Well, since Brock and Jay continue to claim the truth for statements that
are factually incorrect, it seems that a bit of detailed analysis is called
for. Given the number of errors in the article, you'll understand why I
was trying to avoid the exercise...
I'll add a wish that folks didn't find the need for such personal,
excessive and unprofessional language when voicing their disagreements. It
mostly serves to substantiate that the speaker is more interested in
emotion than being careful.
At 08:08 PM 4/23/99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>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.
Some of us DO believe that allocation of TLD registry authority is pretty
important, but the hyperbole is a tad extreme. Still, this is NOT an
example of being fact-challenged, just emotional, and we all have those
moments.
>It starts with a group of self-appointed technocrats, a kind of Internet
Fact errors 1 & 2: Other than Don Heath, none of the participants were
self-appointed. Further about half of the committee comprised long-term
geeks, 1/4 were lawyers and 1/4 administrators. By my own measure, fewer
than half could reasonably be called technocrats.
>cabal, which operates with no authority of law or formal governance, which
Fact error 3 and 4: The IAHC committee operated under the auspices of IANA
and ISOC. IANA had responsibility for DNS operations from its inception,
more than 10 years earlier, and ISOC provides the legal base for IETF
standards work.
Though I'm not a lawyer, those who are have made clear to me that the law
is based on precedent and more than 10 years of practise DOES count. So
the IAHC work had strong basis both in law and Internet
administration/governance.
>has simply rushed in to fill the power vacuum on the Internet, which has,
>since inception, operated in a spirit of consensus and community.
Fact error 5: I've no idea what "power vacuum" is being cited. The
committee operated under the authority of an existing 'power' structure and
at all times acknowledged that structure's authority, claiming none for
itself, except as was delegated to it.
I suppose that Brock might find a way to clarify his statement to make the
'fact' at least plausible.
>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.
Back to hyperbole. I'd guess that it wouldn't be tough to prove that this
claim false, but it's not the sort of factual error I'm concerned about, so
we'll let it slide.
>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.
Fact error 6: A small point, but it shows the continuing pattern of
carelessness. .gov and .mil were not part of this topic. The scope of
effort was restricted to gTLDs. THe article nicely neglects to mention two
years of community effort to resolve the question of additional gTLD names
and the fact that the 'cabal' was appointed by a range of different
organizations, gaining the support of more than 200 organizations
worldwide, with substantial open discussion and revisions made in direct
response to that public discussion. As such:
Fact error 7: The term cabal is an example of hyperbole that mostly shows
a failure to understand the process which took place.
>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.
Fact error 1, repeated: continuing to say that it was self-appointed does
not make it true.
Fact error 8: Only one closed meeting was held in Geneva. The other was
open. Another closed meeting was in San Jose and another in
D.C. Obviously, that isn't the sort of error to worry about.
The serious error is the failure to cite the extensive open discussions
held online during the entire process and the modifications to the proposal
that came directly from that process.
To anticipate a likely rejoinder: having private discussions isn't
antithetical to open processes. Take a close look at the real world,
including the IETF.
>The group set up a U.N.-style international tribunal that operates under
Fact error 9: Perhaps there is a definition of "U.N.-style international
tribunal" that can be made to fit the POC/CORE structure that was
developed, but I doubt it. At the least, the structure was not "between
nations" and that is what "international" means. In other words, it was
quite pointedly not a treaty organization.
>the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union, which has
Fact error 10: Again, we could probably find that the usage of "auspices"
has some sort of plausible application, but it would only be a
technicality. The ITU was very much a secondary issue to the development
and implementation of the POC/CORE structure. Had the ITU chosen to be
uninvolved, it would not have affected any of the significant details one
bit, except that we would have held the two Geneva meetings elsewhere, I
suppose.
>headquarters in Geneva. The group steadfastly contends that the process has
Others have noted the serious problem with implying that there is something
wrong in basing an activity in Geneva. Americans, as well as
non-Americans, should be deeply offended by such an attitude.
Still, it's factually correct that that is where the ITU is, so it doesn't
make the error list.
>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
Fact error 11: As cited above, quite a few organizations formally
supported this activity. In fact, the opponents were very few in number,
but very damn effective at lobbying the White House.
>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.
In fact, it is Jay and a few others that have worked only on the matter of
power, For them, that is all it is. That was very much not what the
original effort was about.
>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
Fact error 12: The effort was to CREATE the end of the monopoly, not
anticipate it. The difference is significant.
Initiation of excessive fees, far beyond anything necessary for cost
recovery, was the final straw, although dissatisfaction with NSI's
operation had festered for some time.
>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
Fact error 13: Funding was from the US government; authority was from the
Internet technical and operations community.
Alas, the White House got this point wrong, also.
That's not to say that the structure did/does not need to evolve.
>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.
It also happens to have a formal relationship with the IETF, which includes
the IAB, which is the ACTUAL body under which IANA operates.
>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.
