FYI:
Some of the names have changed,
but the story remains the same:
======================================
[Early August, 1997]
http://www.msnbc.com/news/wwwashington.asp
Domain Names and the Threat to the Net
A tale of intrigue, double-dealing and global power struggles
by Brock N. Meeks, MSNBC
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....
1997 MSNBC
