Burr and on the actual problem that has to
be solved to protect and scale the vital functions of the Internet
in the public internet.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
- ----------
>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:57:34 -0400 (EDT)
>From: <ronda@panix.com>
>To: bburr@ntia.doc.gov, msondow@iciiu.org, tom.bliley@mail.house.gov,
vcerf@mci.net
>Subject: Formal complaint of abuse of users by ICANN
Becky Burr
NTIA
U.S. Dept of Commerce
Washington, D.C.
Dear Becky
Have you tried to register for ICANN's membership? First the membership
is an ill conceived notion to try to hide that ICANN has been formed
to deny the public interest with regard to the Internet's names,
numbers and protocols. It's an effort to make it seem that a non profit
corporation can be entrusted with the ownership and control of vital
functions of the infrastructure of the Internet. A nonprofit corporation
can't be entrusted with this. These are vital social and public
resources and they can't be put into a private sector entity.
However, rather than the US government making it possible to
examine the problem of how to protect the vital functions of the
Internet and to scale them in the public interest, ICANN was empowered
by the U.S. Department of Commerce with unbridled powers and a limited
provision was created for so called "membership" of users, i.e. some
limited right supposedly to vote for certain so called at large directors.
Well, people are now trying to sign up for that membership, for that
limited right to vote and it is clear that the ICANN folks are
not even making any access available to that. The version to sign
up at the ICANN web site requires frames. So people who don't have
a browser with frames are not able to even use that part of the
web site. And an alternative web site set up in another country
gives a message of "We are sorry. The database is currently overloaded.
Please try again when the system is less busy." when I tried to sign
up.
Clearly the whole ICANN model is not appropriate for the needs
of the Internet and its users.
I did propose a different model, and a prototype to build this
model to you before ICANN was given the U.S. Dept of Commerce
contract.
Clearly it was crucial that you explore other models and try
to determine what was the best proposal for the problem the
U.S. government was faced with, namely how to protect the vital
functions of the Internet from vested interests and to make
it possible for them to scale.
It seems that the U.S. government wasn't even interested
in trying to identify the problem that had to be solved,
let alone in trying to determine how to solve it.
I am formerly objecting to the whole process of the creation
and development of ICANN by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
and requesting that you find a way to have the proposal I
provided the Department of Commerce implemented.
My proposal provided a means to create meaningful online participation
by users and for computer scientists supported by their governments
to create an open process that would utilize the Internet and
its interactive processes to create the cooperative form needed
to safeguard the vital functions of the Internet's infrastructure.
That is what is needed not an institutional entity to encourage
the "vested interests" to fight over power and control over vital
functions of the Internet.
I am sending this to you as a formal complaint of not being
allowed to register with ICANN and asking that you take the necessary
means to stop the abuse of users and the Internet that ICANN
represents.
Sincerely
Ronda Hauben
244 West 72nd Street Apt 15D
New York, N.Y. 10023
U.S.A.
(212)787-9361
ronda@ais.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:05:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] Re: Formal Complaint of Abuse of Users by ICANN
Following is the response I got from Vinton G. Cerf to my complaint
to Becky Burr.
It is interesting that Becky Burr didn't respond. That ICANN will
just be one more organization like the World Bank or the WTO,
but a much more powerful one as it will control an essential
computer communications infrastructure. And users if they
have a complaint will be asked if they have taken the time
to understand the problems of this institution with unbridled
power. -R
>From vcerf@MCI.NET Sun Jul 30 12:44:26 2000
>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:43:26 -0400
>From: "vinton g. cerf" <vcerf@mci.net>
>Subject: Re: Formal complaint of abuse of users by ICANN
>In-reply-to: <200007301557.LAA22421@panix6.panix.com>
Ronda,
have you taken time to look into the numbers of people trying to
register? do you know what the planning estimates were before
registration campaigns were initiated by various organizations?
The planning numbers for registration were on the order of 10,000
people. As of a few days ago something like 145,000 people had
sent in raw registrations. Keep in mind also that there is a
PIN number that has to be sent by mail. There is a calendar
schedule that ICANN is trying to keep for the election itself,
so the PINs have to get to the voters in time for that.
