Re: IP: ICANN Gets Green Light by Niall McKay

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

I was in Japan for a spell so I was somewhat involved. I will answer your points before Monday

At 11:25 AM 11/27/98 -0500, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>Dear Dave
>
>On Nov. 17 you promised me a response to my open email to you of
>questions about the current privatization of the Domain Name
>System functions, IP numbers, root server system by the U.S. government
>and your support for this.
>
>I haven't yet gotten the response you promised so I am resending 
>this to you, as I and others are eager to hear the response you
>promised to send.
>
>Ronda
>
>
>
>Open Letter to Dave Farber part II
>
>Dave, My original note to you on the IFWP list and com-priv list and 
>netizens list is about the fact that you and several other pioneers 
>of the Internet have a basis to know more what is happening that 
>this privatization of the essential functions of the Internet is 
>being carried out, and that you 5 folks have been in a position 
>to both understand what the U.S. government is doing and to 
>advise the U.S. government about what they are doing.
>
>I also mentioned that I have made the effort (as a user) to be involved
>in the process, and have *no* understanding of what the U.S. govt
>is doing and why, despite repeated efforts to participate in a way
>that would make it possible to understand what is happening.
>
>More significantly I have spent a number of years both participating
>in Usenet and the Internet and in studying the history and importance
>of the Internet and the current signficiant change in U.S. policy
>with so little open discussion of the fundamental issues of that
>change, is very disturbing.
>
>I have just returned from a trip to Europe where I was invited to 
>speak on MsgGroup Mailing List and the principles to be learned 
>from that for Internet Governance. I know you were one of the earliest
>participants on MsgGroup mailing list in 1975. And I also know that
>there was a real concern among those involved in creating the 
>MsgGroup conferencing and email prototype that the users be considered
>and that those involved in the work on the mailing list use the 
>mailing list so they could understand how it would be useful toward
>supporting facilitating informal communication in the U.S. Dept
>of Defense. In reading the archives of MsgGroup I found the discussion
>quite fascinating and valuable and the observations about the 
>new kind of communication that a mailing list made possible very
>insightful. 
>
>However, with the creation of the privatization of the essential
>functions of the Internet all the lessons of how to create online
>prototypes that function and to improve them that have helped to 
>build the ARPANET, Usenet or the Internet, as with MsgGroup Mailing
>list, have been abandoned.
>
>If there were a real problem that the U.S. government were trying
>to solve with respect to the Internet, the obvious challenge
>would be to find a way to create a functioning online form to 
>solve that problem, and to explore the problems of creating that
>online form through research processes as with MsgGroup mailing
>list or other such efforts.
>
>Also such an online form would be able to be accessible to anyone
>online who was interested in the issues involved and there would
>be a way, as well of involving those users who wanted to participate
>in figuring out what the problems were and in solving them.
>
>That isn't happening in the creation of ICANN. Instead a very
>small group of people, some of whom probably have no or very little
>experience with the Internet, are being involved in both creating
>and in running some powerful new entity that will be given what
>hitherto have been treated as cooperative and public Internet
>resources.
>
>My email to you said that I can understand your having your own
>personal views as to whether this is good or bad, but that if
>you are involved in acting as an advisor to the U.S. government
>as a computer scientist (which I feel you are), then it would
>seem especially important that what is happening be open and 
>that as broad a set of people be involved in what is happening
>as possible.
>
>The online forms would make this possible.
>
>However, what is being created is *not* an online form, but a
>private corporate entity and it has been created by a process
>within the U.S. government where no one knows who has made the 
>decisions to create this form and who has made the decisions
>of who will people the new private entity.
>
>This is the exact opposite of the open processes that the online
>forms make possible, and which are necessary for good decisions
>to be made with regard to something as important as the Internet
>and the ownership and control of its essential, controlling 
>functions.
>
>
>Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>>Ronda, your note shows a very different view of net history than I have 
>>and maybe a view that is not based on fact. You are slipping into the 
>>consipracy theory and that is just wrong. While errors may have been made, 
>>they have been made in an honest fashion. I know no one in the current 
>>ICANN who stands to gain anything out of it (san Mike Roberts who is a 
>>paid employee). The advisors were far from secret and certainly criticism 
>>was heavy and often, when stated in a non nuclear bomb fashion, were 
>>paid attention to. 
