http://www.msnbc.com/news/104404.asp
Domain names and the threat to the Net
A tale of intrigue, double-dealing and global power struggles
WASHINGTON - This is a tale that has all the intrigue, double-dealing and
global power struggles of a spy novel. But the plot line is real, with
nothing less then the fate of the Internet community hanging in the balance.
Call it the "Domain Name" factor.
It starts with a group of self-appointed technocrats, a kind of Internet
cabal, which operates with no authority of law or formal governance, which
has simply rushed in to fill the power vacuum on the Internet, which has,
since inception, operated in a spirit of consensus and community.
Not since the OPEC oil cartel of 1970s have so few held so many in
economic bondage. The Internet cabal holds no less power over the global
economic infrastructure we call cyberspace.
This cabal intends to control how and when new domain names will be
added to the current list of .com, .org, .edu, .gov and .mil, and who gets
the rights to act as a registry of those domain names.
THE MEMO
The group operates from a document, known as the Generic Top Level
Domain Memorandum of Understanding, produced by 11 self-appointed
participants in closed-door meetings in Geneva.
The group set up a U.N.-style international tribunal that operates
under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union, which has
headquarters in Geneva. The group steadfastly contends that the process has
been "open" from the beginning and that such a document is needed to ensure
fair competition and stability for the registration of domain names and the
Internet.
But the group has garnered no consensus in the Internet community.
During a two-day meeting on the issue of domain name registry held in
Washington last week, the veneer of openness and cooperation being spun by
the cabal began to be stripped away.
"Make no mistake, this process is not about technology, it is all
about power," said Jay Fenello, president of Iperdome, a small company that
is vying to compete in the domain name registry business.
THE INTRIGUE
This whole mess started as a result of the troubles Network Solutions
Inc. had in its role as the sole administer of so-called "Top Level Domain"
names, those ending in .com, .edu, .org, etc. NSI operates as a
government-subsidized monopoly under a contract set to expire next year.
Anticipating the end of that monopoly, two influential groups
decided that some plan had to be put in motion to guide the Internet going
forward. Those two groups are the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or
IANA, and the Internet Society, known as ISOC.
The IANA operates under a loose charter from the U.S. government to
act as kind of administrator for handing out the blocs of numbers that are
tied to each formal domain name, such as MSNBC.COM, which are used by "root
servers" to determine what message goes where. The ISOC is a non-profit,
scientific, educational and charitable entity, incorporated in 1992 in
Washington.
FUTURE OF THE INTERNET
These two groups put together the Internet International Ad Hoc
Committee, which hunkered down for eight weeks with members of the ITU and
World Intellectual Property Organization and hammered out the memo of
understanding, a document that essentially sets up a global governance
scheme for the future of the Internet.
That document spawned other organizations, such as the Policy
Oversight Committee, which is intended to oversee policies outlined in the
memo. Members of the oversight committee were chosen from those who drafted
the document. It then fell to the ITU to circulate the memo for signatures
from its members, which are comprised of sovereign states.
To date, the memo has garnered more than more than 150 signatories.
However, those signatories come with a huge caveat: not a single government,
save Albania, has signed on.
This process has drawn the ire of virtually everyone outside the
small cabal of organizations that had a hand in drafting the document. The
memo, "although without the stature of a treaty because it can be signed by
parties other than sovereign states, is clearly an intergovernmental
agreement that possesses significant binding force and effect . as public
international law," writes Tony Rutkowski, former executive director of
ISOC.
Remember, IANA and ISOC have absolutely no formal authority to
proceed with this process - they just decided to "do it." Indeed, when ITU
called a meeting of signatories and potential signatories of the memo in
Geneva earlier this year, Secretary of State Madeline Albright sent a secret
cable, which was leaked to the Internet, to the U.S. mission in Geneva,
upbraiding the ITU secretary general for calling such a meeting "without
authorization of the member governments." She instructed U.S. diplomats to
"cover" the meeting, but with lower-level staff, so as to not give the
appearance of U.S. support of the memo.
DOUBLE-DEALING?
At the domain-name meeting in Washington, participants generally
acknowledged that there are no technical obstacles keeping an unlimited
number of top-level domain names from being created. This would allow the
creation of domain names like .sex, .web, .biz, .XYZ and so on. Indeed, an
additional seven domain names have been proposed by the Internet cabal, but
no more. The reason for limiting the number of top domains is simply to
appease the legal divisions of major international corporations; these
companies don't want to have to register their trademarks across potentially
hundreds of domain names.
Well, screw the suits. There are courts established for protecting
trademarks. Policing trademarks is a cost of doing business in the analog
world; it should be no different in cyberspace. Artificially limiting the
number of domain names, when there is no technological reason to do so, is
yet another attempt by the Internet cabal to enforce its control over the
Net.
As part of that control, the cabal has set up what it calls the
Council of Registrars, which will operate under Swiss law. Companies are
encouraged to submit applications to become an official registrar of domain
names under the council. Only companies accepted by the council will be
allowed to compete in the open market to register new domain names, as
approved by the memo. Small catch: In order to be "approved" companies must
first sign onto the memo and pony up $10,000.
To take care of trademark disputes, the council will have an appeals
tribunal known as the "administrative domain name challenge panel."
This is seen as a threat to intellectual property and trademarks by
Andrew L. Sernovitz, president of the Interactive Media Association and
founder of the Open Internet Congress, a group dedicated to thwarting the
efforts of the Internet cabal.
The panels "conduct their work in Geneva or via online discussions,"
Sernovitz says in a document on his group's web site. "You will have no
right to a face-to-face defense against your challenger, he says.
Further, "During the challenge period, your Internet address can be
suspended," Sernovitz says. "If you lose a case . you will have lost your
rights forever. There is no appeals process and there is no one to sue."
THE POWER GRAB
The cabal is moving this process forward on a fast track, claiming
that action must be taken quickly to keep the Internet from folding in on
itself. This hurry-up stance goes against the entire culture of the Internet
and is yet another reason why critics claim the memo is simply a power grab.
The moves by this cabal are set on a train wreck course with the
U.S. government. Currently a government interagency working group is asking
the Internet community for suggestions on how to handle the domain name
issue. On July 2, the Commerce Department put a notice in the Federal
Register seeking comments on how to proceed with the issue. "The Government
has not endorsed any plan at this time but believes that it is very
important to reach consensus on these policy issues as soon as possible,"
the notice says.
HANGING IN THE BALANCE
In discussions with dozens of people ranging from industry to
government officials, a theme I keep hearing is that this structure of
global governance for the Internet won't stop at domain names. "The
governance models that we choose today for the Internet will be the ones
that are placed on society in the next century," a U.S. government official
told me, in what he admittedly called a "messianic" remark. "Sometimes this
thought keeps me up at night."
I won't go that far, but I do know that setting up a global body
that operates on the U.N. model will sound the death knell for an open and
thriving spirit of innovation and cooperation that has driven the Internet
to date. Such a governing body, emboldened by a successful domain name coup,
isn't likely to stop there. They will take on other issues, such as content
and marketing, in a kind of cyberspace governing mission creep.
Let's hope that enough people respond to the Commerce Department's
notice in time for the government to step up and stop the Internet cabal
before it puts its plan into action.
Meeks out ...
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
