Here's one from the archives:
>__________________________________
>
>Statement of Andrew L. Sernovitz
>President, Association for Interactive Media (AIM)
>
>House Subcommittee on Basic Research
>House Science Committee
>September 30, 1997
>
>
>I. Introduction
>
>Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee. I appear
>before you today on behalf of the employers, consumers and citizens who
>benefit from a stable, growing Internet. My name is Andy Sernovitz, and
>I am President of the Association for Interactive Media.
> AIM represents over 250 companies that are involved in all
>aspects of the Internet, including entertainment companies, cable and
>phone companies, marketers, advertising agencies, educational
>organizations, Internet developers and many other diverse organizations
>involved in new media. What sets us apart from other organizations is
>that we represent tens of thousand people who earn their living through
>the Internet and who work at major American employers who have committed
>a significant part of their economic prospects and billions in
>investment capital to the continued growth and stability of the
>Internet.
>
>II. A Transition to Private Sector Administration of the DNS System
>
>We have been asked to testify regarding the transition of the domain
>name system to private sector control. We have spoken with our members
>and conducted informal surveys of senior executives at hundreds of U.S.
>companies. I can assure you that they are highly supportive of the
>course of action being taken by this committee -- an orderly transition,
>supervised by the U.S. government, to private sector administration of
>the domain name system.
>Secretary Irving's testimony highlighted principles that are strongly
>supported by the Internet community, including the stability of the
>Internet and broad access to it. It is equally important that we also
>focus on a transition that protects the interests of U.S. citizens,
>protects the investment of U.S. businesses and recognizes the authority
>of the United States government.
>
>III. The IAHC Plan
>
>There appears to be a growing presumption that this transition will
>ultimately transfer authority to some form of the plan advocated by the
>group known as the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC). In the
>absence of another plan or suggestion, and in the absence of action by
>this committee, that is the most likely outcome.
>It is in that light that I focus my testimony on the dangers and
>deceptions involved in supporting the IAHC. We advocate that there has
>been far too little examination of the history of the IAHC and the
>parties involved, and the fact that their activities are not necessarily
>in the interests of the United States and of the Internet's users.
>To be clear, our members believe that the proponents of the IAHC are
>taking advantage of the transition period to acquire and secure total
>control over the Internet's Domain Name System. Furthermore, the
>implementation of the IAHC's plan is being actively pursued as we speak
>and this implementation threatens to subvert the efforts of this
>committee and the United States to accomplish an orderly transition.
>Other witnesses have expressed their concern that private sector
>businesses have not been involved in the domain name process. We
>maintain that the private sector has not been involved or supportive
>because the only proposal offered to date, the IAHC plan, is harmful to
>the interests of the business community. Any U.S. agency that allows
>power over the Internet to flow to the IAHC without proper investigation
>of its true nature is likely to be held accountable by consumers and
>industry if anything happens that destabilizes the Internet.
>If the IAHC plan is implemented, even with modifications, it will
>seriously weaken the authority of the United States government over this
>critical issue, and will effectively sink the hopes of an orderly
>transition to a representative private sector initiative. As we sit
>here, the IAHC is actively assuming control of the domain name
>infrastructure. While the U.S. government is developing its transition
>plan, IAHC is opening up new domain name registries, hiring contractors
>to develop software and is beginning full operations. IAHC is in the
>process of setting up a full administrative infrastructure for the
>Internet in Switzerland, entirely outside of U.S. oversight.
>While their representatives tell you that they intend to work to support
>the efforts of this committee, their actions speak differently. While
>we all work toward a cooperative solution, IAHC is well along the way to
>cutting all of us out of the process completely.
>The supporters of IAHC will tell you otherwise. They have worked to
>hide and obscure the true nature of their activities. Opponents to IAHC
>have been subject to vicious, highly public, and personal attacks by
>members of the Policy Oversight Committee. Few people are left who will
>voice open concerns about this plan.
