Fall 2005 The Internet and W SIS Volume 13 No. 2
Editorial
From Public Internet to WSIS
[T]he effort at developing the Internet Protocols
was international from the beginning. Vint Cerf*
The development of the Internet was interna-
tional from its very beginning in 1973. Major contri-
butions to that development came from the interna-
tional research community with leadership, financial
support and encouragement from the United States
government. Because of the public nature of the
networks that were connecting to become the
Internet, there were acceptable use policies (AUP)
that restricted any non public or commercial use. The
result was that by 1990, an electronic commons was
unfolding and becoming attractive as a new public
communications media.
Just as the Internet was developing into this
public commons, the two major political parties in
the U.S. were consolidating a mutual support for
‘market economy’. That convergence manifested
itself in meetings at Harvard and elsewhere to privat-
ize and commercialize as much of U.S. society as
possible: education, health care and the Internet. The
U.S. government began its process to privatize the
Table of Contents
From Public Internet to WSIS.. . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
Who Will Control Internet Infrastructure. . . Page 2
International Origins of the Internet. . . . . . . Page 4
IFWP 1998: No Consensus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9
Internet an Int’l Public Treasure Proposal. Page 10
Who Are the Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13
Netizen List DNS Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . Page 14
Cone of Silence.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24
*
Internet at such a meeting in 1991. No public discus-
sion or debate was encouraged. Evidence for the
effort to change from the public Internet can be seen
in the more or less closed mailing list which appeared
called the comp-priv mailing list. In the discussion,
only postings discussing how to privatization and
commercialize the Internet were treated as appropri-
ate. Any attempt to question whether to privatize and
commercialize was unwelcome. Another example,
U.S. Vice President Al Gore offered in a speech at
the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
Buenos Aires meeting March 21, 1994 five principles
from the National Information Infrastructure for a
Global Information Infrastructure: “private invest-
ment, market-driven competition, flexible regulatory
systems, non-discriminatory access, and universal
service.”
The method to achieve its end was for the U.S.
National Science Foundation (NSF) to loosen its
acceptable use policy. By 1995, on May 1, the U.S.
government was ready to remove such restrictions
and to transfer its real property that was part of the
backbone of the NSFNET to private entities. This
transfer took place even though it was in violation of
the 1946 Government Corporation Control Act which
forbids such transfer without an authorizing law
passed by the Congress.
In Fall 1996, a number of groups including the
Internet Society tried to develop a mechanism that
could replace the U.S. government dominated pro-
cess for the distribution of Internet names and num-
bers including control over the authoritative root
name server. They called themselves the Interna-
tional Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) and included
participation by the International Telecommunica-
tions Union (ITU). The framework they sought to
implement was called the generic Top-Level Domain
Memorandum of Understanding (gTLD-MoU). In
part their plan would have shifted the root server to
Geneva and would have brought intergovernmental
Page 1
groups or at least the ITU into what was up until then
exclusive U.S. government oversight of the infra-
structure of the Internet. This activity drew the
attention of the European Union which felt it was still
a U.S. dominated activity minus the direct hand of
the U.S. government. The EU wanted a mechanism
with more European Internet industry involvement.
The U.S. government responded by seeking a
means to privatize the infrastructure of the Internet in
such a way as to assert U.S. corporate (IBM, MCI,
AT&T) dominance. It issued a Green and a White
paper outlining the principle that the public Internet
should be converted into a privatized commercial
Internet. In these papers the Internet was changed
from a communications network and was replaced by
a commercial network. The mechanism to maintain
U.S. corporate dominance while having the appear-
ance of a broader purpose was the creation of a
corporate-like board-dominated organization. It was
called Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) and started to try to administer
the crucial aspects of the infrastructure of the Internet
after November 1998, incorporated under the charity
laws of California.