Every possible effort was made to increase the rate at which
registrations could be processed and we've gone from about 1000
a day to an artificially limited 5,000 per day (200 per hour)
simply because staff time to process is limited. Registrations
close July 31.
We all understand that the demand for this franchise far exceeds
our ability to satisfy it in this election cycle. An in-depth study
of the whole process is scheduled to begin after this election,
Ronda - perhaps you were unaware of that? The board detailed specific
areas to be considered. Perhaps the most effective way for your
idea to be considered is to arrange for your proposal to be made
available to the ICANN board?
Vint Cerf
At 11:57 AM 7/30/2000 -0400, ronda@panix.com wrote:
>Becky Burr
>NTIA
>U.S. Dept of Commerce
>Washington, D.C.
>
>Dear Becky
>
>Have you tried to register for ICANN's membership? First the membership
>is an ill conceived notion to try to hide that ICANN has been formed
>to deny the public interest with regard to the Internet's names,
>numbers and protocols. It's an effort to make it seem that a non profit
>corporation can be entrusted with the ownership and control of vital
>functions of the infrastructure of the Internet. A nonprofit corporation
>can't be entrusted with this. These are vital social and public
>resources and they can't be put into a private sector entity.
>
>However, rather than the US government making it possible to
>examine the problem of how to protect the vital functions of the
>Internet and to scale them in the public interest, ICANN was empowered
>by the U.S. Department of Commerce with unbridled powers and a limited
>provision was created for so called "membership" of users, i.e. some
>limited right supposedly to vote for certain so called at large directors.
>
>Well, people are now trying to sign up for that membership, for that
>limited right to vote and it is clear that the ICANN folks are
>not even making any access available to that. The version to sign
>up at the ICANN web site requires frames. So people who don't have
>a browser with frames are not able to even use that part of the
>web site. And an alternative web site set up in another country
>gives a message of "We are sorry. The database is currently overloaded.
>Please try again when the system is less busy." when I tried to sign
>up.
>
>Clearly the whole ICANN model is not appropriate for the needs
>of the Internet and its users.
>
>I did propose a different model, and a prototype to build this
>model to you before ICANN was given the U.S. Dept of Commerce
>contract.
>
>Clearly it was crucial that you explore other models and try
>to determine what was the best proposal for the problem the
>U.S. government was faced with, namely how to protect the vital
>functions of the Internet from vested interests and to make
>it possible for them to scale.
>
>It seems that the U.S. government wasn't even interested
>in trying to identify the problem that had to be solved,
>let alone in trying to determine how to solve it.
>
>I am formerly objecting to the whole process of the creation
>and development of ICANN by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
>and requesting that you find a way to have the proposal I
>provided the Department of Commerce implemented.
>
>My proposal provided a means to create meaningful online participation
>by users and for computer scientists supported by their governments
>to create an open process that would utilize the Internet and
>its interactive processes to create the cooperative form needed
>to safeguard the vital functions of the Internet's infrastructure.
>That is what is needed not an institutional entity to encourage
>the "vested interests" to fight over power and control over vital
>functions of the Internet.
>
>I am sending this to you as a formal complaint of not being
>allowed to register with ICANN and asking that you take the necessary
>means to stop the abuse of users and the Internet that ICANN
>represents.
>
>Sincerely
>
>Ronda Hauben
>244 West 72nd Street Apt 15D
>New York, N.Y. 10023
>U.S.A.
>(212)787-9361
>ronda@ais.org
>
=================================================================
I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999
MCI WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf
Ashburn, VA 20147
Telephone (703) 886-1690
FAX (703) 886-0047
"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!"
INET 2001: Internet Global Summit
5-8 June 2001
Sweden International Fairs
Stockholm, Sweden
http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:15:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] Re: Formal complaint of abuse of users by ICANN
Following is my response to Vint Cerf's comments on my complaint about
ICANN to the US government.
>From ronda@panix.com Sun Jul 30 13:16:35 2000
>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:16:35 -0400 (EDT)
>From: <ronda@panix.com>
>To: bburr@ntia.doc.gov, msondow@iciiu.org, tom.bliley@mail.house.gov,
vcerf@mci.net
Vint
>have you taken time to look into the numbers of people trying to
>register? do you know what the planning estimates were before
>registration campaigns were initiated by various organizations?
