Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 529
Netizens-Digest Saturday, October 11 2003 Volume 01 : Number 529
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Internet and epistemic communities
[netz] News coverage, Verisign etc.
[netz] Verisign on Process
[netz] Re: Verisign on Process
[netz] Re: News coverage, Verisign etc.
[netz] Architectural issues involving Sitefinder & related functions
[netz] Non-member submission from ["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>]
[netz] RE: Verisign on Process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:53:16 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet and epistemic communities
Mark Lindeman responded,
>I'm not sure how far this thread will go, but it certainly seemed
>time for a new subject line.
I suspect one of the laws of extended electronic exchange should be
"it's always time for a subject change." In the electronic
communities of several allegedly author-oriented newsgroup, we have
noted that threads almost always start involving:
1. Cats
2. Food
3. Monty Python
or simply degenerate into punning contests. There's also Godwin's
Law of USENET, which could be stated as any reference to Nazis, other
than a specific historical reference, means the discussion has
degenerated to a point of uselessness. References to the Seinfeld
Soup Nazi generally get a pass.
>
>Howard had written, in small part, that "there is a very real sense
>of community -- or meritocracy -- among a group of people who live
>by electronic communications." I related this to the idea of
>"epistemic communities" in the political science literature, and
>mentioned that some people have used "global Internet community" and
>"global epistemic community" interchangeably.
>
>To Howard's questions (with the disclaimer that every sentence that
>follows could be liberally larded with "maybe"s and "IMHO"s): Based
>on Howard's characterizations, I believe that the Internet
>engineering community (1) can be described as an epistemic community
>under Haas's definition, and (2) is an important subset of Netizens,
>defined as Internet users who try to contribute to the Internet's
>use and growth. Many Netizens primarily make 'social' contributions
>to the Internet; the engineering community also and crucially makes
>technical contributions, which take form through a distinct social
>process. (These technical contributions require professional
>expertise -- not necessarily a formal credential, but demonstrated
>competence within the domain.) Moreover, many other epistemic
>communities thrive on the Internet, and function as Netizens in so
>doing.
>
>Note that Haas defines epistemic communities as networks of
>_professionals_ not to be elitist, but on the premise that their
>professional standing is the source of their authority in
>policymaking. Many Internet communities function as 'knowledge
>communities' [1] without striving for policy-relevance. It may well
>be that some Internet communities develop policy-relevant expertise
>as they go.
And I realize this has been one the basis for some of my conflicts on
this list. Call it my engineering background, but you can only
discuss a desirable social policy so far before it needs to be
reality-tested for pure technical feasibility, then the cost of the
technical solution, and then the funding model for that solution.
Other personal conflicts I've had is when I see that a particular
suggestion for funding, regardless of how desirable the policy, would
be dead on arrival.
>\
>It doesn't really matter what the True Definition of "epistemic
>community" is, but I'm interested because of the distinctive role
>that Internet engineers seem to play in protecting the terrain on
>which we function as Netizens. Are we troubled by the thought that
>we depend on the contributions of technocrats? (I had written, "are
>at the mercy of technocrats," but that seemed both hyperbolic and
>rude!) Across a wide range of issues, citizens must hope that
>experts will 'use their knowledge only for good'.
You touch on what was one of the basic Internet governance problems
between, for example, the IETF and ICANN. I'll be the first to say
that there are problems in the IETF process, but after many years of
involvement, I am convinced there is a desire of the participants to
Do The Right Thing. This is also true of the operational forums like
NANOG. Even though many of the people in an operational forum
meeting work for (but usually are not "representing") large
telecommunications firms and equipment vendors, any presentation that
seems a marketing/power play for a specific interest can get booed
off the stage.
ICANN _may_ be adjusting to some extent. I've noticed that the
latest board of directors has a much higher technocrat context than
the original "stakeholder" model, and even the lawyers and such seem
to have relevant backgrounds. ICANN also seems to rely much more,
for advisory or board nominations, on professional organizations such
as the IETF.
