Re: IP: My presentation at the PITAC on Wednesday on DNS issues - in rtf format

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

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 1998
>
> What 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=20
>
> The 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.=20
>
> You 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.txt
>
>
> > Warning that a failure of community action -- IP
> > =B7       could destabilize the internet though uncoordinated private=
> > actions
> > =B7       cause intervention of governments though national and=
> > international
>
> You 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 on
>
> The 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