IP: Re: "Domain names and the threat to the Net" by Meeks

[David Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 07:58:52 -0400
To: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu
From: gaj@portman.com (Gordon Jacobson)


David -


     The following was a reply to a post I made on the Boston on-line
mailing group:


GAJ




Forwarded message begins:


>From: hapgood@pobox.com (Fred Hapgood)
>Subject: Re: "Domain names and the threat to the Net" by   Meeks
>Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 00:29:07 GMT
>X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451




> It starts with a group of self-appointed "technocrats," a 
> kind of Internet cabal, which operates with no authority
> of law or formal governance, which has simply rushed in 
> to fill the power vacuum on the Internet, which has, since 
> inception, operated in a spirit of consensus and community. 


I disagree emphatically with every line of this essay, but the
debate is a good one that should be made.  So far the internet
has been governed ("governed" here refers to a fairly small
group of issues: domain namespace management, managing the limited
stock of IP addresses, and defining and operating the root servers
pretty much covers the agenda) on the model of industrial
standards-setting groups: you wait for problems and issues to
emerge, and then you invite the people whose consent and participation
you need to get those problems solved.  The focus is on defining and
solving problems.  It's not a 'democratic' system in that
representatives to these bodies are almost never elected and often are
invited.  So far this model has done pretty well, not just in the
context of the internet but in industry generally.  Some people
call this the 'self-governing' model.


Meeks prefers the term 'self-appointed', as opposed to appointed by an
elected official or his or her representative.  The idea that
IANA and ISOC have "absolutely no formal authority to proceed
with this process" is really all he needs to know about the
situation.  The idea that "they just decided to do it" completely
freaks him out.  It doesn't freak me out because I think
standards-setting bodies work pretty well (in the first place) 
and when I consider how politicians get nominated and elected the
term 'self-appointed' seems even more appropriate in that context.
But there is a superstition of legitimacy -- or better a superstition
of control -- that clings to the representative process, at least for
the time being, that can't be denied.


Fred 


<http://www.pobox.com/~hapgood>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
End of forwarded message