Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: IP: My presentation at the PITAC on Wednesday on DNS issues - in rtf format
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 15:40:46 -0500
There were a lot of people I did not mention. bluntly I left your material out out for lack of sharp focus to your remarks I also take exception to your comment below on commercial interests. I don't believe Stef has any thing commercially to gain.even though I don't completely agree with him. It was NOT a report to the Exec Branch but some informational material to the PITAC membership . It is not an issue we have focused on or intend to focus on at this point. At 03:29 PM 11/29/98 -0500, Ronda Hauben wrote:
Dave - was this your report about what was happening with ICANN to the Executive Branch of the U.S. Govt? (I was in Europe when I first received this from IP, but it is important to understand why the report was somewhat one sided, so I am asking my questions below, even though it is a few weeks later.) Is there any reason you left out any mention of my proposal, or any critique of the Geneva IFWP meeting? You have left in here only a report on those who are commercially interested in the issues, rather than including those with no commercial interest. On Nov. 7, 1998, Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu> wrote:Domain Names: Implications on the health of the Internet David J. Farber Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunications at The Moore School of the=20 University of Pennsylvania Presented at PITAC Nov 1998What exactly is the PITAC?History of change =B7 Name and IP Assignment IANA -- historical duties=20 =B7 Formation of NSI and community unhappiness with semi-monopoly =B7 desire of the USG to =93get out=94 =B7 IAHC -- privatization try one Government action as a result =B7 Green paper issued 2/98=20 =B7 White paper issued in 6/98 =20 =B7 After heavy commenting on GP. =20 =B7 Limited functions to be transferred to a new non-profit =20 =B7 to be organized by private sector =20 Many activities started =B7 Postel with assistance from JonesDay started planning for the =93n= ew IANA=94 =B7 IFWP informally formed to reflect international non government= concerns=20 =B7 three large open meetings -- Reston, Geneva, Singapore=20The Geneva meeting declared "consensus" and was fundamentally hostile to participation and discussion that would be necessary to really figure anything constructive out. (My Report from Geneva is at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ifwp_july25.txt )=B7 Small network based groups =20 =B7 ORSC =20 =B7 BWG etc.=20You left out my proposal which was submitted at Ira Magaziner's request and also submitted to the NTIA and posted there And it was a constructive and helpful proposal providing for a prototype to build an international public administration for the DNS functions, rather than excluding users, the public sector etc. as the private IFWP process has systemmatically done. The proposal is at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/dns_proposal.txtWarning that a failure of community action -- IP =B7 could destabilize the internet though uncoordinated private= actions =B7 cause intervention of governments though national and= internationalYou left out that the ramming through of ICANN can destablize the Internet by imposing a hostile control structure over the cooperative and collaborative processes that are necessary for the Internet to function and to grow and flourish.actions =20 =B7 WIPO and ITU involvement in IAHC/POC=20 Bylaws of new organization drafted =B7 5 versions produced by Postel group=20 =B7 various changes proposed by other groups =B7 a set of meetings with NSI =B7 submitted to USG along with proposals by ORSC and BWG ICANN formed=B7 USG responds favorable to IANA proposal =20 =B7 asks that ICANN consult the ORSC and BWG along with other parties= The USG helped to create the IANA proposal (as IANA is its own contractor). You left out that my proposal was ignored by the NTIA. And that the USG didn't ask ICANN to figure out the importance of the proposal I submitted to include all who wanted to participate, and to build online processes to include all users in what was done. Also you left out that my proposal didn't exclude the public, by limiting itself to the private, but included all. =20 =B7 incorporation of differences when possible -- many have been done already=20 =B7 Interim Board formed =B7 set of telephone meetings and physical meetings to gain community= input prior to adoption of bylaws Where are we =B7 Still a lot of disagreement among and within the groups=20 =B7 a residual of distrust =B7 ICANN Board is working to reduce the above What are the outstanding issues =B7 openness =B7 accountability =B7 freedom of expression =B7 membership =B7 structure of SOs Why do we care =B7 the DNS problem is a predictor of future public sector not for= profit organizations The IFWP process is forming a private sector organization, *not* a public sector organization. That is the fundamental problem with what is being done with regard to the IFWP, and as such it excludes the public, users, etc. from the process. Try to post on the IFWP mailing list with public concerns or in favor of users, or in support of the history and development of the Internet being built on, and you find that the U.S. govt has carefully structured the whole process, to exclude the public and public concerns. To maintain the Internet there is the need to have an open nad inclucive process, *not* something that is limited to the so called "private" or commercial sectors as those to be controlling the Internet.=B7 it raises the issue of the existence of a community and it=92s= stability =B7 it will decide whether =93adult=94 supervision of the internet is= needed the stability of the internet structure is critical for: =B7 the economic growth of the business =B7 the use of the network for commercial and research purposes =B7 it is the highway on which our IT economy depends onThe good role played by the U.S. govt in the growth and development of the Internet was to encourage and help to develop grassroots processes for determining what was needed for the Internet to grow and flourish. That is fundamentally changed by the IFWP process and the Framework for Electronic Commerce which takes a particular application and sector and puts them in control of the Internet's essential functions. This is a fundamental paradigm shift in the development of the Internet and you don't mention that this is being carried out without any discussion allowed of whether this should be happening. The Internet community has *not* been consulted about whether this should happen, only they are told they can make input into *how* it happens. And then their input is ignored anyway. But the more fundamental issue is who has decreed that this should happen? And why have they decreed this? Ronda ronda () panix com Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
_____________________________________________________________________ David Farber The Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems University of Pennsylvania Home Page: http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~farber
Current thread:
- IP: My presentation at the PITAC on Wednesday on DNS issues - in rtf format Dave Farber (Nov 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IP: My presentation at the PITAC on Wednesday on DNS issues - in rtf format Dave Farber (Nov 29)