>The evidence of IAHC's true motives, however, is clear and is written in
>their own hand. It is vital that each of us study the charters and
>memoranda that constitute the IAHC plan. There can be no doubt that the
>IAHC plan grants great powers to the members of their organization, at
>the expense of the U.S. government and U.S. citizens. The documents
>written by IAHC are submitted as exhibits with this testimony. Their
>charter clearly and indisputably grants them powers that must not be
>allowed to be held by private citizens who are not subject to effective
>oversight.
>
>IV. Deceptions in the IAHC Plan
>
>A. The IAHC Plan grants total authority to the Internet Society and
>IANA
>The IAHC was originally convened by the Internet Society (ISOC) and the
>Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) with the explicit purpose of
>granting them control over the domain name system. Their charter, the
>gTLD-MoU, was clearly written to cement the power of these two
>organizations. Examination of the evidence available to the public on
>their Web site confirms the following facts:
>* ISOC and IANA first proposed to take control of the domain name
>system on November 7, 1995. The IAHC is an attempt to wrap this claim
>to authority in a democratic cloak. Until the IAHC was proposed, ISOC
>and IANA openly claimed the jurisdiction over domain names and were
>discussing how to implement the takeover.
>* All power in the IAHC plan is vested in a Policy Oversight
>Committee (POC), of which IANA and ISOC control a significant share of
>votes. Additionally, ISOC controls the funding of other groups that
>hold votes on the POC such as IETF and IAB.
>* ISOC and IANA have veto power over all amendments to the MoU.
>No change in global domain name policy can ever be implemented without
>the consent of these two organizations. For example, if the U.S.
>Congress passes a law about domain names, ISOC or IANA have the power to
>stop implementation of that law into the domain name system, effectively
>giving ISOC and IANA a veto over Congress.
>* The MoU sets up a trademark dispute resolution process under
>WIPO. The registrars are required to follow the decisions of the WIPO
>process. This means that if the rule of U.S. trademark courts differ
>from the WIPO decisions, the WIPO ruling is implemented in the domain
>name databases. U.S. court decisions are rendered moot by POC's control
>of the technology used to run the domain name system.
>* WIPO, which gains authority over Internet trademarks under this
>plan, has sovereign international status and immunity. Why was this
>organization granted power over the trademarks of U.S. businesses? Will
>American legal precedents and trademark decisions be respected during
>disputes?
>* The WIPO system offers no appeals process for U.S. citizens that
>are hurt by its decisions, and WIPO sovereign status protects it from
>liability and lawsuits.
>* Registrars are required to sign the CORE-MoU, which requires
>them to follow the decisions of the POC and the gTLD-MoU. This means
>that anyone who wishes to become a registrar must support the total
>authority of the POC and the veto power of IANA and ISOC.
>* Registrars are required to sign documents indemnifying and
>absolving the members POC from all legal responsibility and liability -
>including for willful misconduct!
>Please take the time to study the gTLD-MoU, the CORE-MoU and the other
>documents that codify the power of the IAHC plan. There is no doubt
>that this organization was willfully and intentionally structured to be
>closed, non-responsive to public input, protected from legal liability,
>and outside U.S. jurisdiction. In the end, all power rests with IANA
>and the Internet Society.
>
>B. The IAHC Plan is non-democratic and is closed to public input
>The IAHC's claims to have created a democratic, accountable system are
>highly doubtful. IANA's Dr. Jon Postel testified before this committee
>that "Under the guidelines of the IAHC Plan the private sector is
>developing stable, consensus-based self-governing mechanisms for domain
>name registration and management that adequately define responsibilities
>and maintain responsibility."
>An examination of the gTLD-MoU, written by the IAHC, substantially
>contradicts this statement. The MoU actually grants significant powers
>to IANA and ISOC and intentionally denies input and accountability to
>the public, the United States government and American businesses. A
>careful reading of the plan shows that it includes the following
>questionable practices:
>* Membership in the POC is closed. Governments, business and
>consumer groups are excluded.
