Bet you a nickel you're wrong on all three predictions.
Regards, BobC
>
>Best regards,
>
>Bill Semich
>Technical Manager
>The .NU Domain
>bsemich@mail.nu
><http://www.nunames.nu/>http://www.nunames.nu
>".NU - The un.com(mon) domain"
>
>Original-From: Robert Shaw <robert.shaw@itu.int>
>Original-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:18:16 +0100
>
>
>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.
>