>A recent book by two U.S. political scientists argues that in the
>United States, at least, most citizens would actually prefer the
>government to be run by benevolent technocrats, if only we could
>find any. (I do not mean "benevolent _dictators_": in the U.S. even
>more than most other countries, citizens emphatically support
>limiting the scope and powers of government.) In some sense, we
>seem to have found some benevolent technocrats (again, not
>dictators) to "run" the Internet, and/or to intercede influentially
>(as in Haas's framework) with the authorities. The Internet is
>intensely "democratic," but certainly in nothing approaching the
>strong sense that we all can participate meaningfully in ICANN
>committee meetings.
And that is key. Feel free to polish the political science
terminology, but it's a meritocratic democracy, which also has an
intuitive sense of what it does and does not want to look at. In
general, social implications is just not of interest outside, say, an
occasional ceremonial speech at an officer's appointment or
retirement. In my experience with medical communities, there's a bit
more tolerance to raising social issues, but when one gets into the
scientific sessions, they aren't welcome.
Were primarily social-policy oriented individuals to at least prepare
a draft technical proposal, considering compatibility with existing
software, it would get a much better reception.
Literally anyone can join an IETF working group, most of the work of
which is done by email. There are procedures, very rarely invoked, to
bar a disruptive individual.
I certainly had no problem participating in yesterday's ICANN
meeting. While I'm not a committee member, was it critical I knew
and was known by a fair number of committee members? At least one
public interest person did get up and speak, but was closely focused
on the issue rather than raising broad social issues. I don't know
him or his group: Alan Davidson (sp?) of the Center for Democracy and
Technology (unless it was the Center for Technology and Democracy).
>
>Sigh. Every time I try to fill in the obvious gaps and
>misdirections in what I've written (the ones obvious to _me_, never
>mind anyone else), the post gets longer. This might mean that there
>is room for a careful paper that tries to develop some of these
>themes more systematically, but I need to canvass the prior art. I
>just received the following invitation [APSA is the American
>Political Science Association]:
>
>>This is just a reminder of the Information Technology Politics (ITP)
>>Section call for papers for the 2004 APSA conference. This year's
>>conference theme is "Global Inequalities". The section encourages
>>proposals that consider the evolving role of information technology at
>>the local, national, and/or global level, as well as the theoretical and
>>policy implications for interactions between these levels of governance.
>> Such topics include, but are in no means limited to e-government,
>>e-democracy, digital divide, intellectual property rights, activism,
>>representation, and rule making. [...]
>
>Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:19:32 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] News coverage, Verisign etc.
I have gotten a reasoned response from the technology editor of the
Washington Post, and we are discussing things. While I wouldn't have
done it that way, he had a rational explanation of why the story was
written the way it was, and definitely indicating there will be
continuing coverage of the issue. He believes there's always room
for improving coverage.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:19:12 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Verisign on Process
Both here and in private mail, people have been talking about
Verisign's view of the process. Unfortunately, I was only able to
attend the afternoon part of yesterday's ICANN ISSC committee meeting.
But Declan McCullough was there, and picked up an interesting quote
from Verisign:
>By Declan McCullagh
>Staff Writer, CNET News.com
>http://news.com.com/2100-1038-5088128.html
>
>Legal and policy questions were not on the agenda, and VeriSign
>representatives repeatedly objected when the discussion veered in
>that direction.
>
>"Are we going to focus on security and stability, or usability?"
>asked VeriSign's Ben Turner, saying the committee's mandate was too
>narrow to include broader questions about Site Finder.
>
>Stephen Crocker, one of the Internet's original architects and the
>ICANN committee's chairman, asked VeriSign why the wild card was
>introduced without giving network operators any warning. "I know for
>a fact that VeriSign has no problem finding its way to those
>(technical discussion) forums," Crocker said, referring to the
>company's ongoing participation in them.
