IP: Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

I am sending this to IP for its reporting on the open meeting NOT for the 
point of view taken by the author which I happen to disagree with. The 
National Research Council is the study arm of the National Academies of 
Sciences and performs studies usually motivated by the Government. I have 
served on many such study committees and for 10 years served on the 
Telecommunications and the Computer Science Board.  The tone of this report 
makes it seem that the closed door sessions are somehow bad. My experience 
is that they serve a useful purpose in exposing the real facts that are 
essential to the value of the resultant report. The panels have in my 
experience both been well balanced and very willing to tick off both the 
sponsors and the NRC if necessary in order to seek the truth. There have 
been attempts to open all NRC panel meetings and the courts, wisely  in my 
opinion , have rejected such changes.

These panels do in fact seek the truth. Witness the crypto panel as just 
one example of many.

Dave

> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:02:59 -0400 (EDT)
> From: <ronda () panix com>
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> Subject: Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?
>
> Dave
>
> It is important that folks know what is happening with the
> new committee at the National Academy of Science that has
> been created to write a report for Congress proposing the
> next generation DNS. Following is brief excerpt and the url
> for  an article published in Telepolis on Friday about the first
> meeting of the committee: Ronda
>
>
>    Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?
>    20.04.2001
>
>    Report on the First Meeting of the NAS Committee on Internet Searching
>    and the Domain Name System
>
>    The first meeting of the new National Academy of Science (NAS)
>    committee to study the Domain Name System (DNS) demonstrated the sharp
>    contrast between the closed processes of the committee and the broad
>    mandate from their US government sponsors. Those attending the one
>    open session in two days of otherwise closed meetings were told that a
>    reason this session was open to the public was because there is a
>    legal requirement that a NAS committee cannot meet with its government
>    sponsors in closed session.
>
>    Though the study was requested by the U.S. Congress, the sponsors for
>    the study are the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S.
>    Department of Commerce (DOC). At this  meeting [0] of the committee,
>    the sponsors were invited to present the rationale and the need for
>    the study and the issues to be emphasized or avoided by the committee.
>
>
>    See http://www.telepolis.de/english/inhalt/te/7421/1.html



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/