Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Your recent article (Brock Meeks) -- from Don Heath -- ISOC
From: David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 12:40:56 -0400
From: Don Heath <heath () ISOC ORG>
Domain names and the threat to the Net
A tale of intrigue,
double-dealing and
global
power struggles
WASHINGTON =97 This is a tale that has all the
intrigue, double-dealing and global power struggles of a spy
novel. But the plot line is real, with nothing less then the fate
of the Internet community hanging in the balance. Call it the
=93Domain Name=94 factor.
The article iplies that the power struggle and double-dealing is on the part of the IAHC (iPOC). Nothing could be farther from the truth! We have nothing to gain; we are trying to set up a system that will be fully in the hands of the Internet community - the users of the Internet! The power struggle comes from those who are out to "own" or control part of the Internet for their own gain!! You've got it backwards.
It starts with a group of self-appointed technocrats, a kind of Internet cabal, which operates with no authority of law or formal governance, which has simply rushed in to fill the power vacuum on the Internet, which has, since inception, operated in a spirit of consensus and community.
The institutions who have been setting the standards and managing the operations of the Internet since its beginnings, are the "technocrats" you refer to. Most of the committee could hardly be labeled technocrats! The process which was used to select the people on the committee was carefully thought out and executed in an open process. The groups (IANA, ISOC, and IAB) who appointed the members to the IAHC are organizations highly respected, and with a track record of many years of positive service to the Internet. Who better to initiate this activity? There is no global authority over the Internet. If the Internet is ever to reach its fullest potential, it will require self- governance, or self-regulation. That is what these groups have been fostering and doing since their beginnings. Consensus is what made the Internet what it is. There is not too much wrong with that. What you wrote is misleading.
Not since the OPEC oil cartel of 1970s have so few held so many in economic bondage. The Internet cabal holds no less power over the global economic infrastructure we call cyberspace.
Flatly untrue. We have nothing to gain. The result of our efforts, will undoubtedly reduce the price of registering domain names, and will very likely provide overall better service - the result of a free market system of competitive registrars! Brock, how can you possibly say, " . . held so many in economic bondage . . . "?
This cabal intends to control how and when new domain names will be added to the current list of .com, .org, .edu, .gov and .mil, and who gets the rights to act as a registry of those domain names.
This is false. First, there are only three TLDs that are considered in this system: .com, .org, and .net. You don't even mention .net, yet you mention .edu, .gov and .mil all of which are not a part of this. Right now there is a monopoly! No one gets to register under those TLDs (.com, .net, and .org) except NSI!! We are trying to allow as many registrars that qualify, to compete and register names under those TLDs and others that will be set up!! That would seem to be the opposite of what you are implying!! The criteria we used to "qualify" a registrar, was set to be minimal - technically and from a business perspective. In the interest of maintaining a secure and stable Internet it seems prudent to at least make some reasonable requirement to qualify. We further tried to keep subjectivity out of the equation. We employed a public auditing firm, Arthur Andersen, to assure impartiality.
THE MEMO
The group operates from a document, known as the
Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of
Understanding, produced by 11 self-appointed participants
in closed-door meetings in Geneva.
The document was produced after months of debate and discussion over public mailing lists! The document was worked out over email, and yes, there were face to face meetings as well - not all in Geneva (one was). The participants were not self-appointed. Your use of the "closed-door" adjective implies all kinds of sinister things. Quite frankly, its offensive because our purpose was and is high minded, as attempt to do the right thing for the Internet. Time will prove that what I say is correct.
The group set up a U.N.-style international tribunal that operates under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union, which has headquarters in Geneva.
This is incorrect. The ITU's role is very carefully spelled out. It is administrative only. They have studiously stayed out of any attempt at influencing the committee. We are NOT under the auspices of the ITU. [BTW, I don't mean this to be snotty, but it's International Telecommunication Union, not as you have spelled it.]
The group steadfastly contends that the process has been =93open=94 from the beginning and that such a document is needed to ensure fair competition and stability for the registration of domain names and the Internet. But the group has garnered no consensus in the Internet community. During a two-day meeting on the issue of domain name registry held in Washington last week, the veneer of openness and cooperation being spun by the cabal began to be stripped away.
I think a deeper look into the people and groups who attended would show that, indeed, the opposite was true. Most everyone felt that there was a coalescing, happening. There are always going to be outspoken critics of any proposal put forth on Internet governance issues, but one must look at what really is occurring, not just one or two voices.
=93Make no mistake, this process is not about
technology, it is all about power,=94 said Jay Fenello,
president of Iperdome, a small company that is vying to
compete in the domain name registry business.
THE INTRIGUE
Global Top Level Domain
Memorandum of
Understanding
Commerce Dept. Federal
Register Notice
Internet Society
Open Internet Congress
Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority
Tony Rutkowski
Statement on ITU before
State Department
Alternic Alternative registry
This whole mess started as a result of the troubles
Network Solutions Inc. had in its role as the sole administer
of so-called =93Top Level Domain=94 names, those ending in
.com, .edu, .org, etc. NSI operates as a
government-subsidized monopoly under a contract set to
expire next year.