>
>"I don't want to go beyond the agenda," replied Chuck Gomes,
>VeriSign's vice president for its registry service. Citing concerns
>of proprietary information and competitive advantage, he added that
>he didn't think he could guarantee any advance notice of similar
>changes in the future.
Gomes' position truly bothers me if a registry, given that it meets
the formal definition of a technical monopoly, is planning around
competitive advantage.
Other speakers pointed out that the functionality of Sitefinder could
be implemented at the edge, not breaking the end-to-end assumption
and still allowing innovation. Internet Explorer, for example, has
such functionality.
MS and VS. Reminds me of some recent wars where observers were sad
that only one side could lose. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:59:42 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Verisign on Process
At 2:51 PM -0400 10/8/03, Dean Anderson wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> >VeriSign's vice president for its registry service. Citing concerns
>> >of proprietary information and competitive advantage, he added that
>> >he didn't think he could guarantee any advance notice of similar
>> >changes in the future.
>>
>>
>> Gomes' position truly bothers me if a registry, given that it meets
>> the formal definition of a technical monopoly, is planning around
>> competitive advantage.
>
>This is incorrect. Verisign is not a monopoly. There are many registrars
>of .net and .com domain names which compete with Verisign.
>
> --Dean
It is not a monopoly in its regiSTRAR function.
It is a monopoly as regiSTRY of .net and .com. It couldn't have
inserted the wildcards if it wasn't. Having control of the TLD
servers makes you a monopoly for that TLD.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:03:19 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: News coverage, Verisign etc.
At 11:56 AM -0700 10/8/03, Eliot Lear wrote:
>Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>>
>>I have gotten a reasoned response from the technology editor of the
>>Washington Post, and we are discussing things. While I wouldn't
>>have done it that way, he had a rational explanation of why the
>>story was written the way it was, and definitely indicating there
>>will be continuing coverage of the issue. He believes there's
>>always room for improving coverage.
>>
>
>Care to share?
>
>Eliot
I was thinking about that, and now have a very red face. Eudora, for
some reason (out of storage without a message?) seems to have lost
about an hour of outbox messages. I'm hoping to get a copy sent back
to me.
In any event, in working with media, there's a time where some level
of confidentiality is useful, when you are building the relationship
and giving background. Let me summarize that the Post initially saw
this more as a business than technology issue, and gave Verisign its
chance to tell its side of the story. I believe the relevant editor
now believes the issue is much more complex.
I'd want his permission to share the specific response.
Howard
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 01:25:37 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Architectural issues involving Sitefinder & related functions
(since I haven't gotten back my enrollment confirmation, it seemed
appropriate to crosspost this to NANOG. While I will address
Sitefinder, there are broader architectural and operational issues).
Let me assume, for the sake of this discussion, that Sitefinder is an
ideal tool for the Web user, helping with the problem of
not-quite-correct URLs. Given that, I'll stipulate in this
discussion that the implementation of Sitefinder, along with the .com
and .net wildcards that lead to it for unresolved domains, is a true
benefit for the Web user.
The Internet, however, is more than the World-Wide Web. It seems only
logical to be able to discuss Sitefinder in two contexts:
1. Where it becomes the default, as with the recent Verisign
wildcards
2. Where it is reached in some other manner.
My architectural concern is defining a way in which context #1 serves
the _non-Web_ services of the Internet. If DNS were purely an
information service for Web users, the architectural conflict would
go away, and only commercial and policy issues remain.
I would hope that within the scope of the Sitefinder discussion list,
or alternatively in another forum, is an approach to reconciling the
IP-level DNS such that it continues to serve non-Web applications.
Is there disagreement that Sitefinder provides no functionality to
SMTP trying to deliver to an unresolved domain? To a user who
mistypes the name of an FTP site and does not intend to use a Web
browser?
What about failover schemes for non-HTTP cooperative research across
the Internet, where the inability to resolve a host name (assume that
cached records have a zero lifetime) triggers selection of an
alternate server?