>The planning numbers for registration were on the order of 10,000
>people. As of a few days ago something like 145,000 people had
>sent in raw registrations. Keep in mind also that there is a
>PIN number that has to be sent by mail. There is a calendar
>schedule that ICANN is trying to keep for the election itself,
>so the PINs have to get to the voters in time for that.
I have sent my complaint to the U.S. government official charged
with overseeing ICANN and who is part of the problem of turning
unbridled power over to an inappropriate body with conflicts
of interest which prevent them from being able to either identify
or carry out the public interest.
I don't consider your question of whether I have taken time to
understand the problem to be any sign of an appropriate response
on anyone's part.
I have taken much time over the past several years identifying the
real problems and trying to bring them to the attention of the
US government, other governments around the world, users of the
Internet and people who don't yet have access, and to the ICANN
board as well.
And I have spent much time attempting to encourage open discussion
of the real problems.
This process has been fruitful in that many people realize that
what you have created as ICANN is an anti-model for Internet
governance.
It doesn't seem helpful for you to tell me that you don't understand
the problems of the size of the Internet or of its users or
of claiming you will have an election that basically disenfranchises
users as it gives then no means for interactive participation (which
is the basis for the Internet).
Instead of your finding a way to solve the problems, and appreciating
that I have indeed taken the time to register my complaint over
ICANN's failure to have any regard for users with the U.S. government,
you have asked me if I have taken "time".
I have indeed taken "time" much "time" and instead of abusing users
who do take "time" it would be more appropriate if you encouraged
the US government officials who should be responding and maintaining
oversight over ICANN to be actively involved in the process.
When I tried to speak with you at the 1998 Internet Society meeting,
you walked away rather than discuss the difference we had over
whether there is a need to protect or get rid of the public nature
of the Internet.
It is appropriate that the US government seriously discuss my
proposal with me, and I welcome the ICANN board and anyone else
who feels any interest, to discuss the proposal.
I am sending you both the URL for it and the proposal itself.
You are welcome to submit it to the ICANN board or the GAC or
whoever you feel appropriate. I am requesting that Becky
Burr contact me soon regarding how the US governmment will
act to give it the attention it deserves so it can be
implemented.
Ronda Hauben
The URL and proposal follow:
URL: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben.html
The Internet an International Public Treasure
A Proposal
by Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com
Preface
In testimony before the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the
Committee on Science of the U.S. Congress on March 31, 1998, Robert
Kahn, co-inventor of TCP/IP, indicated the great responsibility that
must be taken into account before the U.S. Government changes the
administrative oversight, ownership and control of essential aspects
of the Internet that are part of what is known as the Domain Name
System (DNS).
Kahn indicated that "the governance issue must take into account the
needs and desires of others outside the United States to participate."
His testimony also indicated a need to maintain "integrity in the
Internet architecture including the management of IP addresses and the
need for oversight of critical functions." He described how the
Internet grew and flourished under U.S. Government stewardship (before
the privatization - I wish to add) because of 2 important components.
1) The U.S. Government funded the necessary research and 2) It made
sure the networking community had the responsibility for its
operation, and insulated it to a very great extent from bureaucratic
obstacles and commercial matters so it could evolve dynamically.
He also said that "The relevant US government agencies should remain
involved until a workable solution is found and, thereafter retain
oversight of the process until and unless an appropriate international
oversight mechanism can supplant it."
And Kahn recommended insulating the DNS functions which are critical
to the continued operation of the Internet so they could be operated
"in such a way as to insulate them as much as possible from
bureaucratic, commercial and political wrangling."
When I attended the meeting of the International Forum on the White
Paper (IFWP) in Geneva in July, which was a meeting set up by the U.S.
Government to create the private organization to take over these
essential DNS functions September 30, 1998, none of the concerns that
Kahn raised at this Congressional hearing were indicated as concerns
by those rushing to privatize these critical functions of the global
Internet. I wrote a report which I circulated about the political and
commercial pressures that were operating in the meeting to create the
Names Council that I attended. (See "Report from the Front", Meeting
in Geneva Rushes to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server
Systems". The URL is http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ )
But what is happening now with the privatization plan of the U.S.