The emotionally charged word "mess" leads your reader in a direction that may not be correct.
Anticipating the end of that monopoly, two influential groups decided that some plan had to be put in motion to guide the Internet going forward. Those two groups are the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA, and the Internet Society, known as ISOC. The IANA operates under a loose charter from the U.S. government to act as kind of administrator for handing out the blocs of numbers that are tied to each formal domain name, such as MSNBC.COM, which are used by =93root servers=94 to determine what message goes where. The ISOC is a non-profit, scientific, educational and charitable entity, incorporated in 1992 in Washington.
The ISOC mission is: "To assure the beneficial, open evolution of the global Internet and its related internetworking technologies through leadership in standards, issues, and education."
FUTURE OF THE INTERNET
These two groups put together the Internet
International Ad Hoc Committee, which hunkered down for
eight weeks with members of the ITU and World
Intellectual Property Organization and hammered out the
memo of understanding, a document that essentially sets up
a global governance scheme for the future of the Internet.
The process began formally in October 1996 and continues today - slightly more than 8 weeks! ISOC and IANA were two organizations who appointed people to the committee. The people appointed were not from ISOC and IANA but came from the international Internet community and were chosen because of their intelligence, knowledge, and fairness. Other organizations appointed people as well (INTA, FNC, WIPO, ITU, IAB). Only INTA appointed a representative who represented their organization. The others were independent of the organization appointing them!
More Meeks
Odd coalition rallies for
encryption bill (7/29)
Welcome to my
subversion (7/22)
Don't believe slams on
=91No Net Taxes=92 bill (7/15)
Can the mole save us
from the FBI? (7/8)
The making of an
Internet czar (7/1)
Potshots at Gates'
initiative miss the point
(6/24)
The de-evolution of
hacking (6/17)
10 steps to
understanding politics
and the Net (6/10)
If you can't, then maybe
you should (6/3)
The royal shaft:
Telecom act of '96
(5/27)
Sometimes a reporter's
gotta dish (5/20)
Spam killers: fighting the
good fight (5/13)
A lamb in the lion's den
(5/6)
Even sex offenders
deserve privacy (4/29)
Cyber-parenting versus
principle (4/22)
How the Net will kill
democracy (4/15)
Wisdom for the
masses? We only wish!
(4/8)
Second thoughts on
Heaven's Gate (4/1)
The CDA in the land of
the undead (3/25)
Net's future hangs in the
balance (3/18)
Librarians need a reality
check (3/11)
Keep the NSA off the
Net (3/4)
Show me your cold,
hard cash (2/25)
Don't let the Feds
take over the Net (2/18)
That document spawned other organizations, such as
the Policy Oversight Committee, which is intended to
oversee policies outlined in the memo. Members of the
oversight committee were chosen from those who drafted
the document. It then fell to the ITU to circulate the memo
for signatures from its members, which are comprised of
sovereign states.
The committee set up a structure to effect self-governance in this area of Internet operation. It also established policies and procedures, based on an iterative process through public forum to do so. The ITU has many members who are not sovereign states. We specifically did not want sovereign states to be signatories, but allowed it. Further, we have set up the entire process so that it can continue to evolve to meet the desires of the larger Internet community - in essence giving control to the community for true self-governance.
To date, the memo has garnered more than more than 150 signatories. However, those signatories come with a huge caveat: not a single government, save Albania, has signed on.
Caveat? It is not desirable to have governments sign, although, as I say, they may.
This process has drawn the ire of virtually everyone outside the small cabal of organizations that had a hand in drafting the document.
Not true.
The memo, =93although without the stature of a treaty because it can be signed by parties other than sovereign states, is clearly an intergovernmental agreement that possesses significant binding force and effect =85 as public international law,=94 writes Tony Rutkowski, former executive director of ISOC. Remember, IANA and ISOC have absolutely no formal authority to proceed with this process =97 they just decided to =93do it.=94 Indeed, when ITU called a meeting of signatories and potential signatories of the memo in Geneva earlier this year, Secretary of State Madeline Albright sent a secret cable, which was leaked to the Internet, to the U.S. mission in Geneva, upbraiding the ITU secretary general for calling such a meeting =93without authorization of the member governments.=94 She instructed U.S. diplomats to =93cover=94 the meeting, but with lower-level staff, so as to not give the appearance of U.S. support of the memo.
Perhaps you may want to check with the US government again?
DOUBLE-DEALING?
At the domain-name meeting in Washington,
participants generally acknowledged that there are no
technical obstacles keeping an unlimited number of top-level
domain names from being created.
On the contrary! There are many in the technical Internet community who believe there to be technical obstacles in how many TLDs can be handled. We felt it better to start slowly since once a TLD is created, it is not likely to go away. Our actions were based on operational considerations, more than anything else. It's simply easier to manage when you are first starting somethin new.
