IP: Anti-monopoly Fervor Distorts Interagency DNS Working

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

It is time for an editorial comment. This note is being sent to com-priv in
the next hour, so it will be very public. I am sure I will be blasted by
several people who will say I am giving a stage for Gordon to perform and
should not do so. I feel very strongly that well reasoned and researched
notes bear exposure to this list which I consider not a public list. It is
the only way to see the spectrum of opinions and events that are molding
the information age. Whether you agree with Gordon is your prerogative. 


I will , as I have always said, distribute well written responses to any IP
note. 


I also insist on repeating that I do not necessarily agree, endorse or
support things I distribute to the IP list. All I do is try in my humble
way to keep you informed so you can decide yourselves.


Dave


ps PERSONAL opinion added. I see nothing sinister in Crockers note, just
Dave's sometime use of emotionally loaded words.  Again you call it as you
see fit.




Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:26:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Gordon Cook <cook () netaxs com>
To: farber () cis upenn edu


Lack of response to a FOIA request outlined below, Dave Crocker's
continued blustering, and a continuing stream of complaints from inside
the beltway sources, has convinced us to go public with material that we
have not talked about before. We have become convinced that those who are
leading the Interagency Working Group on Domain Names (IWG) have, above
everything else, become determined to kill the NSI "monopoly." This desire
to rid the Internet of the "monopoly" has predisposed the Working Group to
an outcome that would have the US Government endorse the ISOC/IPOC/CORE
"process." After all, this is the only "other" game in town.


Thus, having reached this decision, they are using every means at their
disposal to assist ISOC/IPOC/CORE in their efforts.  We are also convinced
that such means include clothing ISOC/IPOC/CORE in some new attire that
will allow them to announce that they have achieved the "significant
changes to the proposal and process" that Larry Irving promised Congress
would happen before any such ISOC/IPOC/CORE endorsement. What follows is
an account of recent events showing the speed and stealth with which the
players have been moving.  We made the FOIA request outlined below five
weeks ago and, not wanting to act precipitously, have kept quiet about the
matters it discusses since then.  However, the continued hints from the
IWG that it will announce its new policy - any day now - have convinced us
that it is time to go public with everything that we have been able to
ascertain.


An Unusual Response from OSTP to a FOIA 


Having, in early October, received credible allegations that Brian Kahin
and others, on behalf of the Interagency Working Group, had been meeting
privately with people from IBM, AT&T and Oracle to discuss how these
players could put together database software to meet the needs of a shared
registry for IPOC/CORE, we submitted the following Freedom of Information
Act request to OSTP on October 7th.


Ms. Barbara Ferguson,              
FOIA Officer, OSTP
Executive Office of the President
Washington DC 20500


Dear Ms. Ferguson:


This is a Freedom of Information Act Request for communications between
Mr. Brian Kahin, Ms. Becky Burr of NTIA,  Dr. Mike Nelson (former OSTP
analyst and currently at FCC) and any other relevant government official.


The communications that I seek are all material that discusses in any way
meetings with AT&T, IBM, Oracle on any or all of the following: the domain
name problem or potential resolutions thereof in general and/or any
discussions of the development of a distributed domain name database
system in particular.  Further covered are all discussions between
Commerce, NTIA, White House and any other agency about the position these
people should take on the creation of the IAHC shared database.   Covered
in addition are all meeting notes and any correspondence between Kahin,
Becky Burr, Mike Nelson and the Department of Commerce, NTIA, the White
House and any other government agency regarding the role of ATT, IBM , and
Oracle in any technical, political or economic solution of the DNS problem
and/or any discussions of the development of a distributed domain name
database system in particular.  Further covered are all correspondence and
communications, electronic or otherwise on these subjects between Kahin
and anyone at IBM, AT&T or Oracle.


I wish copies of all electronic mail, letters, memos or other documents.
And please note that the term "documents" is intended to have the broadest
possible meaning and encompass, without limitation, anything included
within the definition of "writings" or "recordings" set forth in Rule
1001(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.


The dates covered by this FOIA request run from the date of Brian Kahin's
arrival at OSTP to the present.


------ end of our FOIA letter-------


On October 27th Ms. Ferguson sent us the following reply which we received
on November 1.


RE:  OSTP FOIA No. 98-02


Dear Mr. Cook:


This is in response to your request, received in this office on October
14, 1997 under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. S 552.  Your
October 7, 1997 request to the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) sought material that discusses in any way meetings with AT&T, IBM,
Oracle on any or all of the following:  the domain name problem or
potential resolutions there of in general and/or discussions of the
development of a distributed domain name database system in particular,
etc.


Because of unusual circumstances, and extension of up to 10 working days
will be needed to process your request. This additional time is required
due to the substantial interest in the determination of your request. The
authority for this extension can be found in section 552 (a) (6) (B) (iii)
of Title 5 of the United States Code.


------ end of Barbara ferguson's response-----


What Are We Bothered About? 


