Craig,
Thanks for a very thoughtful message. Indeed, it does seem like ICANN--or
anything in its position--is whipsawed between its hybrid public/private
role. I'd like to think that 100% of the internet--rather than 99%--could
be decentralized, but there are lots of reasons to see centralization
occurring with or without those due process controls, or a public-minded
organization coordinating things like an authoritative root. It'd be
interesting to see what would happen in a world of multiple roots--I don't
see how anyone can authoritatively predict what would happen to the
internet of today with such things--and I'd hope ICANN's position would be
purely neutral with respect to it: "We just manage the old IANA root; set
up your own if you like and God bless!" ...JZ
At 04:51 PM 7/3/99 , you wrote:
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>
><snip>
>
> > If it makes you feel any better, I
> > object to ICANN's agenda to claiming
> > superior "property rights" over *all*
> > coordinated Internet assets.
>
><snip>
>
>Cool, so do I. We all share these assets, or as I prefer to call them,
>resources. We either all own them (which on this list means 'socialism'),
>or nobody owns them.
>
>Many private parties are involved in making the Internet, and in particular
>the DNS, work (and there would be many more with multiple roots), and their
>servers, routers and their local databases (but not the data in them) are
>unquestionably their private property. I've argued that the data
>themselves, the individual IP numbers and domain names, are not capable of
>being owned, but that one can hold certain rights to their use which look a
>lot like ownership. At a higher level of abstraction, those data, and the
>way they are manipulated by the private assets (or 'network resources'),
>start to look like a system, which leads us to look at the entire name
>space, and the entire number space, and the 'system' which they constitute,
>and say, hey, who owns those?
>
>I'd like to argue for the position that nobody owns them. They are more of
>a phenomenon. That's why I prefer to focus on the issue of how this
>*phenomenon* is managed, not who owns it. Opinions vary, of course, on how
>it should be managed, or whether it even needs to be or should be 'managed.'
>I agree with the idea that the Internet just happens out of the action of a
>lot of separate individuals who own their own corners of the network.
>However, at some point, all that separate action creates the phenomenon.
>The question of how such a phenomenon is managed does matter, because it
>impacts universal connectivity.
>
>Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
><snip>
>
> > Of course, this sub-thread started off on the issue of whether the DNS
> > root is a public resource or "private property".
>
> > Given that there can perfectly well be multiple roots, I would tend
> > towards, but I don't go all the way, towards the latter. But ICANN and
> > its regulation are being based on the presumption of a single, universal
> > root.
>
>I know multiple roots are possible. Lots of things which detract from the
>Internet as we know it are possible, but I don't think they are desireable.
>Lots of people use the Internet for lots of different purposes, and for
>some, an alternate (or 'non-IANA-recognized') TLD might work fine, but my
>understanding is that universal interconnectivity among all public Internet
>users, for which the Internet is now known, would be threatened by multiple
>roots, although I'm beginning to come around to the idea that multiple roots
>would result in a net _increase_ in _selective_ connectivity, just without
>the _universal_ interconnectivity which the IANA root has provided.
>
>A single root means somebody is going to hold some pretty serious power.
>Jon Postel handled it pretty well, and for being concerned with universal
>connectivity above all else is now referred to by some as a socialist. For
>most of his career, the Internet was a pretty homogenous place, ironically,
>given the diversity of networks which comprise the phenomenon. Now that
>people want to 'own' TLDs and sell registrations in them, among other
>things, those days appear to be over. I agree that the Internet's ability
>to accommodate multiple networks and even multiple roots demonstrate that
>nobody need be 'in charge' of it, but the goal of universal connectivity
>seems to require that somebody, unfortunately, be 'in charge'.
>
>One might argue that nobody need be in charge of the telephone network, or
>civil aviation networks, but on a practical level, it helps, because it
>makes the whole thing work better, in everybody's interest. Until Jon
>Postel's death, people were pretty cool with one person being loosely 'in
>charge' of the DNS (performing what Gillett and Kapor have called the "1%"
>of Internet coordination in their excellent article in Brian Kahin and James
>Keller's 1997 book, _Coordinating the Internet_), but the significance of
>that 1% has risen steadily along with amazon.com's share price. Both levels
>are ridiculously overblown and bear little relation to reality, but they
>demonstrate the incredible expectations that the world has of this humble
>network.
>
>Some would prefer that nobody be in charge, others would prefer that
>responsibility be distributed somehow, while others would like to see the
>USG remain in charge. The trick is finding the right balance. What I've
>tried to push is the idea that we all share this thing, that there are
>common elements which nobody owns, but which, on one scenario (that of
>preserving universal connectivity), must be coordinated. Who has the
>authority to do so? Damned good question. I don't think anybody knows.
>Who has authority to coordinate international civil aviation. Probably no
>one. But for everyone's sake, a governance structure has been created and
>maintained. It increases the usefulness of the network to everyone's
>advantage. I guess what I'm saying is that either no one will coordinate
>the Internet, or a legitimate international body will have to be created to
>continue the unquestionably valuable work of IANA.
>
>At one level, the Internet doesn't exist. I think this is what Tony is
>getting at when he says:
>
> > I would argue that no one should have "the authority to make exclusive
> > assignment of Internet identifiers." Indeed, there is no such thing.
> > You can today use any identifier you choose - and many institutions do.
> > However, unless you have made special arrangements, your traffic might
> > not end up in the right place. As a shared user network, the users
> > vote as to whose identifier system is used and on what terms, not
> > some higher authority - ICANN or otherwise.
>
>But at another level the Internet does exist. Whoever runs the dominant
>identifier system does accrue certain power. The current system is what the
>public thinks of as the Internet. That system has been governed since its
>inception. That governance structure is now evolving, and steps away from
>the IANA root are steps away from the public Internet, which many people
>think exists, and would like to see continue to exist.
>
>Many of the points of view expressed in this list can be divided up based on
>whether the poster thinks the Internet exists or not. I think it does. I'm
>not willing to concede that it doesn't because its promise to the world is
>too important. NTIA and ICANN appear to think that it does exist, but for
>many they are taking the power of coordination a bit too far. I would argue
>that they are simply trying to institutionalize the same power which IANA
>held, but every move they make highlights the fact that the contours of
>IANA's power have never been fully considered or documented. When Joe Sims
>writes it down, it doesn't look very nice. It no longer walks in sandals.
>But it is almost exactly the same power. It's all how you use it. What
>authority would Postel have had to add new TLDs? What authority would
>ICANN, or NSI, or NTIA? Nobody knows. This is all new territory.
>
>When people criticize ICANN's methods and power, some essentially argue that
>it should be more like a government, with due process controls and
>democratic authority before it imposes fees (which many erroneously call
>taxes - a curiously American predilection). No taxation without
>representation, they say. Wait a minute, I thought government was the
>problem, and the last thing we wanted was government. How ironic it is to
>hear the anti-government posters finally implicitly recognize that whoever
>does this job has to have legitimate authority and function in everybody's
>interests. Sounds like government, huh?
>
>It seems ICANN can do no right. When it acts like a government it gets told
>to stop it and butt out of a private network, but when it acts like a
>private corporation it is told to shape up and act more like a government.
>Authority, legitimacy, democracy - these are heavy-duty issues and are at
>the root of this ongoing circus. If we believe that the Internet does
>exist, and would like to see it continue to exist, then we have to find a
>workable combination of authority, legitimacy and democracy to support it.
>I don't think we've found it yet.
>
>Craig McTaggart
>Graduate Student
>Faculty of Law
>University of Toronto
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jon Zittrain
Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
