IP: Commentary on June 5 Essay re ICANN

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

> From: Mike Roberts <mmr () darwin ptvy ca us>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> Commentary on Professor David Post's Essay of June 5 Concerning ICANN
>
> As a member of the American university community for more than thirty 
> years, I have the utmost respect for its standards of open inquiry, but 
> I find myself in strong disagreement with the premises, the asserted 
> facts and the logic of Professor Post's recent essay on ICANN, which 
> opens with the statement,  "...my goal here is just to suggest that 
> notwithstanding the government's (and ICANN's) protestations to the 
> contrary, this is about nothing less than Internet governance writ 
> large." 
>
> I definitely do protest to the contrary; the facts do not support this 
> conclusion. The truth of the current situation is that ICANN is pursuing 
> its work program as spelled out in the Government's White Paper on the 
> Management of Internet Names and Addresses and in the Department of 
> Commerce's Memorandum of Understanding/Joint Project Agreement with 
> ICANN that was executed last November.  The tasks set forth therein 
> include (extract from the contract):
>
> "a. Establishment of policy for and direction of the allocation of IP 
> number blocks; 
>
> b. Oversight of the operation of the authoritative root server system; 
>
> c. Oversight of the policy for determining the circumstances under which 
> new top level domains would be added to the root system; 
>
> d. Coordination of the assignment of other Internet technical parameters 
> as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; and 
>
> e. Other activities necessary to coordinate the specified DNS management 
> functions, as agreed by the Parties."
>
> In the interests of constructive dialog, I would like to submit 
> clarifications of some points contained in Professor Post's essay of 
> June 5.
>
> 1. Control of the Root Server
>
> "... the root server, and the various domain servers to which it
> points, constitute the very heart of the Internet, the Archimedean point 
> on which this vast global network balances."
>
> The system of [currently thirteen] functionally identical root servers 
> set up by Jon Postel is operated on a voluntary basis by a disparate 
> group of international organizations with a common interest in seeing 
> the Internet function well. In addition to the checks and balances 
> inherent in this distributed functionality and responsibility, there are 
> the further checks provided by the fact that the major ISP's ultimately 
> have the power to determine what name servers are actually used in the 
> Internet. Various efforts to create a different root environment, such 
> as alternic, have thus far failed because the leaders of the ISP 
> industry see more value in a transparent and interoperable Internet than 
> in one in which multiple root systems vie for attention.  Beyond this, 
> the present voluntary system is based on a broadly shared understanding 
> that private collaboration in maintaining universal connectivity is 
> essential to minimizing government regulation. More than sixty years 
> ago, circuit switched routing in the U.S. PSTN (Public Switched 
> Telecommunications Network), which is the telephony equivalent of packet 
> switching in the Internet, was put under government control.  Any 
> significant evidence of the type of pathological behavior in the 
> management of Internet routing hypothesized by Professor Post in his 
> text almost certainly would lead to a similar type of government control 
> of the Internet, both in the U.S. and abroad.
>
> 2. Support for ICANN's Budget
>
> "... ICANN has imposed the requirement that each accredited registrar 
> pay ICANN a fee of $1 for each new domain name they hand out - can 
> anyone say 'taxation without representation'?"
>
> The White Paper suggested that ICANN should be funded by name or address 
> registries, presumably by nomination of a portion of the fee charged by 
> those registries to fund ICANN expenses.  The ICANN Bylaws provide that 
> the budget be presented for approval annually, and that any fees and 
> charges be presented to the community for comment. This period was held 
> prior to the recent Berlin ICANN Board meeting without substantial 
> comment on the proposed fee, which was explicitly stated to be no more 
> than $1, because it is not clear exactly what ICANN's costs will be or 
> how many names will be registered. Since ICANN is a non-profit, cost 
> recovery vehicle, the fee will be adjusted over time to produce revenues 
> that fund expenses - no more or less. The comment period did not produce 
> any proposals for a more equitable means of supporting ICANN's 
> activities.  In the idiom of the ICANN Bylaws, consent of the governed 
> is obtained through the operation of the public notice and comment 
> provisions.  If there is a better way, let us hear it.  Among its other 
> virtues, the ICANN levy supports the administration of a new system of 
> competition in the assignment of domain names that will undoubtedly lead 
> to much more than a $1 per name reduction in registration fees, so the 
> net impact on the names consumer will be highly positive.
