Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Someone attempts to cut to the heart of the matter ...
>----- Forwarded message from Ed Gerck -----
>Reflecting on the presentations and discussions at the .us meeting, it
>appeared to me that the most profound problem in all DNS administrative
>models and structuring proposals is still wholly ignored.
>This basic problem can be phrased into some questions, in varying
>depths, as:
>o "What is a name?",
>o "What is a name in a communication system (hereafter, NCS)?",
>o "What is a NCS in any DNS naming system such as .us?",
The bigger problem, however, that is ignored whenever one starts
to talk about the commercial interests coming together to figure
out their interest in an issue, is that there is a public interest
that is a more long term interest and that is being totally ignored
and worse still when there is an effort to propose it, it is
said by the commercial interests to be irrelevant and not appropriate.
The domain names of the Internet were created were certain reasons.
The main one was to make communication possible.
Other functions have now been attached to the naming functions,
other functions that would better be served by a public directory
system.
However this whole effort to privatize the domain naming system
and other names and numbers and protocols functions of the Internet
is intended to serve the commercial entities, to deny there is
any public interest, and in the process to freeze the development
of the Internet, rather than being able to look at a long term
perspective and move in the direction of that long term perspective.
Thus this process is only inviting those with a conflict of
interest in the future development of the Internet to be
involved in freezing Internet development and interferring
with the scaling.
A totally different process than the ICANN process would be
needed if the U.S. government or other bodies charged with
serving the broader public interest of the society were functioning
in any healthy way.
However in the U.S. today, the U.S. government entities are given
demands by commercial entities and the U.S. government entities cave
into those demands.
The longer term and broader interests of the society get no attention.
And where is the computer science community in all this? Early on
they recognized that there would be the effort to seize the fruits
of their work by commercial entities who could only have short
term self interests. And they worked to establish broader goals
and objectives.
Today, however, it is hard to see any representation for such a
broader and more public interest perspective on the part of the
computer science community as well.
What is happening with the seizure of the names and numbers
and plans for protocol and other scaling functions by private
interests reflects a very serious commentary on the fact that
commercial entities see no public responsibility to a broader
society and to the future and thus are demonstrating that they
are not concerned with the public interest of the present or
the future.
What started out as an issue of domain names and trademarks
has blossomed into the wholesale seizure of the scaling
mechanisms of the Internet by a very small set of people
who have appeared by some secret process and are funded
by s few large corporate entities.
And the U.S. NTIA is administering this seizure of public
assets and property by private entities and the U.S. Congress
hasn't followed up on the letters to investigate what is
happening issued by House Commerce Chairman Bliley last Fall.
And the U.S. press is basically silent on the seriousness
of the problem that this all represents, after writing several
helpful articles in Nov. 1998 documenting for the first time
the serious problems this U.S. government activity represents
for the Internet and the millions of people and computers
that are part of the Internet.
The Internet is made of up many networks around the world.
Those networks are diverse and are willing to cooperate
with each other via the glue that tcp/ip makes possible.
This internetworking is based on a cooperative process that
had developed and expanded via first the Network Working
Group and then the IETF in the process of developing
the protocols that would be utilized for the Internet.
The creation of ICANN as a dictatorial body of a few people
appointed by some secret process of U.S. government and
private corporate entities, and excluding the participation
of people around the world, is a sharp change in nature
and function of how the Internet has been administered.
A few people people, in secret processes are now making
decisions that will affect all the users to the Internet,
present and future. And yet those users in general have
no knowledge that this is happening, nor do they have
any way to participate in what is going on even if they
did have knowledge. This is a high stakes power grab
by those on the inside who know what is happening and
have the means to shoot for their piece of the high
stakes pie.
And what is actually at stake is totally lost in the
process. What is actually at stake is the fact that
there is a vision of an Internet that will make it
possible for all around the world who want to to be
able to communicate with others around the world
in a way that continues to grow and spread.
This is what is being bartered away by the barrons
of today in the name of their "stakeholder" interest.
They will have their noose around the neck of those
who have worked to contribute to the building of
the Internet so that it would represent a continually
scaling means of people to people communication.
That is what is at stake. And the public relations
firm of ICANN is doing its dardest to make sure
no one really knows what ICANN is up to or who
has created it or why it is moving so quickly to
seize all it can get away with and distribute.
The ICANN is supposed to be functioning under a
design and test 50% ICANN/ 50% NTIA Memorandum
of Agreement. However, there is NO sign of the
U.S. government oversight of anything ICANN does.
There is no design and test going on, only grabbing
and determining and announcing their acquisitions.
And though there are decisions within the U.S.
government forbiding the U.S. government from creating
such a creature, the U.S. government has created ICANN
and is functioning behind the scenes to send it out
into the world.
Last November the Chairman of the Commerce Committee
of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter
to the Chairman of the U.S. Commerce Dept and to
the Senior Advisor to the U.S. President who was
in charge of Internet activity asking for documents
about how the ICANN interim board of directors was
chosen, what role the U.S. government had had in
setting up ICANN, and several other important questions.
No word has been heard about whether these questions were
ever answered or what information the Chairman of
the Commerce Committee received.
This is a grave matter. The whole process is functioning
outside of any means of asserting the public interest
of all those people and businesses and libraries and
schools and universities, and governments that depend
on the ability of the Internet to function and to
be able to scale.
There needs to be an appropriate investigation into
how this has all come to pass, and into what is the
real social and public need that this activity of
ICANN is preventing from being addressed in an
appropriate way that will make it possible to
have the long term interests of all those dependent
on the Internet considered.
Ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt
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
