"Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ronda Hauben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><snip>
>>
>>The real problem that the DNS wars show is that the U.S.
>>government doesn't seem to be supporting the needed scientific
>>research about how to provide for the scaling of the Internet.
>
Jim
>In my opinion, you raise some very good points, but I am not sure
>I agree with your conclusions. Firstly, you appear to be interested
>in "more" government and you start by trying to show that the
>government is not involved, then show things are not good, and
>then conclude more government is needed to make things better.
Good your raise this difference.
It is an important one.
The kind of government that I am battling for is the kind of
government that helped to build the Internet.
I have often and in various ways pointed to the U.S. Federal
District Court in Philadelphia decision in the CDA case which
says that the Internet is a unique new means of global communication
and the laws to deal with it have to take into account its unique
nature.
What you say reminds me of the lessons of the civil rights movement
and other movements. The U.S. government was part of the problem
in the ways that black people in the South were abused. But the
battle was to get the U.S. government to change what it did
so what it did would stop the problem, rather than help to
encourage it.
There is a similar situation with what is happening with
ICANN and the U.S. government now.
ICANN is actually the U.S. government hiding what it is doing
because what it is doing is not what is appropriate or helpful
or allowed.
Instead of hiding to do what is harmful, it is necessary to have
the U.S. government be openly involved in doing what is needed.
To say no government only puts government in the hands of the
powerful entities who want the Internet as their private
plaything for their own fortunes.
The U.S. government has an obligation to all the people.
But it can only serve that obligation if it is out in the
open with what its role is.
That is why there needs to be a clear and healthy role for
the U.S. government.
My proposal called on the U.S. government to fund some researchers
who would begin to create an open means of making it possible
for folks on the Internet to know what they are doing and to
participate in what they are doing.
It also provided for a prototype that would look at the
problems that had developed and identify the aspects of the
IANA functions that were functioning in good ways. Also it
provided for an effort to figure out how to protect these
vital functions of the Internet from the commercial and
other pressures.
These are some of the real tasks that were needed to begin to
deal with the IANA functions which are so crucial to scaling
the Internet.
I proposed a role for government, to provide funding for the
researchers and provide a way to protect them from the behind
the scenes entities trying to grab these central functions
of the Internet.
The U.S. government is needed to take on that role, and to
support researchers to do what is needed to create the prototype
forms that will make it possible for IANA to be in a protected
situation.
No private sector entity can do that.
And as the U.S. government does that, it is possible, and my
proposal provided for a way for other governments to participate
in a real way in a real task.
If there were any honesty in what the U.S. government is
doing it had to fund my proposal, as it needed to explore the
possibility of diverse prototypes to see what would solve
the problems.
But the U.S. government isn't trying to solve the real scaling
problem, it is only doing what it can to cover up an illegal
and illegitimate power grab.
I realize the problem has gone on for a while.
But I have traced it to before the DNS debates started - that
somehow the U.S. government decided to maneuver, rather than
to take up the real issue.
Ronda
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
