see attached
robert
-- Robert Shaw <robert.shaw@itu.int> Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int> Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
attached mail follows:
FYI
/Amar Andersson
#41 Telia Network Services
Taken from "Network World Fusion"
Clinton's Internet guy predicts peace in DNS overhaul
Ira Magaziner has a big job ahead of him. He has to reconcile vastly different approaches to domain name registration and infighting among the Internet Society (ISOC), which is moving ahead on its plan, and the current domain name registrar Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), while at the same time ensuring the stability of the Internet. But the Clinton administration's top Internet adviser isn't worried. He says the plan that will be posted on the Internet within the next week should satisfy everyone. Network World Fusion Reporter Sandra Gittlen talked to Magaziner yesterday about the future of the Domain Name System (DNS).
Q. The administration's proposal for the Domain Name System changes is due out next week. Are you going to back the ISOC's Council of Registrars, a group of approved registrars that will compete against one another to assign .net, .org and .com domains as well as seven proposed generic top-level domains?
A. No, we're not going to back any one or another group. I think we're concerned with trying to create a system that will preserve the stability of the Internet and move to a more private competitive international system. And I'm sure the CORE activities will be part of whatever occurs, but it's not going to be that we're going to back one group vs. another.
Q. Having spoken with NSI and ISOC, it seems that they're not really on the same wavelength as to how things are going to be managed.
A. Well, we think that there's a possibility for a compromised solution that will allow them both to function in a successful competitive environment.
Q. What is that environment looking like?
A. Well, I can't give you specifics because we're ... I'm not trying to hide anything, but we're literally in the process of making decisions about that over these next couple of days about what our proposal will be anyway. It'll be a draft that we'll put up on the 'Net for comment. But in our proposal we're trying to work on something that will set up a competitive environment in which CORE groups and others can compete.
Q. A concern is that CORE has gone ahead and spent the money to create the central database that council members will access for domain name approval. They're moving full-steam ahead. How can they do this when the government is still out on the issue of what the system's going to be?
A. That's a question you should discuss with them. But I think it's our intention to try to create an environment in which numerous competitors can participate both as registrars and also as registries. Presumably the CORE group will be part of that, as will others.
Q. What about the domain names for .edu and .gov? Will .edu stay under university management and .gov under government management?
A. Not sure yet.
Q. So those might be put into the private sector to be managed?
A. It depends on what you mean by managed. Right now the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is managing the database for .edu. And what will happen with that, I'm not sure. We're still trying to think about it. But there's a difference between who sets policy guidance and who actually does the physical data management.
Q. And .gov will stay under government management?
A. Again we're not sure, but I would assume that would stay under government management.
Q. Some of the proposals for a new DNS system that have been suggested do not seem to jibe with one another. It doesn't seem as if they could exist in the same environment.
A. We formed a group to look at all this about a year ago and began consulting with people. Last summer, we did a solicitation for opinions. We got 1,500 pages of submissions which we reviewed. Since December, we've been in consultation with a wide variety of groups and you're right, there were very diverse opinions on what ought to happen [with the DNS system]. What we've been trying to do is work our way through to propose something that can gain some consensus, which means that it won't be exactly what any group wants, but it will hopefully be something that can gain consensus and can stick with the President's strategy of last July, which is to move the system to a more private competitive international system while making sure that we preserve the stability of the Internet.
That's what we're trying to do and we're going to make a proposal which comes from this consultation we've been doing. We'll see what happens. If the proposal gets completely shot to pieces by everybody, then we'll have to try again and rethink it. If the reaction we get is that most people say there's some good elements in it and they suggest improvements, then we'll go through a number of iterations until we get to something that we can use.
Q. Now, one of the big things about you is that you're pretty gung-ho on open market. Now, open market translated into DNS terms is the addition of the seven gTLDs.
A. Well, not necessarily. Open market means you have more than two competitors in something. Certainly the CORE group has developed potential for competitive registrars and also registries. And NSI is a competitor and there are others out there who may want to be competitors. And there are others who have been operating registries and have expressed interest in registrars. The most open competition would be one where you allow multiple people to flourish both as registrars and registries and that's the direction we want to head in.
Having said that, there are certain functions that need to be done in a coordinated fashion. In the assignment of a box of numbers, there's not really a competitive market in assigning blocks of numbers. It's something that needs to be done in a coordinated fashion so that two entities don't get the same numbers. So what we've tried to do is distinguish some areas where there needs to be coordination and some areas which should be market driven and then we want to try to move make private all of it, including the coordinated areas to put that into a private, nonprofit operation. And then the competitive areas to move to a market-driven arena with a bunch of competition.
Q. I was talking to NSI and ISOC, and they're just attacking each other vehemently.
A. Yeah, there's a lot of passion. Since early December I was getting close to 1,000 pages of e-mail a week on this one topic. There's literally hundreds of people that have been very passionate about this and there's been a lot of attacking going on.