Government involves privatization of the functions that coordinate the
International aspects of the Internet and thus the U.S. Government has
a very special obligation to the technical and scientific community
and to the the U.S. public and the people of the world to be
responsible in what it does.
A few years ago I met one of the important pioneers of the development
of time-sharing, which set the basis for the research creating the
Internet. This pioneer, Fernando Corbato, suggested I real a book
"Management and the Future of the Computer" which was edited by Martin
Greenberger, another time-sharing pioneer. The book was the
proceedings of a conference about the Future of the Computer held at
MIT in 1961 to celebrate the centennial anniversary of MIT. The
British author, Charles Percy Snow made the opening address at the
meeting and he described the importance of how government decisions
would be made about the future of the computer.
Snow cautioned that such decisions must involve people who understood
the problems and the technology. And he also expressed the concern
that if too small a number of people were involved in making important
government decisions, the more likely it would be that serious errors
of judgment would be made.
Too small a number of people are being involved in this important
decision regarding the future of these strategic aspects of the
Internet and too many of those who know what is happening and are
participating either have conflicts of interest or other reasons why
they are not able to consider the real problems and technological
issues involved. (About the 1961 conference, see chapter 6 of Netizens
at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120)
What is happening with the process of the U.S. Government
privatization of the Domain Name System is exactly the kind of danger
that C.P. Snow warned against.
I have been in contact with Ira Magaziner, Senior advisor to the U.S.
President on policy with these concerns and he asked me to write a
proposal or to put my concerns into some "operational form." The
following proposal is my response to his request.
-------------------------------------------
Proposal
Toward an International Public Administration of Essential Functions
of the Internet - The Domain Name System
Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com
Recently, there has been a rush to find a way to change significant
aspects of the Internet. The claim is that there is a controversy that
must be resolved about what should be the future of the Domain Name
System.
It is important to examine this claim and to try to figure out if
there is any real problem with regard to the Domain Name System (DNS)
that has to be solved.
The Internet is a scientific and technical achievement of great
magnitude. Fundamental to its development was the discovery of a new
way of looking at computer science.(1) The early developers of the
ARPANET, the progenitor of the Internet, viewed the computer as a
communication device rather than only as an arithmetic engine. This
new view, which came from research conducted by those in academic
computer science, made the building of the ARPANET and then the
Internet possible.(2) Any changes in the administration of essential
functions of the Internet need to be guided by such a scientific
perspective and principles, not by political or commercial pressures.
It is most important to keep in mind that scientific methods are open
and cooperative.
Examining the development of the Internet, an essential problem that
becomes evident is that the Internet has become international, but the
systems that allow there to be an Internet are under the
administration and control of one nation. These include control over
the allocation of domain names, over the allocation of IP addresses,
over the assignment of protocol numbers and services, as well as
control over the root server system and the protocols and standards
development process related to the Internet. These are currently under
the control and administration of the U.S. Government or contractors
to it.
Instead of the U.S. Government offering a proposal to solve the
problem of how to share the administration of the DNS, which includes
central points of control of the Internet, it is supporting and
encouraging the creation of a new private entity that will take over
and control these essential Internet functions. Such a private entity
will magnify many thousands fold the commercial and political
pressures and prevent solving the genuine problem of having an
internationally shared protection and administration of the DNS,
including the root server system, IP number allocations, Internet
protocols, etc.
Giving these functions over to a private entity will make it possible
for these functions to be changed and for the Internet to be broken up
into competing root servers, etc. These essential functions make the
network of networks one Internet rather than competing networks with
competing root server systems, etc.
What is needed is a way to protect the technology of the Internet from
commercial and political pressures, so as to create a means of sharing
administration of the key DNS functions and the root server system.
The private organization that the U.S. Government is asking to be
formed is the opposite of protecting the Internet. It is encouraging
the take over by a private, non accountable corporate entity of the
key Internet functions and of this International public resource.
In light of this situation, the following proposal is designed to
establish a set of principles and recommendations on how to create an
international cooperative collaboration to administer and protect
these key functions of the Internet from commercial and political
pressures. This proposal is to create a prototype for the kind of
international cooperation and collaboration needed to control and
support the administration of these key Internet functions.