When as of Friday November 14 we had heard nothing more from Ms. Ferguson,
we called.  During the past two weeks we have privately discussed her
October 27 statement that "this additional time is required due to the
**substantial interest** in the determination of your request" with a
number of people.  They told us that this language seemed highly unusual.
They added that the response meant that material relevant to our request
did exist because, if it did not, we would have been told so and that
would be the end of the matter.


She told us today that the reason for the words "substantial interest" was
that our request involved a former employee (Mike Nelson) of OSTP who was
at another agency (FCC) and that they were coordinating with that agency
to make sure they had all relevant material from there before responding
to us.  We said that was fine but that we wanted to know why they hadn't
gotten together material from Brian Kahin that was responsive and sent
THAT to us.  She said she'd find out and get back to me.


She did so and, having talked with Brian Kahin, the story changed once
again.   Brian had told her that the request was so broad and encompassed
so many documents that they had not managed to put them all together yet.
No further words about Mike Nelson. Perhaps we'd like to narrow our
request?  We declined and asked them to start sending what they had.


Stepping back to view the entire matter in a broader context, we are
bothered that reports reaching us indicate that Kahin and Burr - the FCC
position with Maxwell and Nelson is not as clear - have thrown in their
lots and with them the interests of the United States government with
IPOC/ISOC/CORE.  They are running an evaluation process that is supposed
to be OPEN and well-informed  and ensure that all sides are heard from.
Instead it seems that they are allowing interests of some large
corporations to overwhelm the impact of public comment solicited from the
Notice of Inquiry process. 


They have had 5 weeks to deal with a FOIA.  If our concerns were
erroneous, they could have demonstrated that by now. Their response, up to
the time of our calls this morning was merely to inform us that they need
more time "due to the substantial interest in the determination of this
request."  They chose to leave it at that and have produced zero material. 


Meanwhile our sources tell us that they continue to operate in a highly
biased way.  We are told also that in late October when Oracle got
(through Emergent) the design work on the CORE database, it dropped out of
the private discussions with Kahin and OSTP.  However we have been advised
by highly reliable sources that these discussions have continued now with
IBM, AT&T and DEC behind closed doors. And that they now have a focus on
what these companies can do to help the US Gov't to ensure the stability
of the root servers as well as continuing to look at the development of
shared database software.  Reports reaching us claim that they (Burr and
Kahin) have largely ignored submissions to the NOI process because they
are leading the Interagency Working Group (IWG) to their preordained
outcome of putting DNS control into the hands of ISOC/IPOC/CORE.


The Process Looks to us to Be Out of Control


We believe that Ira Magaziner is an honorable and dedicated public servant
Who is working long hours to be sure that precipitous federal action does
not create a disaster.  In his phone call to us yesterday, he gave us
assurance that policy on DNS and Internet governance is **not** settled
and that information from all sources is still being collected and
evaluated.  He seems to realize that he does not yet understand the
enormous complexities of this situation well enough to set policy.  


We only wish that those working for him in the IWG review had the same
understanding.  Unfortunately it seems that they have made up their minds
and have policy ready to announce.  One trade journal announced earlier
that a IWG decision was expected today.   Another is about to announce
that IWG says it expects to come out with its findings next week.  We aaw
word from a third this afternoon that an announcment it expected had been
canceled. 


We would suggest that spokespeople for IWG should be giving their boss a
complete and balanced account of his options rather than narrowing the
information to support their own ends.  The process we have operating is
neither free nor sufficiently open and democratic.  This is not the
outcome that Ira Magaziner desires.  He wants openness and he quite
clearly told us yesterday on record that it would be several weeks and
perhaps even several months before the administration sets its direction
on these issues.


Finally we include here material leaked to us yesterday:  


This message to the private CORE mail list, was leaked to third parties -
one of which then sent it to us. We have the permission of that party to
publish.  Crocker will likely be outraged.  But given the high Stakes game
he is playing, he should not be surprised. In this message Crocker lays
bare the ISOC/IPOC/ITU strategy which, if the US government doesn't move
effectively to counter it, can further muddy the international picture.
He also betrays something of the financial desperation of the CORE
position.


-------[begin Dave Crocker comments]
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:46:19 -0800
From: Dave Crocker / IMC <dcrocker () imc org>
Subject: core Implementation schedule and governmental support


> From some second-hand conversations, there are two items which have not
yet been made clear to the US government crew (Magaziner, Kahin, et al):


1.  The requirement for adding the seven new TLDs is imminent


2.  Governments other than the United States have an interest in this
topic and are not overly sanguine about the US claiming control.


The US government folks have now been informed that the request for the
new TLDs will occur approximately mid-December, so they have finally heard
a date. I'm told that until yesterday they thought it was some months off.


What they do NOT have is the basis for that date.  I've suggested to a few
folks that a highly detailed project schedule be developed and published.
It should show all the near-term activity but it should also be worked out
far enough to show the incorporation of .com/net/org, next fall.  The
purpose of this latter portion is to make sure that people can see the
basis for the near-term pressure.