>* A Policy Advisory Body (PAB) was create to supposedly serve the
>role of opening up the IAHC to democratic and representative input. The
>PAB actually has no authority whatsoever. The gTLD-MoU was specifically
>written so that POC members are not required to follow input from the
>PAB.
>* PAB members must also first sign the MoU - meaning that anyone
>who wants democratic input must first acknowledge the authority of the
>POC along with ISOC and IANA's veto power.
>* WIPO and ITU hold seats on the POC. These are United
>Nations-type entities that do not answer to businesses, consumers or to
>the U.S. government.
>* The POC is set up as a Swiss corporation. When IANA and ISOC
>are based in the U.S., and approximately 80% of Internet users are
>American, why is control over the domain name system being moved
>offshore and outside of the jurisdiction or substantial influence of the
>United States?
>* There is no mechanism for input to this process from concerned
>businesses, citizens or governments.
>Apparently Dr. Postel neglected to mention in his testimony that
>consensus and self-government were subject to IANA's veto. He also
>neglected to mention that the IAHC plan frees him from legal
>responsibility and accountability to the public by forcing all
>participants to sign waivers protecting him and IANA from lawsuit.
>The IAHC proponents repeatedly promise that they will adjust the plan to
>change these power-grabbing provisions and open the process to public
>input. There can be no doubt about the intent that went into this
>document. Over and over they have written policies to centralize their
>total control - yet their promises to liberalize participation go
>unfulfilled. ISOC and IANA have always planned to take control of
>domain name policy, and the IAHC is the vehicle with which they are
>doing it. Total executive veto power, complete exclusion of democratic
>input, and immunity from legal responsibility were not mere "boiler
>plate" provisions or typos - they were calculated power grabs.
>
> C. IAHC avoided public input.
>An examination of the fast-track timing of the actions of the IAHC
>raises doubts about their claims to have conducted an open process with
>intent to promote public input and open debate.
>* The IAHC was formed 11/11/96. Request for comments were sent to
>the regular mailing lists of the sponsoring organizations, with comments
>due 12/1/96. Anyone who wasn't already on their lists was unlikely to
>have received the proposal. No one was given sufficient time to analyze
>the proposal.
>* A draft plan of the gTLD-MoU was released 12/19/96 with public
>comment due 1/17/97. The final report of the committee was published
>2/4/97, and the final gTLD-MoU was published 2/28/97.
>* Most public meetings were held in Switzerland.
>The IAHC's accelerated procedures were at best too quick for proper
>debate and analysis, and at worst they were intentionally designed to
>exclude substantive public comment. It is not possible that meaningful
>input was solicited from the many stakeholders in the domain name system
>in just 90 days. Why were the meetings held in Geneva? If IAHC
>sincerely wanted input, why was the draft released so close to the
>holidays? What was the big hurry?
>To understand the extent to which the IAHC has succeeded in burying
>their activities from the public eye, look around this room for U.S.
>businesses. Billions of dollars have been invested in the Internet and
>much of that investment depends on a stable domain name system. These
>hearings would, and should, be packed with businesses. Few corporate
>representatives are here because the extent and nature of the IAHC plan
>has been intentionally obfuscated and downplayed by the IAHC.
>
>D. IAHC avoided input from the United States Government.
>IAHC made little effort to inform or involve the U.S. Government or this
>committee of their plans to take over the domain name system. Despite
>the fact that this plan had been in operation since 1995, no one has
>asked for or been given the endorsement of the U.S., even though the
>U.S. Government built the Internet and was funding IANA.
>IAHC's views as to the role of the U.S. government is best presented in
>their own words.