I. The U.S. Government is to create a research project or institute
(which can be in conjunction with universities, appropriate research
institutes, etc.) The goal of this project or institute is to sponsor
and carry out the research to solve the problem of what should be the
future of the DNS and its component parts including the root server
system.
II. The U.S. is to invite the collaboration (including funding,
setting up similar research projects, etc.) of any country or region
interested in participating in this research. The researchers from the
different nations or regions will work collaboratively.
III. The researchers will as much as possible utilize the Internet to
carry out their work. Also they will develop and maintain a well
publicized and reachable online means to support reporting and getting
input into their work. They should explore the use of Usenet
newsgroup, mailing list and web site utilization, and where
appropriate RFC's etc.
IV. With clearly set dates for completion, the collaborative
international research group will undertake the following:
1) To identify and describe the essential functions of the DNS system
that need to be maintained. (The RFC's or other documents that will
help in this need to be gathered and references to them made available
to those interested.)
2) To examine how the Internet and then how the DNS system and root
server system are serving the communication needs of the diverse
communities and users of the Internet, which include among others the
scientific community, the education community, the librarians, the
technical community, Governments (National as well as local), the
university community, the art and cultural communities, nonprofit
organizations, the medical community, the business community, and most
importantly the users whoever they be, of the Internet.
3) To produce a proposal at the end of a specified finite period of
time. The proposal should include:
a) an accurate history of how the Internet developed and how the
Domain Name System developed and why.
b) a discussion of the vision for the future of the Internet that
their proposal is part of. This should be based on input gathered from
the users of the Internet, and from research about the history and
development of the Internet.
c) a description of the role the Domain Name System plays in the
administration and control of the Internet, how it is functioning,
what problems have developed with it.
d) a proposal for its further administration, describing how the
proposal will provide for the continuation of the functions and
control hitherto provided by U.S. Government agencies like NSF and
DARPA. Also, problems for the further administrations should be
clearly identified and proposals made for how to begin an open process
for examining the problems and solving them.
e) a description of the problems and pressures that they see that can
be a danger for the DNS administration. Also recommendations on how to
protect the DNS administration from succumbing to those pressures.
(For example from pressures that are political or commercial.) In the
early days of Internet development in the U.S. there was an acceptable
use policy (AUP) that protected the Internet and the scientific and
technical community from the pressures from political and commercial
entities. Also in the U.S., Government funding of a sizeable number of
people who were the computer science community also protected those
people from commercial and political pressures.
f) a way for the proposal to be distributed widely online, and the
public not online should also have a way to have access to it. It
should be made available to people around the world who are part of or
interested in the future development of the Internet. Perhaps help
with such distribution can come from international organizations like
the ITU, from the Internet Society, the IETF, etc.
g) comment on what has been learned from the process of doing
collaborative work to create the proposal. It should identify as much
as possible the problems that developed in their collaborative
efforts. Identifying the problems will help clarify what work has to
be done to solve them.
h) It will be necessary to agree to some way to keep this group of
researchers free from commercial and political pressures -- government
funding of the researchers is one possible way and maybe they can be
working under an agreed upon Acceptable Use Policy for their work and
funding. (in the past an Acceptable use policy has made such
collaborative work among researchers from different nations possible.)
This proposal is an effort to figure out what is a real way to solve
the problem that is the essential problem in the future administration
of the Internet. If the principles and prototype can be found to solve
this problem, they will help to solve other problems of Internet
administration and functioning as well.
------------------
Notes:
(1) See Michael Hauben, "Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the
ARPANET and Computer Science", in "Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet", IEEE CS Press, 1997, p. 109. See also
"Internet, nouvelle utopie humaniste?" by Bernard Lang, Pierre Weis
and Veronique Viguie Donzeau-Gouge, "Le Monde", September 26, 1997, as
it describes how computer science is a new kind of science and not
well understood by many. The authors write: "L'informatique est tout a
la fois une science, une technologie et un ensemble d'outils....Dans
sa pratique actuelle, l'introduction de l'informatique a l'ecole, et
malheureusement souvent a la'universite, est critiquable parce qu'elle
entretient la confusion entre ces trois composantes."
(2) Ibid.
Submitted by
Ronda Hauben
P.O. Box 250101
New York, N. Y. 10025-1531
(212)787-9361
Co-Author of: "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the
Internet" published by the IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #361
******************************