Q. NSI has said that the government has not allowed it to sanction CORE's actions. ISOC has said this is not true.
A. Well, it's not inconsistent. Basically what we've been saying is that we need to move to consensus around a plan for where all this is headed and we want to do that soon. Changes to the system, like adding new domain names and so on, should occur in the context of that as opposed to one-off events.
Q. So that's where NSI is right?
A. I guess, but it's also where ... I don't want to speak for others. We have supported the ISOC process to the extent that they have been trying to create a new set of competitors, which we think is important. They've been creating a group of registrars and registries for top-level domains and we're supportive of the idea that there should be more players here, more competitors. To the extent of which they've been doing that, we're supportive. And the IANA has not yet approved them doing this until we have a more general plan that it fits into.
There are a lot of other groups out there that have been proposing registries and registrars, as well.
What we haven't wanted to do is say yes to one and no to another without having some plan, some objective basis, some sense of where things are headed.
Q. But CORE has gone ahead and empowered 80 or so registrars who think that at the end of February when the database is ready, they will be able to go ahead and hand over domain names. If the database is up, CORE's ready to go, can they go ahead with the government's blessing?
A. I think we need to see what reaction the proposal we are going to make gets. The proposal will speak to that issue. We need to see if we can get consensus.
Q. Don Heath, ISOC president, said CORE still has the right to go ahead with his plans, even if the government has not reached its decision. What do you say to that?
A. We believe a compromise can be reached, which will preserve the stability of the Internet and which will allow the various players in this to compete with each other and we don't think there's going to be any fragmentation or confrontation. We think it will reach consensus.
Q. Has ISOC said to you that it will hold off on CORE until you've gotten enough response on the proposal?
A. We haven't asked [ISOC] to do anything. We basically are moving ahead on our schedule to try to produce a draft plan and we've not asked anybody to do anything at this point.
Q. What if the time lines collide?
A. You're asking me to respond to other people's time lines, and what I can tell you is what we're planning to do. We're going to put out our paper at the end of next week in draft, see what kind of reaction it gets. We'll treat it as a virtual document, revise it. And from there forge a compromise that allows us to move ahead.
We have to make some decisions on how we're going to handle the NSI contract's expiration at the end of March. And so somewhere in that time frame, we're going to act on various issues and then we're going to try to move toward a phasing in of a plan.
But I really don't believe it's going to come to a confrontation. Right now, there's a lot of heat, a lot of people that are passionate in their feelings. You're probably hearing a lot of that.
Q. Yes.
A. But my feeling is that it's going to work out, and down the road they're going to be competing against each other.
Q. Will you try to exert some kind of influence over NSI regarding CORE?
A. We have to have a negotiation with NSI on a variety of topics so that they move to become a competitor or maybe be two businesses: one that competes as a registrar, one that competes as a registry. And they'll need to take certain steps to devolve to competitive situation from the situation they've been in, which is one where they've essentially have a U.S. government-sanctioned control. So, yeah, we have to come to some agreements and those agreements have to involve a way in which they are going to change the way they do business.
Q. Will the government maintain some control over the DNS?
A. For a period of time. I think the goal is to transition to a system that is private and internationally competitive. So at some date, certainly, the U.S. government should be out of it. But, we've had stewardship over this for historic reasons. And we want to end our stewardship in a completely responsible manner that ensures the stability of the Internet. So we're not going to all of sudden turn off the lights one night and say it's not our problem anymore.
Q. What are the ramifications internationally?
A. The Internet was developed as a project of the U.S. government.
Q. Are you getting any noise from overseas?
A. We've been consulting with both international private sector and government people pretty regularly for the past year on this now.
Q. And are they comfortable with the idea of it being U.S. run?
A. Again, I don't like to speak for other people. The general feedback is, sure, they are more interested in a more international structure. The sense we have from most governments is that they're not looking for that to be a government structure, but they would like a structure that is more international and we agree with that. While 80% of the Internet users may be in the U.S. today, five or 10 years now, 80% will be outside the U.S. So there ought to be a more international structure.
Q. Let me change the subject to FBI Director Louis Freeh's push on creating mandatory key recovery in importing and exporting software. Does the government back Directory Freeh's stance that the government should be involved in this process?
A. We have a position from the administration is to support voluntary incentives that would support the development of key recovery systems. We don't favor mandatory controls that would force such a system. We favor incentives that would try to develop key recovery products. Director Freeh ... there's a history that the director of the FBI does have an independent platform and he has expressed his own views and I won't speak for him. He is certainly part of the administration deliberations, but he is also an independent player who makes his own views known.
Right now there's a series of bills in Congress. The Congressional situation on this is quite confused and I don't know what's going to develop over the coming months. I know there's going to be a very heated debate. What we've been trying to do is to see if we can forge compromise among law enforcement, industry, members of Congress and so on to try to get a balanced approach that will allow the commercial development of the Internet, but at the same time meet some of the legitimate law enforcement needs. Whether that kind of compromise can be forged over the next couple of months, I don't know, but that's what we're going to see.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:19 PST