Seriously, technical people at Verisign may have thought about this
and actually have suggestions. They may be very good ones, but,
judging on the reactions to the Sitefinder deployment, it might be
well to discuss them in open technical forums before a change is made.
I'm really not trying to make it a matter of personalities, but there
have been public statements by Verisign executives that such a
process inhibits innovation. If Verisign policy is that as operator
of .com and .net, it has the right to make unilateral changes, I
think that needs to be clear to all concerned. I recognize that a
number of independent parties suggest that the ICANN contract does
not explicitly prohibit such unilateral action.
Ironically, I worked with the original founders of Network Solutions,
and almost was a principal back when it was a couple of rooms in
McLean. Gary Desler, the founder and a fine engineer, always used to
say "there is no technical solution to a management problem". In the
current context, I simply want to know the rules for the playing
field.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 19:57:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: [netz] Non-member submission from ["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>]
- -- On Wednesday, October 8, 2003 14:19 -0400
- -- "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> supposedly wrote:
>> By Declan McCullagh
>> Staff Writer, CNET News.com
>> http://news.com.com/2100-1038-5088128.html
>> "I don't want to go beyond the agenda," replied Chuck Gomes,
>> VeriSign's vice president for its registry service. Citing concerns
>> of proprietary information and competitive advantage, he added that
>> he didn't think he could guarantee any advance notice of similar
>> changes in the future.
> Gomes' position truly bothers me if a registry, given that it meets the
> formal definition of a technical monopoly, is planning around competitive
> advantage.
I think this is the basic problem between Verisign & the network operators.
The registry service should have no competitive advantage. It is a public
trust, a monopoly granted with the assumption it will be run with the best
interests of the Internet, not in the best interest of Versign's bottom
line.
I am all for capitalism, would not have it any other way. Verisign has
said that we are upset over commercialization. They are dead wrong,
period, end of sentence. We are (well, *I* am) upset they are costing me
money and doing it using a monopoly we granted them to serve us.
Contrary to their belief, they do not own and may not use the registry in
any way the community feels is detrimental to the community as a whole.
This is most obviously viewed as detrimental by the community.
They are so adamant in their position I sometimes wonder if they honestly
believe their own arguments. It has to be they either do not understand,
or they are intentionally misleading the press and end users to do
something they know is wrong. Any bets on which it is? Anyone care which
one it is?
- --
TTFN,
patrick
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 20:41:35 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] RE: Verisign on Process
At 5:23 PM -0700 10/8/03, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Is it possibly time to suggest that perhaps ICANN should
>> call for formal separation of regiSTRAR functions from
>> regiSTRY functions, and stipulate that stewards of record
>> for regiSTRY functions not participate in regiSTRAR roles?
>
> Already done -- read the contact between ICANN and VeriSign.
>
>> Certainly it's been shown to be very difficult to resist
>> the temptation to extend editorial control over what entries
>> get placed into the DNS records as a regiSTRY if you also
>> happen to be able to increase the profits from your regiSTRAR
>> role.
>
> Sure, but you could also do it to increase the profits from
>your registry
>role, which seems to have been the intent of SiteFinder.
On September 25 or thereabouts, the Washington Post reported Verisign
had settled an FTC complaint about deceptive regiSTRAR functions from
Verisign. They had been sendiing out emails -- I received one --
that asked you to verify domain information, which took you to a
webpage that led you to a registration page to reregister it under
their regiSTRY.
>
>> If the functions are stipulated to be kept separate,
>
> They are.
Serious question -- no more NSI registrar functions, or is that
supposed to be "arms-length?"
>
>> then we have a much better opportunity to engage a system of
>> checks and balances, to self-limit potential future abuses
>> like this.
>
> How would that stop a registry from, for example, adding a
>wildcard record
>that goes to pages sold to the highest bidder? Registry functions are
>supposed to be wholly ministerial. VeriSign doesn't get that and ICANN is
>going to have to force them to -- probably more than once.
Aaack. I hadn't thought of that one.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #529
******************************