Let me reiterate the suggestion:  Please widely publish the project
schedule that is being used, showing testing phases and all the rest of
the gory detail which demonstrates that the folks doing the work really do
understand how to implement a reliable service.  Yes, this is a public
relations action to educate the political and non-technical folks and I'm
sure it will engender yet more silliness in the public discussion, but it
will also show competent and serious skeptics that you know what you are
doing.


On the matter of interest from other governments, it appears that the
folks at the US government continue to miss the point that the rest of the
world and its governments think that the Internet is a global resource,
rather than strictly being an entity belonging to the U.S.  Other
governments need to communicate their interests in this effort to open up
control of Internet infrastructure.  It would be very helpful for
contingents from non-U.S. countries to band together and lobby their own
governments to communicate to the U.S. folks.


d/ 
--------------------  [end of Crocker's post]


COOK Report: Were the consequences not so potentially serious, the
continued arrogance on Dave Crocker's part regarding the IPOC/ISOC
dominion over root - as well as his views that folk, who don't see it
CORE's way, are some how silly and not worth bothering with would be
amusing.  


In view of his spin in the statement above, it seems to us that the US
government SHOULD begin to enunciate some carefully crafted principles
behind *its* actions. For example that it is our goal that all people who
want to use the Internet may do so with the SEVEN new domain names crafted
by ISOC/IPOC/ITU if they wish, but that we also intend to see to it that
WIPO and Swiss law are *not* the ONLY authority available to people.  That
we shall strive not for global domination of the Internet by the United
States but for LOCAL self-determination.   Such self determination means
the ability of every citizen to register a domain name from a national
authority or, from **any other private group,** that is ajudicable under
the laws, either of the government where that citzen is domiciled and does
business, or under the laws of some other government where the registry
that the citizen choses to do business with is located. Therefore while
ISOC/IPOC/CORE is free to market *Its* seven names, we shall not allow
them to become the final point of arbitration for a single world wide DNS
system.  The US government, to the contrary, is not an arrogant Internet
imperialist but is trying its damnedest to preserve the freedom of all
users of the Internet worldwide from regulatory interference and the
control of any single entity such as WIPO and the ITU. Ira Magaziner's
work on electronic commerce has made this local self-determination a
cornerstone of US policy.  We believe that the IWG should not be permitted
to subvert his accomplishments.


The Spin Continues


Meanwhile the position that comes to us today from inside one of the IWG
agencies is:   Doesn't Cook understand that we have made it clear that we
will not support the IPOC proposal unless significant changes are made to
the proposal and the process?  


Cook Report: Ahhh.  No kidding.  The operative phrase in this denial is
***significant changes***.  We'd like to know what those might be? Who
enunciates them?  Who discusses them?  In what kind of forum?  Via what
process?  The same one involving IBM, AT&T and now DEC? (Formerly Oracle?)
We have this process triangulated several times over and its time that
Kahin and Burr and Irving bring it out into the open because reports
reaching us this afternoon indicate that it continues.


While Jon Postel may ask NSI to include the IPOC/CORE domains in root, we
are told that the current tack within the Kahin-Burr camp is that it will
not ask the NSF to order NSI to comply with Postel's request.  Could it be
that it finally dawned on these people the implications that such action
would have on the PGP Media lawsuit?  What is also absolutely clear is
that NSI has presented to the IWG a plan for a shared DNS registry system.
NSI has tried to explain to the Working Group that such a plan cannot be
implemented overnight because of very serious concerns about security, the
testing and stability of the shared software, the soundness of the
communications links uniting the shared registries, and the various flow
charts of business processes that must be worked out.  


NSI has a responsibility to more than 1,000,000 registrants in the .com
database that their addresses and their connectivity will not become
screwed as a result of its actions.  The optimistic time line for
achieving this is 18 months.  A range of experts tell us that these
concerns are legitimate and reasonable.   But such is the gut level
emotional dislike for NSI that permeates the Working Group that the
working group's response so far has been to refuse to accept NSI's
proposal.  "Eighteen months is not adequate," it says.  "It must be done
much sooner! " Well, operationally sound infrastructure cannot possibly be
installed any sooner and therefore someone needs to explain to Mr. Kahin
and Ms. Burr that, without endangering the operational stability of the
Internet, the US government cannot set policy for reasons that look to us
to be rooted an unthinking acceptance of the anti "monopoly"  point of
view that has been a continual drumbeat on the internet for the past two
years.


*I wrote this today for use in my december 1997 newsletter, therefore the
Editorial "we"


************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet               For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              visit   http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook () cookreport com             New Special Report: Internet
Governance at the Crossroads ($175)  http://cookreport.com/inetgov.shtml
************************************************************************








**************************************************
"Photons have neither morals nor visas"  --  Dave Farber 1994
**************************************************