----- Forwarded message from "vinton g. cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET> -----
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:55:11 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET>
Subject: ICANN Commentary (Mike Roberts, David Post)
To: "ISOC Members Discussion" <isoc-members-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
Reply-To: ISOC Members Discussion <isoc-members-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
I thought this exchange was relevant to ISOC members.
Vint Cerf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>
Subject: Commentary on June 5 Essay re ICANN
To: postd@erols.com
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
=================================================================
"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!"
Join the Internet Society and help to make it so.
See you at INET'99, San Jose, CA, June 22-25,1999
http://www.isoc.org/inet99/
----- End forwarded message -----
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain