with the benefit of hindsight, I'd say the GIPsters jolly well engineered
us into the present mess and that Vint cerf in talking about global
internet governance knew pretty well what was coming.....
GIP ----> ICANN far more than I had ever imagined....
The Global Internet
Project
On October 28, 1997 Rick Wesson posted a Rueters news story to the IETF
list: Internet Companies Welcome Idea of Global Charter BRUSSELS (Reuters)
- A group of U.S., European and Japanese companies involved in the Internet
informally welcomed a European Union proposal to draw up a charter to
govern the global computer network. The companies, who have united as the
Global Internet Project (GIP), said they wanted to be involved in the
process, Peter F. Harter, global public policy counsel for Netscape
Communications, told Reuters.
"(They) will individually provide input as to how industry may play the
best role," he said following a meeting in Brussels. EU Telecommunications
Commissioner Martin Bangemann has proposed drawing up an international
charter to deal with questions such as technical standards, illegal
content, licenses, encryption and data privacy on the Internet and other
electronic networks.
On October 29 Carl Malamud, in a posting to the IETF list, blasted Bangeman
for having a record of no accomplishment and on the 30th of October Vint
Cerf stated: I think what the GIP companies are saying is that they'd
prefer a global rather than a regional framework for Internet governance -
however, I am surprised if they take the view that the European Commission
is the appropriate body to lead this effort. MCI is a member of GIP and I'm
looking into this to get details. I think it would be helpful if the EC
participates in discussions about Internet issues - especially those that
seem to require compatible legal frameworks around the world to support,
e.g. Digital signatures as a tool for electronic commerce. However, I think
we have adequate mechanisms already in place in which to discuss and agree
upon technical standards (IETF) and administrative functions (IANA, NICs,
CORE, etc).
On November 2 Einar Stefferud added: Well, I advise everyone to remember
that the Internet is actually like an economy. And I note that after many
decades of war and many millions of casualties, the world population and
almost all governments, corporations and other institutions have learned
that owning and centrally controlling an economy is not a good idea. All
governements that have attempted central control (e.g., "ownership") of an
economy seem to now wish they did not;-)...
I suggest that GIP members should all think very carefully before they
assert any kind of control over the Internet. I also would suggest that MCI
and Netscape have not yet shown that they really understand the Internet
all that well. So, what I see here is a continuation of the great question
of
"Who is going to be king of the Global Hill?"
My response is: "Who said we need one? In other words, who died an left
the GIP to be King?
Vint Cerf replied: GIP isn't trying to be King at all. It's just a group of
companies with a lot of interest in the healthy growth of the Internet and
they have opinions about policy, like everyone else. There is no cabal here.
Stefferud responded: I meant my "King..." comment in a more general sense.
What I see are two divergent camps: One that favors some kind of central
controlling authority; And one that favors a form of self organized bounded
chaos or complexity. I draw a comparison of the Internet to the Global
Economy, and note that though there are some broad agreements about
International trade and some regulation of aspects of the economy, there is
no central authority that controls it.
I favor the self organizing aspects of the global economy model over the
notion that the Internet requires some central authority to be in control.
In short, I do not believe any King of the Internet is a good King. No King
is much better.
If the GIP is a self organizing kind of effort, like a trade association
that speaks only for its own members, and tries to consider that others
also have important interests, and if they are open to public discussions
of the issues, then I have no problem with them. But, I keep seeing
overtones of closed discussions and avoidance of public challenges and
questions in too many aspects of the current DNS wars, and related Internet
Governance issues. I see many hidden agendas and lots of private
manipulation. In one view, this is just the process of self organization
politics at work in standard human behavior modes, so I find it
acceptable, but Also like to see open public debate of the issues;-)...
Frankly, I very much like the IETF model which required open public
discussion of issues in order to make progress. And, when I see the
IETF/IAB/ISOC structure drift off into closed meetings and see them use
obfuscation and "we have better information then you do" as answers to
questions and challenges, then I become very suspicious about the motives
and the games that are being played.
It is the opportunity for anyone to ask any question and expect a
reasonable answer from the community that guards against power grabs and
such. The Internet has a fine tradition for openly dealing with these
things in the past, with an occasional lapse into closed backroom decisions
which has often been called out and corrected by community members asking
hard questions in public. I am just continuing this fine old traditon.
I strongly suspect that many people agree with my tendencies to distrust
much of what has recently been passed off as "open discussion". What I am
detecting is more and more backroom maneuvering and manipulation. Clearly
there is a lot of jockeying for position going on here;-)... And clearly,
there is a lot at stake on all sides. I find it hard to believe there is
no cabal here.
Cerf replied: Stef: GIP publishes everything it does - that's its purpose,
to gather views of the members and make them widely known. They are
strongly in favor of competition and not in central controlling
authorities. You seem to want to put them in the "control camp" and,
frankly, they don't fit there.
On November 4, Mike Bracken, a British Journalist, wrote: my point is that,
however laudable the sentiments of the GIP and its members, it will
continue to be regarded with suspicion in some quarters so long as its
public utterances come from people who are also working within large
companies which obviously have a vested interest. That's why I suggested
having some sort of neutral, nominal head who could present the GIPs
arguments and be completely above the claim they are biased.
For instance, when I first reported on the GIP, the reaction I received was
skeptical. Top Microsoft employees in Europe poured scorn on it just
because of the involvement of Clark. Telco employees questioned BT's
motives, especially given its semi-protected position in the UK and the
inclusion of MCI within the GIP membership. I'm not saying these people are
right, far from it, but in such a competitive world, I can understand their
reactions. That's why a neutral spokes person seems to me to be needed.
Chris Rapier: The problem is that once corporations take control of
protocol formation the last thing you are going to see is innovation. This
might not have been true 5 years ago, but enough large companies have
enough invested in the internet to push their decision makers toward the
conservative end of the spectrum. So, while we may have an increased level
of stability in the protocols, I think you'll find less "new" and
"exciting" things actually getting out of the door. Instead you'll end up
with 53 byte ATM cells and compromise solutions that no one wants to use.
The nature of the net was such that one man with a good idea and a certain
amount of chutzpa could make a significant impact on the way things are
done. Its been getting more and more difficult for that to happen, but
something like GIP will most assuredly destroy this possibility.
Craig Partridge (BBN engineer) Fundamentally what makes the Internet
technology work, what has driven this boom in business, is its openness --
for the ability for anyone to develop a new application, *without*
coordinating with other folks, and launch it on the net. Consumers can
then decide what they want by acquiring the application or service. In
short, the net continues to be driven by people's ability to develop cool
and interesting things. I.e., where did the Web come from, or mobile IP?
In short, the openness of the network drives business, by creating new
business opportunities open to a fairly broad range of folks.
I agree that separation of business and personal interests is a good idea,
but I also believe that recognizing and announcing potential conflicts of
interest are appropriate in these matters.
Einar Stefferud: I never hide my business interests (as a private
consultant and a Co-founder of First Virtual Holdings Inc.), though I do
try hard to keep them out of affecting my IETF participation.
Given the little that I know about GIP, I have great difficulty seeing how
it is just a nice bunch of guys acting without regard to their direct
business interests, especially when they are involved with major
investments in Internet related initiatives, where-in the entire future of
their companies appear to be at stake. So, more complete (rather than less)
disclosure would help me to feel better about what the GIP is trying to
accomplish. I will agree that this all might just be a PR problem, but to
me this recognition does not eliminate the problem;-)...
I have been around this industry for a very long time, and I find startling
similarities in the words and the behavior here and in other situations
where the initiatives were not so benign as here claimed.
So, I suggest that you try to get GIP to mend its PR fences. Now that the
fat is in the fire, doing nothing about this will send a clear signal.
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cookreport.com
NOTE: Contempt in which ICANN PRES. MIKE ROBERTS holds rest of Internet:
"Some of those people think the management [ICANN] should check with the
public [the Communities of the Internet] every time they make a decision,
which is crazy," Roberts said. "That's flat-out crazy." WIRED NEWS 2/4/99
***************************************************************************