>
>But any of those who have been appointed to the Board (by who knows 
>whom and for what purpose) are being put in a position of tremendous
>control over the Internet. 
>
>Also Mike Roberts, as one of the advisors, is in a very compromised
>position to have advised the appointment of himself to such a 
>position of responsibility. 
>
>To own and control 4.3 billion IP numbers and the domain name system
>and root server system, as well as related protocols, port numbers,
>etc of the Internet is a position of tremendous responsibility
>and tremendous power.
>
>In a recent article the Economist called this a "self-appointed
>oligarchy". 
>
>To be transferring such resources to a private entity, with 
>no public discussion of why government is to be kept out, 
>and what will be the effect of privileging private sector
>corporate entities and people with being able to be part of 
>this, this is a very serious affair.
>
>
>>Not everything was word by word open. It is hard to arrive at a 
>>consensus with millions looking on at each word and yelling before 
>>someone has a chance to change their mind.
>
>A consensus of how many people? 
>
>If millions of people will be seriously affected (as we will be
>by such a severe change of policy) by the results of the
>"consensus" arrived at behind closed doors, then there is
>a very grave problem.
>
>And this is a problem that C.P. Snow spoke to at the 1961 mmeting
>about the future of the computer at MIT. He spoke to the need
>for scientists, and especially computer scientists to recognize
>the harm that could come from such government decisions and that
>the way to guard against such harm was to involve the broadest
>number of people in such decisions.
>
>At this 1961 meeting John McCarthy first described time-sharing
>which led to the developed of the time-sharing systems which
>set the basis for the vision of the ARPANET. And this online
>processes that time-sharing made possible also helped to 
>create the online forms that make an open process involving
>large numbers of people possible.
>
>
>>users showed up at some of the IFWP meetings but no one has a good 
>>idea how to either reach them (the millions) or distill what they 
>>have to say.
>
>But isn't this then the challenge that has to be taken up before
>transferring control and ownership over the essential functions of 
>the Internet to a small clique of people who will then have control
>over the Internet and its users?
>
>I was at the Geneva IFWP meeting and *no one* was interested in 
>hearing from users there. I have written an account of what 
>happening which is at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ifwp_july25.txt
>
>There was only an interest in rushing through a declared consensus
>that would allow certain people to begin getting profits on their
>financial investments. 
>
>This was the very opposite of a process to establish the kind of 
>responsible and accountable management strucuture that can serve
>the Internet community and the further scaling of the Internet.
>
>>One thing that does seem instructive is the ease with which 
>>network discussion groups can be hijacked by vocal often biased 
>>and some times self interested parties (NO NOT YOU). I don't know 
>
>This does need to be taken on as a problem. But I have found
>that there are certain types of newsgroups or mailing lists where
>this is more likely to happen than other such groups and I feel
>it is an important problem that can be solved. And my proposal
>to Ira Magaziner and to the U.S. Govt on this issue provided a 
>process to create such an online form. However, it wasn't even
>considered by them. And I also sent you a copy, and didn't feel
>you felt there was any reason to take my proposal seriously or
>to consider or discuss it with me.
>
>And it is one thing to hijack a mailing list or newsgroup, 
>but another and much more serious situation to hijack the 
>ownership and control over the essential functions of the 
>Internet by putting them into a secretive private corporation
>where no one knows who is exerting the controlling power.
>
>The U.S. Office of Inspector General in a report they issued
>in Feb. 1997 said that even putting the IP numbers into
>the control of such an organization would be a violation of 
>U.S. anti trust law as it would be creating a very great
>concentration of power and wealth. To put all the essential
>functions into such a private organization is an ever greater
>concentration of wealth and power. 
>
>>how to stop that. It is the same as people more and more who shout 
>>down public talks of people they disagree with. That is destructive of 
>>open discussions and it has forced me to disengage with such lists 
>>due to the deep personal viciousness shown.
>
>This is a serious problem as it is important to have your 
>participation in such open processes. And I know you have a 
>long experience of such participation. But isn't this an 
>important problem to be taken on.
>
>When I was on the com-priv mailing list in 1992-3 I experienced 
>similar problems and it also led me to leave the list. 
