On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:33:54 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
wrote:
>Since ICANN and ISOC bashing seems to be a major topic on this list,
>here's some material to counterbalance:
>
>----- 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
-- This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz. For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/