This would allow the creation of domain names like .sex, .web, .biz, .XYZ and so on. Indeed, an additional seven domain names have been proposed by the Internet cabal, but no more. The reason for limiting the number of top domains is simply to appease the legal divisions of major international corporations; these companies don=92t want to have to register their trademarks across potentially hundreds of domain names.
Not true. See above.
Policing
trademarks is
a cost of
doing
business in
the analog
world; it
should be no
different in
cyberspace.
Well, screw the suits. There are courts established for
protecting trademarks. Policing trademarks is a cost of
doing business in the analog world; it should be no different
in cyberspace. Artificially limiting the number of domain
names, when there is no technological reason to do so, is
yet another attempt by the Internet cabal to enforce its
control over the Net.
As part of that control, the cabal has set up what it
calls the Council of Registrars, which will operate under
Swiss law. Companies are encouraged to submit
applications to become an official registrar of domain names
under the council. Only companies accepted by the council
will be allowed to compete in the open market to register
new domain names, as approved by the memo. Small catch:
In order to be =93approved=94 companies must first sign onto
the memo and pony up $10,000.
Take a look at the process again. It's on the web site at: <http://www.gtld-mou.org>
To take care of trademark disputes, the council will have an appeals tribunal known as the =93administrative domain name challenge panel.=94
It is not a "tribunal." Take a deeper look; there are several forms of settling disputes. The methods developed by this process have been lauded as innovative and it is believed they will reduce litigation and reduce, significantly, the cost of reaching settlements between disputants.
This is seen as a threat to intellectual property and trademarks by Andrew L. Sernovitz, president of the Interactive Media Association and founder of the Open Internet Congress, a group dedicated to thwarting the efforts of the Internet cabal. The panels =93conduct their work in Geneva or via online discussions,=94 Sernovitz says in a document on his group=92s web site. =93You will have no right to a face-to-face defense against your challenger, he says. Further, =93During the challenge period, your Internet address can be suspended,=94 Sernovitz says. =93If you lose a case =85 you will have lost your rights forever. There is no appeals process and there is no one to sue.=94
Let me just say that it has been my experience that most everything that Mr. Sernovitz has said or written on this matter has been inaccurate, misleading, and incorrect. I have found it is not worth commenting on anything he says. However, what he says above is incorrect!
THE POWER GRAB
The cabal is moving this process forward on a fast
track, claiming that action must be taken quickly to keep the
Internet from folding in on itself. This hurry-up stance goes
against the entire culture of the Internet and is yet another
reason why critics claim the memo is simply a power grab.
The process has been going on for over 2 years; the formal process is approaching one year. In the Internet, that is a "lifetime"! We are trying to push the process along, but are continually adjusting and compromising in order to be representative of the larger Internet community. And our schedule continues to change as a result!!
The moves by this cabal are set on a train wreck course with the U.S. government. Currently a government interagency working group is asking the Internet community for suggestions on how to handle the domain name issue. On July 2, the Commerce Department put a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on how to proceed with the issue. =93The Government has not endorsed any plan at this time but believes that it is very important to reach consensus on these policy issues as soon as possible,=94 the notice says.
We strongly endorse and welcome the actions of the US Government in the steps they have taken. They know it. We believe (because the principles they base their thinking on, are the same as the principles we used for the foundation of our work) that they will end up endorsing our plan and it will be the foundation for them to move forward.
HANGING IN THE BALANCE
WWWashington Bulletin
Board
In discussions with dozens of people ranging from
industry to government officials, a theme I keep hearing is
that this structure of global governance for the Internet
won=92t stop at domain names. =93The governance models that
we choose today for the Internet will be the ones that are
placed on society in the next century,=94 a U.S. government
official told me, in what he admittedly called a =93messianic=94
remark. =93Sometimes this thought keeps me up at night.=94
I won=92t go that far, but I do know that setting up a
global body that operates on the U.N. model will sound the
death knell for an open and thriving spirit of innovation and
cooperation that has driven the Internet to date. Such a
governing body, emboldened by a successful domain name
coup, isn=92t likely to stop there. They will take on other
issues, such as content and marketing, in a kind of
cyberspace governing mission creep.
Alarmist. As I said earlier, the Internet needs self-governance to flourish. There will be many forms, but no one organization should be in control.
Let=92s hope that enough people respond to the Commerce Department=92s notice in time for the government to step up and stop the Internet cabal before it puts its plan into action.
" . . . stop the Internet cabal . . . "? This is nuts Brock! The US Government is looking for information/ideas from the public, to develop its position on the matter. I will wager that they find our plan to be one of reason, one that they can support. It is designed to adapt, to allow modifications, to be inclusive, to be fair, to work for the best interests of the Internet, and to provide for self-governance. Don
Meeks out....
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Donald M. Heath <heath () isoc org> President/CEO <http://www.isoc.org> Internet Society Join the Internet Society 12020 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 210 TEL +703 648 9888 Reston, VA 20191-3429 USA FAX +703 648 9887 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Current thread:
- IP: Your recent article (Brock Meeks) -- from Don Heath -- ISOC David Farber (Aug 08)