>David Crocker represents IANA on the interim Policy Oversight Committee
>and is a leader in the IAHC. He wrote the following analysis of the
>U.S. Government's authority over IAHC and domain name policy:
> "One line of criticism holds that IANA doesn't have
>authority and the IAHC doesn't have authority. Or it holds that
>authority can't be given away without formal, US government review and
>permission. From the standpoint of reasonableness and logic, such
>concerns miss the reality of IANA's 10+ years of oversight and authority
>and miss the unavoidable reality that the Internet is now global. There
>is no benefit in staking the DNS out as a US resource; this way be
>dragons. There is no benefit in refuting IANA's authority; no
>alternative management scheme exists or is proposed or, therefore, has
>community consensus. Never mind that IANA has done an excellent job. The
>IAHC plan rests on the well established authorities of IANA and ISOC and
>on the voluntary support of signatories. The latter means, quite simply,
>that the IAHC plan is self-enabling. Hence, challenges about prior
>authority are rendered meaningless."
>Crocker's complete dismissal of the possibility that the U.S. should
>have authority pales compared to ISOC President Don Heath's comments to
>a reporter at CNET:
> "The ad hoc committee has said it doesn't need the U.S.
>government's approval to go ahead with its plan. Appointed by the
>Internet Society, the committee says it has direct control of the
>computers that run the Net's addressing system through the Internet
>Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). The government has "no choice" but to
>go along with its plans, IAHC chair and ISOC president Don Heath has
>said. (The Internet Society is a trade group that has taken under its
>wing many of the Internet's pseudo-governmental committees left homeless
>by the National Science Foundation's withdrawal from the Internet.)"
>This committee and Congress represent American interests. IAHC has slid
>their plan past the public, past the executive branch, and now they are
>attempting to slide it past this committee. This hearing is the last
>stand to answer the hard questions about the IAHC on behalf of 50
>million American Internet users who will be affected by their plan.
>
>V. IAHC is subverting the United States Government's transition
>plan
>
>The IAHC is actively working to complete their takeover of the domain
>name system before this committee and the Administration can implement
>their own plans. They pretend to offer their cooperation, yet they are
>actively setting up assets and infrastructure offshore to complete a
>takeover as soon as possible. Specific actions and deadlines include:
>* IAHC has opened up the application period for new registrars and
>has already given new registrars the right to go into the domain name
>business. The application period ends October 16. While this committee
>and the inter-agency task force are beginning to develop an action plan,
>POC is already accepting money to put for-profit registrars in business.
>* POC sponsored a meeting in New York September 4 and 5 to begin
>implementing a shared registration system and database. They announced
>that the system will be operational by February 7, 1998.
>* The POC has already requested bids for software to operate their
>new registration system. These bids are due October 3, 1997.
>* POC has published November 1, 1997, as the estimated date that
>the shared repository will go online, and January 15, 1998, as the
>estimated start date to begin accepting registrations.
>There can be no doubt that the IAHC intends to take full control of the
>domain name system in the next 120 days. They are rapidly moving ahead
>to implement their plan without regard to the interests and intentions
>of the U.S. government.
>While all interested parties are participating in good faith in these
>hearings (and with the inter-agency task force) to plan a transition to
>private sector administration, the IAHC is attempting to subvert these
>efforts with their own preemptive operation.
>While we are here discussing protecting the stability of the Internet
>and of the domain name system, they are co-opting the process and
>setting up their own system in Switzerland. While we work, they are
>accepting registration fees, buying software and installing servers. I
>am unsure how Dr. Postel and Mr. Heath can sit before this committee and
>offer support for the committee's efforts toward a transition plan -
>while actively attempting to do an end-run around the U.S. government.
>There is no doubt that the IAHC intends to have a fully operational
>domain name system in place shortly, set up outside the jurisdiction of
>this government and in defiance of the plans of this committee. Unless
>these actions are stopped, IAHC will have control of domain names before
>the new year.
>
>VI. Who is the Internet Society and IANA?
>
>By now it is evident that the world Internet community, American
>Internet users and the United States government are going to be impacted
>by the actions of the Internet Society and IANA. They base their claim
>to authority on the fact that ISOC supposedly represents the Internet
>community and IANA has technical authority. Considering that they have
>given themselves veto power, it is important to examine these
>organizations further.