ICANN began with a secretly chosen Interim
Board of directors that was immediately in conflict
with many sectors of the Internet industry and with
users of the Internet. The secret Interim Board
renamed itself the ICANN Initial Board and contin-
ued its controversial dominance of Internet gover-
nance despite its frequent run ins with country code
administrators and other sectors of the broader
Internet community. The U.S. government promised
to give up control to ICANN but never did.
The question of what has come to be called
“Internet Governance” (IG) for which ICANN seems
to have failed to be the answer was still being de-
bated at the preparatory meeting for the upcoming
World Summit on Information Society which con-
cluded on Sept 30, 2005 in Geneva. (See pages 2-3,
this issue). The summit will be held November
16-18, 2005. One goal of the preparatory process was
to create a proposal that countries could accept on
how to further the spread and development of the
Internet. The Geneva meeting did not succeed in
solving the thorny problem of Internet Governance.
But significant progress has been made clarifying
that there is a problem that needs solution. The
problem as described in one proposal (see pages
10-13, this issue) to the advisor to the U.S. President
in 1998 stated “the governance issue must take into
account the needs and desires of others outside the
United States to participate.” Also, it must recognize
the need to maintain “integrity in the Internet archi-
tecture including the management of IP addresses
and the need for oversight of critical functions.”
Further critical needs for the protection for the
Internet’s infrastructure is described in the Preface to
“The Internet an International Public Treasure,”
elsewhere in this issue.
In order to provide some perspective for how to
approach this problem, we have created this issue of
the Amateur Computerist, which is a collection, of
articles that have appeared in earlier issues of the
newsletter. We also include some of the articles and
discussion which followed and critiqued the creation
and operations of ICANN.
The Internet is an important international com-
munications system. The need is for a model of
governance consistent with the nature of the Internet
as a communications system and its continuing
development. This need has hardly been taken up in
the process that has unfolded from 1998 until the
World Summit on Information Society. We hope this
issue helps to clarify some of the principles needed to
further this process.
—
* “How the Internet Came to Be” in The Online
User’s Encyclopedia, Bernard Aboba, Addison-
Wesley, November 1993
Who Will Control Internet
Infrastructure?*
At a recent U.N. preparatory meeting
for the World Summit on
Information Society,
the dispute widens
by Ronda Hauben
Returning Internet Governance to the People
As the third preparatory meeting (Prepcom III)
for the U.N.’s upcoming summit about the Internet
and its infrastructure came to an end, a dispute erupt-
ed over whether the management of the Internet’s
names, numbers and protocols should be controlled
by one nation or by a multinational structure.
Page 2
Brazil, China, India and several other countries
insist on a change from the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the entity
created by the U.S. government. The U.S. govern-
ment insists on continued control of ICANN, which
operates under the charity laws of California.
Many governments believe that this is not an
appropriate entity to protect those who depend on the
Internet for their economic, political and social needs
around the world. The stage is set for a difficult
round of negotiations to determine if an agreement
can be reached to resolve this dispute in time for the
2nd World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)
to be held by the U.N. in Tunis, Nov. 16 to Nov. 18.
A representative to the U.N.’s planning meeting
for the Tunis Summit, Motlhatlhedi Motlhatlhedi,
who is Botswana’s deputy permanent secretary in the
Ministry of Communications, Science and Technol-
ogy, described how several developing countries
support a multinational body to be in charge of the
administration of the Internet’s infrastructure, rather
than only the U.S. government.
“The general feeling was for a change, as no
single country should have control over the Internet,”
he said.
1
Clarifying the nature of the dispute, the Brazilian
Ambassador Antonio Porto explained how the
Internet has become a critical part of the political and
social life of his country: “Nowadays our voting
system in Brazil is based on ICTs (Information and
Communication Technologies), our tax collection
system is based on ICTs, our public health system is
based on ICTs. For us, the Internet is much more than
entertainment, it is vital for our constituencies, for
our parliament in Brazil, for our society in Brazil.”
Given the nature of this critical resource for
Brazil and other countries, Porto asks, “How can one
country control the Internet?”