>
>But the problem there I felt was that instead of the U.S. 
>government protecting the ability of people to participate 
>in the list, they created a list which would be aimed at 
>promoting such a hostile and unuseful environment. And then 
>they claimed that that list was the indication that the U.S. 
>govt was getting input into its policy decisions.
>
>And U.S. govt officials were on the com-priv list during this
>period and participated in this unhealthy environment.
>
>But previous to that, and in many other situation even during
>this period, the Acceptible Use Policy employed by the U.S.
>govt with regard to the Internet kept other lists and 
>newsgroups functioning in a good way.
>
>With the privatization of the Internet, however, this kind of
>hostile atmosphere, or the sending of junk posts to newsgroups
>or mailing lists, has become much more commonplace.
>
>Thus the privatization is a problem and the long development of 
>the Net previous to the privatization has very important lessons
>that need to be learned from.
>
>>I will try when I get a chance to go over your mailing carefully and 
>>point out the problems. 
> 
>I hope you will.
>
>>Dave
>
>But it seems from your response that perhaps there is some tentative
>agreement that:
>
>1) Open processes are desirable.
>
>2) That it would be good to involve users in the decisions over
>what will be happening with the Internet. And that a way needs
>to be found to do so.
>
>3) That online forms are valuable but also need to be maintained 
>in a constructive way.
>
>Is it fair to say that these are tentative points of agreement?
>
>If so is there anything that can be done to take these into account
>rather than rushing ahead with the creation of ICANN and ignoring these?
>
>An online form is very different from a membership organization.
>
>I don't know any membership organizations that function to provide
>the ability of members to really be part of the decisions making 
>process. 
>
>But the Internet does make it possible for users to be part of the 
>decision making process in decisions regarding what is happening
>with the Internet.
>
>Is there any way you would help me to explain this to the U.S.
>govt officials who are rushing ahead to create this private 
>organization?
>
>Also there are other issues with regard to the creation of 
>ICANN that it would be important to discuss publicly.
>
>Dave, if you want to see an example of a constructive and 
>valuable online public discussion, look at the archives
>of the Nov. 1994 NTIA online discussion about the future
>of the NSFNET. We have two chapters about it in our
>book, chapters 11 "The NTIA Conference on the Future of the 
>Net: Creating a Prototype for a Democratic Decison-Making
>Process" and chpter 14 "The Net and the Future of Politics:
>The Ascendancy of the Commons".
>
>And also take a look at the NTIA archives which should also
>be online. This was an example of a constructive and valuable
>online discussion on important issues of public policy.
>(The problem was the NTIA never utilized any of the lessons
>from the discussion or learned anything from the discussion.)
>
>But the discussion showed that it is indeed possible to 
>involved a number of online users in important issues
>by utilizing online processes.
>
>The NTIA ignored what folks said at the online conference and 
>the result is that the concern that everyone in the U.S. have
>access to the Internet, something that required keeping 
>government in the backbone operation, has not happened, 
>and is unlikely to happen for a very long time in the U.S.
>given market dysfunction and the high cost of access for
>many people.
>
>Privatizing these public resources ends up in costing the public
>far more, and the social obligation of making public resources
>available to all, is lost sight of.
>
>This is an important set of issues so it is good we are making
>the effort to have open discussion on them.
>
>Ronda
>
>Dave promised a response as follows on Nov. 17
>
>
>
>> Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>>Ronda, since I am not, for some reason, able to get in the ifwp list, 
>>please forward this. 
>
>>I for one have NO idea what the US Government is trying to do. It was, 
>>in my opinion, a great misfortune when they weighted in the way they did.  
>>Their competitive solicitation which established the semi monopoly of NSI 
>>started the problem. It was competitive but there was no effective mechanism 
>>to allow input from the community on the terms and conditions and it caused 
>>the same problems that the agreement with ANS did many years earlier. 
>>Then the Green paper which established the USG role in the net governance 
>>mechanism ended damaging , in my opinion, the consensus mechanism that 
>>existed in the community and to almost quote Crocker -- we will suffer 
>>from years from that.
>
>>Your notes are substantial in length and content and I don;t want to 
>>shortcut my responses  so I will promise this weekend to have at it
>
>>Dave
>
>