At 12:08 AM 6/11/99 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Paper is a mandate for Internet governance, not for technical
>coordination. In a
>direct debate with myself and Post in Washington May 6, J. Beckwith Burr
>did not even
>attempt to deny this. Most obviously, the WP calls for the linkage of
>domain name
Oh, well, then, that makes it official.
Of course, another possibility is that so many different people have denied
it, so many times, that it gets tiring to continue to refute the Big Lie
technique, trying to claim that this is about governance.
>There is an authoritative root server. All the rest download the zone
>files from it,
>and act as backups. There is no distribution of the responsibility for the
>authoritative zone files.
There IS distribution of the responsibility for USING that authoritative
zone file, Milton. Without cooperation of the other root servers, that
single source isn't very useful. Since those other root servers are
operated by volunteers, they are free to pull the data from
elsewhere. That's a very strong check on potential abuses by the operator
of the authoritative root.
> > there are
> > the further checks provided by the fact that the major ISP's ultimately
> > have the power to determine what name servers are actually used in the
> > Internet. Various efforts to create a different root environment, such
> > as alternic, have thus far failed because the leaders of the ISP
> > industry see more value in a transparent and interoperable Internet than
> > in one in which multiple root systems vie for attention.
>
>Can you spell "lock-in by network externalities," Mr. Roberts? Efforts to
>start
>alternative roots have failed for the same reason that an attempt to start
>up a new
>telephone system without interconnection to AT&T would have failed in
>1984. The value
Of, course, it couldn't be that those efforts for other roots systems were
rogue, piratical and accurately assessed as such, could it?
On the other hand, sufficient abuse of the existing root could quite
reasonable result in a consortium of ISPs choosing to operate a different
root.
The difference in effort at establishing such a root, compared with the
development of an alternative telephone infrastructure, makes the use of
the AT&T example inappropriate.
>of a root (or a telephone network) depends on the number of users
>connected to it. The
>legacy root confers great power to its controllers simply by virtue of the
>fact that
>it is the legacy root, and everyone points to it. It would take enormous
>coordinating
>efforts and impose great risks of isolation upon anyone who attempts to
>break out of
Considerable coordination, yes. That's a barrier. It means that small
abuses of the existing root are likely to be tolerated. But don't confuse
that with being impossibly high. You need to realize just how much
coordination already takes place among ISPs. Given that they already have
a coordination system, the important part of the 'infrastructure' effort is
already in place.
>its lock. That's why we have a problem with Microsoft and its dominance of PC
>operating systems, too. There is, in short, no way around the fact that
>control of the
>root creates the possibility of exercising governmental powers.
There is a difference between replacing millions of pieces of hardware --
or even millions of installations of operating systems -- with changing
some thousands of table entries.
Very different effort. It requires coordination, yes, but don't think that
makes it impossible. Sufficient abuse of the root will make that
coordination happen very quickly.
>The more ICANN starts to act like a government and exercise quasi-governmental
>regulatory powers, the less scary this great bogeyman of "government
>control" becomes.
>ICANN now has a Government Advisory Commission that operates behind the
>scenes and in
Really bugs you that someone, somewhere, holds discussions to which you
aren't invited, doesn't it?
That, of course, has nothing to do with the reality of ICANN processes, but
it makes wonderful conspiracy theory.
>closed-door meetings. The Chairman of the GAC claimed in public that
>governments
>around the world played a major role in "making ICANN happen." Is ICANN a
>way of
Nice job of using a small comment, out of the larger context, to impart
conspiratorial meaning.
>The problem with non-profits is that in the absence of market competition,
>expenses
>are highly elastic. ICANN did not need to hold its Berlin meeting in the most
Yes, that has been noticed, even among for-profits like NSI, that lack
competition.
This, supposes that there are no other checks and reviews of ICANN's
budgetary activity. Too bad that won't be the case.
But in truth, your line of concern is future fear, and the fact that the
future is never knowable means that indulging in what-if fears like this
provides infinite opportunities, but are of little practical benefit.
Unless one is interesting in fear-mongering, of course.
>Ah, Mr. Roberts. "Consent of the governed." You have lost your debate with
>Mr. Post.
Nice to know you have already been able to take a poll on the matter,
rather than just voice your own assessment. I'm assuming, of course, that
you haven't gone and confused the two.
>This is precisely the point we are trying to make. You are exercising
And sure enough, here came the royal 'we'.
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]>