>
>A. The Internet Society
>
> At best, the Internet Society is not the global authority it
>claims to be. ISOC has approximately 6000 members who pay $35 a year
>for a membership card and a magazine. There are more Internet users
>represented by the House staff than the Internet Society. ISOC does not
>represent the broad-based Internet Community, they do not represent
>American business interests and they cannot be held accountable to the
>U.S. government or the U.S people.
>More significant is the ISOC Board of Trustees. Presumably, the ISOC
>Board will be the entity that exercises the veto power that ISOC holds
>over domain name policy. These board members are a tightly knit cabal
>of individuals that have been re-electing each other to Board seats
>since ISOC was founded. Dr. Postel also has a seat on this board.
>These individuals have arrogated themselves the authority to run the
>international domain name system, and consequently should be subject to
>thorough evaluation. ISOC claims their authority is derived from
>representing the public, and they have inserted themselves into the
>public eye through their claim to leadership on this issue. If so, they
>should be held to the same degree of accountability and scrutiny as all
>public officials. Their biographies are available on the at
>http://www.isoc.org/trustees/trustees.html.
> ISOC will also be appointing two representatives to the Policy
>Oversight Committee. The list of nominees for these seats are included
>with this testimony. The ISOC Board will chose the representative to
>POC from this list in closed-door meetings. Again, these nominees will
>be running an international organization that will impact all of our
>vital interests. Each of these candidates should be held to the same
>public scrutiny as any public official.
> ISOC claims that their power is derived from the community, and
>they represent the populist interests of the Internet. By contrast,
>this is actually a closed group who picks their representatives to
>international delegations through closed board meetings. This is a
>group that does not answer to the United States government and does not
>protect the interests of U.S. businesses. The fact that they are in the
>process of setting up their domain name power base in Switzerland
>reinforces this impression.
> It is vital to evaluate ISOC's board members in light of their
>self-given veto powers. ISOC's Board, in it's sole and unreviewable
>discretion, gets to decide if U.S. law about domain name policy will be
>enforced or respected by the POC. For example, let's say that the U.S.
>Congress passed a law regarding encryption procedures on the Internet
>that somehow had to be implemented through the domain name
>infrastructure. We know that ISOC's board has lobbied against U.S.
>encryption policy. They could use their veto power to prevent this
>hypothetical law from being implemented.
> Is this committee prepared to delegate such sweeping
>international powers to the Internet Society? If the IAHC plan is
>implemented, the U.S. Congress will have given Mr. Heath and the ISOC
>Board the veto rights to override Congressional actions.
>
>B. IANA
>
>The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has massive power over the
>Internet. It is quite possible that the handful of academics who run
>IANA have more control over the Internet than anyone else in the world.
>It is of great concern that IANA operates without significant oversight
>or a backup plan should they fail to successfully implement their
>duties. IANA is also a federally funded government contractor.
> IANA controls the information necessary to operate the domain
>name system. The IAHC plan is only possible because of IANA's
>cooperation in turning over its resources to the IAHC. The U.S.
>governments' transition plan also will require the full support of IANA.
> IANA has been double-dealing the United States government and
>has violated a trust with the Internet Community. IANA is a contractor
>hired to operate a specific project for the United States. While
>conducting this role, IANA has been planning to transfer these same
>operations offshore and outside of U.S. jurisdiction. If allowed to
>succeed, IANA will set a precedent that it is acceptable for defense
>department contractors to transfer their assets to Swiss corporations
>without consequence.
> This behavior demands immediate intervention at the highest
>level. By what authority has this federal contractor installed itself
>as the head of an international organization, the IAHC? IANA's
>authority was derived from and paid for by the U.S. They have now taken
>that power and are actively working to circumvent U.S. authority. This
>cannot be allowed to proceed without significant loss of U.S. control
>over the Internet, with consequent harm to U.S. citizens and businesses.
>
>I would suggest that this committee begin a full investigation of this
>grave betrayal of the national trust and begin work to recover the
>assets being shipped overseas. A GAO investigation as to IANA's use of
>federal funds would also be appropriate.
