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