Fact error 13: Something which explicitly acknowledges the established
authority of IANA over it and which is thoroughly constrained to gTLDs (not
even all TLDs) is hardly something that is setting up a global governance
scheme for the future of the Intenret.
>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.
It fell to lots of people to circulate the memo. The ITU was just one effort.
>To date, the memo has garnered more than more than 150 signatories.
I believe the final count was around 220. In addition, 90 companies signed
up to be registrars (though, of course, there is overlap between the two
groups.)
>However, those signatories come with a huge caveat: not a single
>government, save Albania, has signed on.
Fact error 14: It was originally thought that having governments sign
would be a good thing. It was eventually realized that it would create
problems as was dropped as a goal.
>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,
Fact error 15: The ire came from only a tiny group. Acceptance was quite
broad. Take a look at the list of signatories.
Alas, none of us appreciated just how effectively a few, well-funded people
could lobby the White House, or how ignorant the White House was of actual
Internet operations, in spite of considerable effort to educate them.
>"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.
Fact error 16: As usual, Tony's pronouncements about such things are just
plain wrong. There is nothing about the MoU which is
intergovernmental. Tony is welcome to provide details to substantiate his
claim, but it is worth noting that he is consistent in failing to do so.
>Remember, IANA and ISOC have absolutely no formal authority to proceed with
Fact error 3 and 4, repeated: Remember, IANA had 10 years of operational
precedence and ISOC has formal arrangements with the IETF, under which IANA
operates.
>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
Fact error 17: The cable called for a review of the process; it formally
and explicitly took no stand. The U.S. government repeated that statement
of "no position" during the open Geneva meeting.
Further, the ITU member review that was subsequently conducted unanimously
approved the ITU action. And the U.S. participated in that unanimous
consensus.
>"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.
Fact error 18: Technical experts are in agreement that we don't know what
the limit is but that things are probably safe up to about 2,000 top-level
domains and very possibly might be unsafe above that.
After that, the experts' opinions diverge. Some experts are concerned
about operational impact after about 500. That strongly suggests the need
to an increase the number of TLDs slowly, to protect against operational
problems, since no one would be very happy with having the Domain Name
System cease to function.
Now, 2,000 might sound like a large number, but it isn't. Hence the need
for a mechanism to determine what TLDs to add.
>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.
Fact error 19: Limiting the number has a technical basis. On the other
hand, the initial, small number of 7 was a compromise worked out with the
International Trademark Association, which comprises rather more than just
major international corporations. (In fact, my understanding is that it
was a couple of such corporations that independently decided that they
could not even live with 7 and did their lobbying thing with the Whtie House.)
In any event, the 7 was stated as only an initial set, with others to follow.
>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.
Fact error 20: Paying attention to the needs of the Internet means paying
attention to the needs of everyone, including those horrible suits. If the
Internet takes a step which destabilizes fundamental processes, then those
horrible suits will do more than lobby the White House casually, they will
find ways to take over the net, through their governments.
"Paying attention to" does not mean caving in to a particular constituency
but it does mean, well, paying attention.
>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.
Fact error 19: repeated.
>As part of that control, the cabal has set up what it calls the Council of
>Registrars, which will operate under Swiss law.
Repetition of offensive, ethnocentric implications. Tsk. Tsk.
>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.
Fact error 21: This one is an error by omission, since it fails to note
that all of the criteria were openly listed and highly objective, so that
anyone and everyone satisfying them was required to be accepted as a registrar.
>To take care of trademark disputes, the council will have an appeals
>tribunal known as the "administrative domain name challenge panel."
Fact error 22: The panels were optional. Registrants could choose not to
use them.
>This is seen as a threat to intellectual property and trademarks by Andrew
>L. Sernovitz, president of the Interactive Media Association and founder of
Fact error 23: Again, by omission, the failure to note that the panel had
strong support elsewhere represents inappropriately biased reporting. It
further fails to distinguish competent opinions (which oddly are mostly
people who support the panel approach) from opinions having no experiential
basis for claiming competence.
>the Open Internet Congress, a group dedicated to thwarting the efforts of
>the Internet cabal.
A bit of sour grapes, but I'll point out that the dedication was for media
attention, not actual work, as noted by the absence of OIC and its stalwart
leader from the fray for a long time, now.
>"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.
Fact error 24: online is permitted, not required.
>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."
Fact error 25: preemptive suspension (like an injunction) was a very, very
constrained tool, not nearly as available as the quotation implies.
>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.
Fact error 26: The activity came after two years of community discussion
and was pursued under pressure from the community that held those
discussions. It was perceived as "sudden" only by those who had no
awareness of the prior work.
>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.
The committee sent a draft report to the White House. That report has
never been made public. I wonder why?
>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
So, the detailed review suggests that I should have qualified my statement
to say that all of the "significant" assertions of fact were incorrect. Of
a total of 30, or so, a few minor assertions were correct.
That's not a reporting record to be proud of, or even to defend, much less
to get offensive about.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