>
>C. The Policy Advisory Body, NetNames and Libya
>
>Anthony Van Couvering is the Chairman of the Policy Advisory Body. As a
>leader in the IAHC plan, he was host of the September 4 and 5 meetings
>in New York where the new IAHC registrars met to plan implementation of
>the IAHC registration system. He is also founder of NetNames, a
>seven-employee domain name registration operation. He is a New York
>resident and an American citizen, NetNames is a U.S. corporation.
>
>NetNames is the registrar for the Libyan government. If you want a
>Libyan domain name, NetNames processes your application, accepts your
>money and presumably forwards a share of the funds to the Libyans.
>
> Net Names has also been actively using the trademarks of U.S.
>companies and operating them under the Libyan domain. This is strikingly
>similar to the procedures which have used by unscrupulous individuals
>who have attempted to greenmail companies for profit. Trademarks that
>have been registered by NetNames include: Intel, Estee Lauder, Pfizer,
>British Petroleum, Goodyear and Netscape.
>
>An immediate investigation must be launched to stop this blatant
>violation of the U.S. bans on dealing with Libya and executing contracts
>benefiting the Libyan government. If this is how the leader of the PAB
>does business, how much faith can we have in the IAHC process?
>
> Please note that the only possible way that NetNames could have
>become the registrar for Libya is to have submitted an application to
>IANA. Did IANA, under contract to the federal government, knowingly
>execute agreements benefiting the Libyan government and enable U.S.
>citizens to work for the Libyans? On a similar note, the registrar for
>the Iraqi domain is in Richardson, Texas, again, IANA had to approve
>this relationship.
>
>
>
>VII. Who supports the IAHC?
>
>IAHC's support is extremely weak. The last published report contained
>150 signatories, but those numbers are inflated. An analysis of the
>list release September 15 reveals that:
>* The list has been padded with 11 chapters of the Internet
>Society
>* 9 signatories are affiliates of the IAHC sponsors
>* At least 11 companies that want to get into the registration
>business
>* The only governments to sign are Albanian State Department of
>Posts and Telecommunications and the Moscow Patent Bureau
>* ITU and WIPO have not signed
>There is no broad-based support for the IAHC plan. The lack of
>significant signatories is evidence that U.S. businesses who have seen
>the plan have rejected it. Few are signing the gTLD-MoU because it is
>the tool of self-appointed autocrats and it is bad for Internet
>businesses and the United States.
>
>VIII. Suggested actions by the U.S. Government
>
>The Association for Interactive Media suggests that this committee take
>the following actions in order to protect the United States' authority
>over the Internet.
>
>1) Formally stop the implementation of the IAHC plan before they
>take control of the domain name system, subvert the authority of the
>U.S. government, and possibly destabilize the Internet through their
>aggressive tactics.
>2) Immediately secure control of IANA, its operations, and its
>databases before control is transferred overseas. IANA's operation
>represents a vital national asset that is in danger of being lost to
>this country.
>3) Launch an investigation into the abuse of power by IANA, its use
>of federal funds, and its taking advantage of responsibilities entrusted
>to it by the United States government.
>4) Investigate IANA's role in enabling the Internet activities of
>rogue nations.
>5) Proceed on the committee's original plan for an orderly
>transition to private sector control of the domain name system.
>
>
>
>IX. Conclusion
>We are blessed here with a phenomenon that rarely occurs in government.
>We actually have a consensus and agreement on the essential elements
>needed to improve the domain name system. This committee can count on
>the strong support of the Internet industry as it pursues this
>transition.
>It is unfortunate that those backing the IAHC plan are actively working
>to derail this solution. We recommend that this committee thoroughly
>investigate the IAHC and its backers before their operation is allowed
>to be develop any further.
>At the same time, we eagerly support the efforts of this committee and
>the administration in its well-guided efforts to effect a successful
>transition of the domain name system to the private sector, and will
>work to assist this initiative.
>Thank you.
>
