Power Politics and the New Internet Order
Copyright (c) 1999 Jay Fenello -- All Rights Reserved
Yesterday, a Wall Street based Investment Research Company
issued a strong sell/short sell recommendation on Network
Solutions stock. It also suggested that NSI had mislead
investors and potentially committed securities fraud.
NSI's stock plunged in response.
I believe that this is nothing more than Power Politics.
NSI is being targeted financially, and its officers are
being threatened with potential criminal actions. These
tactics are being used to break NSI's resolve to fight
for a competitive name space, and to force NSI to be
subservient to ICANN.
It reflects the huge power struggle that is occurring
behind the scenes, over the very future of the Internet.
This latest salvo is just the latest shot over the bow.
A Historical Perspective
The U.S. Government, through various defense contractors,
started the Internet. Over time, it moved into the research
community, finally ending up in the commercial realm. It also
moved from a U.S. based collection of networks, to a global
collection of networks. As these changes occurred, it out grew
the informal methods of managing Internet resources that had
existed before.
Problems first appeared when the name space started to get
crowded, and companies like Iperdome formed with the goal of
bringing new domain names to market. Although Jon Postel had
put forward several proposals to do this, a controversial
proposal known as the gTLD-MoU was presented as the solution.
The gTLD-MoU was controversial because it would have
confiscated all generic Top Level Domains, not only from
startups like IO Design (who had been running the .web
registry for approximately one year), but also from Network
Solutions. It would have established an authority control
model of governance, and it claimed ownership over the
entire name space.
After many complaints from the Internet community, the
U.S. Government, through Ira Magaziner, intervened with
both the Green and White Paper processes. The result of
these processes was the White Paper, a document that was
surprisingly supported by virtually the entire Internet
community.
The ICANN Controversy
The controversy begins with the selection of the ICANN
Board through some secret process, and the policies that
they are attempting to implement. This can most easily
be seen in their proposed guidelines for prospective
registrars.
With these guidelines, ICANN has, in effect, claimed
ownership over the entire gTLD name space. They have
also written their contracts so that their registrars
are completely subject to their whim. Most ironically,
these registrars will still be subject to contracting
with Network Solutions.
How will all this work? No one knows! In fact, ICANN
has just extended the deadline for prospective registrar
applications. They said that the registrars have too
many questions that have yet to be answered, little things
like the wholesale price of a registration, and the terms
of their contract with Network Solutions.
Solving the Wrong Problem
IMHO, the problems we are seeing are directly caused
by an overly aggressive ICANN trying to break the only
true threat to their total control over the gTLD name
space -- namely, Network Solutions.
What the spin doctors are conjuring up is a choice
between a big, bad monopoly, and a benevolent body
that will keep the name space fair and controlled
for everyone (with *controlled* being the key word).
Framing the issues in this way ignores the only true
solution to this dilemma -- true competition in the
gTLD name space.
My own Assessment
Having been involved in this debate for over two years,
as the president of Iperdome [a prospective registry
for the .per(sm) TLD], as one of the leaders of Open-RSC,
as a member of the IFWP Steering Committee, and as an
occasional consultant to NSI, I believe the following:
NSI has consistently acted in a professional manner,
looking out for its interests in the context of what's
best for the Internet. They have also been supportive
of minority positions, free markets, and bottom up
governance as reflected in the Paris Draft and their
court released letter to NSF suggesting competition
in the name space.
While some of their recent actions appear to be extreme,
I suspect that they were precipitated by the circumstances
surrounding their relationship to ICANN and the U.S.
Government.
Until I know for sure, I will reserve judgement.
On the other hand, the "Investment Research Company's"
Report sure looks like it was written by ICANN's PR firm.
Not only does it describe the world as if ICANN already
controls everything (and it doesn't), it presumes that
NSI has hidden this fact from its investors (and it
hasn't).
What it does highlight is how different the world
may look, depending on how ICANN is structured. If
it follows the White Paper, uses a bottom-up consensus
process, and adopts a light weight standards setting
approach, the world will be a great place.
If it follows the description as outlined in the
analysts report, then we are all in for are very
rocky road.
Better fasten your seat belts . . .
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
[P.S. Coincidentally, it was reported in the press
that Mike Roberts has a meeting with NSI tomorrow]
Copyright (c) 1999 Jay Fenello -- All Rights Reserved