>
> 3. The WIPO Report
>
> "...ICANN, having now adopted the WIPO Report referenced earlier, is 
> about to impose a requirement on all domain name registrars that they
> collect and make available 'accurate and reliable contact details of 
> domain name holders,' and that they agree to 'cancel the domain name 
> registrations' wherever those contact details are shown to be 
> 'inaccurate and unreliable' - a move with grave consequences for the 
> continued viability of anonymous communications on the Internet."
>
> (a) As is clear from reading the resolutions adopted in Berlin, which 
> are posted on the icann.org website, the ICANN Board did not "adopt" the 
> WIPO report in its action on May 27; instead, it took a series of 
> detailed steps which included referring the majority of the report to 
> its newly constituted Domain Name Supporting Organization for analysis, 
> review and recommendation. It took these actions after five months of 
> study and comment by members of its constituencies and its staff and the 
> actions reflected the consensus comments it received in the public 
> notice and comment periods of both the March (Singapore) and May 
> (Berlin) Board meetings.
>
> (b) At its March meeting in Singapore, acting on proposed guidelines for 
> accrediting competitive registrars for the .com, .org and .net domains, 
> after extensive public comment, the ICANN Board adopted a series of 
> requirements for the relationship between accredited registrars and 
> those wishing to obtain domain names, which included a requirement for 
> the initial submission of accurate contact information and for the 
> maintenance of accurate contact information as a condition of continuing 
> to hold the assigned name.  As I pointed out in the public meeting in 
> Singapore, this requirement for open access to the identity of those 
> responsible for operating a domain name in the Internet goes back to the 
> very early days of the American academic Internet and has been a 
> mainstream attribute of Internet culture for many years. It seems to me 
> and to many others to be a useful principle worthy of being continued.
>
> (c) The issue of anonymity was extensively discussed by the ICANN Board 
> and staff at the Singapore meeting, with reference both to the [upside] 
> value of protecting citizens from unfair harrassment and to the 
> [downside] potential of facilitating unethical and illegal activities.  
> Neither the previous NSI guidelines nor the current ICANN guidelines on 
> contact information inhibit the legitimately anonymous use of domain 
> names. They do require that those interested in so operating find a 
> trusted intermediary to register and hold the domain name and furnish 
> accurate contact information [and to be responsible for any use of the 
> domain name which violates the law].  This has been done in the past and 
> it can be done in the future. ICANN explicitly took no action that would 
> disturb the status quo on this issue, although it heard from advocates 
> of both strengthening and eliminating anonymity in the use of domain 
> names.
>
> 4. Scope of ICANN Activities
>
> "Now, some, or even all, of these may be good ideas.  But this is 
> already way beyond the realm of technical 'standards-setting,' and we 
> really must ask whether we really want or need this kind of global 
> Internet policy and whether this is the way it should be put together."
>
> This comment is an indication of the extent of the gulf between the 
> premises of Professor Post and those of ICANN and the U.S. Government.
> ICANN not only doesn't set technical standards, it is specifically 
> enjoined from doing so by its chartering documents.  After extensive 
> discussion between Ira Magaziner and members of the Internet technical 
> community in 1997 and 1998, ICANN's role in this area is limited to 
> "coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed 
> to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet."  That is one of the 
> historical functions of the IANA organization under Jon Postel and it 
> has been continued under ICANN management. The Internet Engineering Task 
> Force does an excellent job in the standards area and neither they nor 
> we think change is needed. 
>
> The ICANN Board and staff are very interested in academic participation 
> in our work and in a robust critique of our performance. However, ICANN 
> doesn't do Internet technical standards and it doesn't do Internet 
> governance. Misperception on these critical points presents a serious 
> obstacle to constructive dialog and to contributions to our work from 
> the academic community.
>
> It may be useful in the abstract to debate how we might behave under a 
> different set of assumptions, but that's not a current reality for a 
> group of hard working individuals, aided by many equally hard working 
> volunteers from the Internet community, who are in the middle of 
> creating a new DNS management entity under challenging circumstances.
>
> [N.B. The views expressed herein are those of the author.]
>
> - Mike Roberts
> - Interim President and CEO, ICANN
>
> ----- End of forwarded message from Mike Roberts -----