2
The U.S. representative to the talks, Ambassador
David Gross, who is with the U.S. State Department,
maintained that the current management organization
– ICANN – should not be changed. He stated that
“the U.N. ought not to be running the Internet.”
Gross’ position is that there can be some flexibil-
ity in what ICANN is doing, particularly with regard
to the country code domain names like “KR” for
Korea, or “US” for the United States, but that the
current situation is desirable.
Pakistan’s ambassador and chairman of the U.N.
committee, Masood Khan, trying to develop an
agreement on these issues, welcomed the U.S. stand.
“The U.S. has taken a very clear position and has
enunciated it and reiterated it both inside and outside
the conference,” he explained. “And that has helped
the process because now everybody understands what
the U.S. position is.”
3
Into this fray stepped the European Union. On
Sept. 28, the EU introduced a proposal for a change
in who oversees and who is in charge of the
Internet’s infrastructure. The EU position called for
the creation of an international body, but outside of
the U.N., to oversee ICANN. The EU also proposed
the creation of a multinational entity to oversee and
discuss issues related to Internet policy.
Under the proposal a cooperative entity would be
formed from representatives of governments, the
private sector (i.e. corporations), and civil society
organizations (i.e. NGOs). Their proposal calls for
the initiation of two new processes, at the interna-
tional level.
The 3
rd
WSIS preparatory meeting for the Tunis
Summit made a breakthrough in clarifying the nature
of the problem of having one government exercise
unilateral control over the administration of the
infrastructure of the international Internet. As the
UK/EU representative, David Hendon explained,
ICANN is under “a contract from one government,
and the government advises it what to do. It’s kind of
strange for governments to be advising a public
sector body and for that body to be doing things for
the whole world under the instruction of one govern-
ment.”
4
While some progress has been made in under-
standing the nature of the problem, there is as yet no
solution.
The history of the development of the Internet
contains valuable lessons toward understanding how
to create an appropriate entity to manage the
Internet’s infrastructure. This history helps to under-
stand the models that made possible the successful
development of the Internet as an international,
public and inclusive communications system.
Also, online discussion and debate about the
problems of the Internet’s development by active
Netizens has played a critical role in the continuing
development and spread of the Internet.
5
While the WSIS process has made a good start
at identifying a critical problem needing solution, it
has not yet recognized the importance of building on
the models and practices that have been developed in
Page 3
the evolution of the Internet itself toward helping to
shape its future.
Notes
1. “Internet governance talks stall,” Daily News Online, Sept.
29, 2005
2. Kiernen McCarthy, “EU deal threatens end to U.S. domi-
nance of Internet,” The Register, Sept. 30, 2005,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/30/eu_deal_wsis/
3. Kieren McCarthy, “WSIS: Who gets to run the Internet?
United Nations conference ponders net future,” The Register,
Sept. 28, 2005,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/
4. Kieren McCarthy, “EU outlines future net governance,” The
Register, Sept. 30, 2005,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/30/eu_net_governance/
5. See, for example, my proposal made to the U.S. government
in 1998 before ICANN was created, “The Internet An Interna-
tional Public Treasure: A Proposal” (PDF),
http://www.wgig.org/docs/Comment-Hauben-April.pdf (also,
pages 10-13 this issue)
*http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?
no=251118&rel_no=1
The International Origins
of the Internet
and the Impact of this
Framework on its Future*
by Ronda Hauben
[Editor’s note: The following is a talk given at
Columbia University on Nov. 4, 2004.]
The research I have been doing for the past 12
years is about the origin, development and social
impact of the Internet. I want to propose that know-
ing something of the nature of the Internet, of its
international origins and early vision and develop-
ment can provide a useful perspective for looking at
a process that is currently ongoing at the initiative of
the United Nations.
I want to share some of my research about the
original vision and the international origins of the
Internet and the implications of this heritage on the
Internet’s future. Just now, over the past two or more
years, and continuing through November, 2005, there
is a ongoing United Nations initiative in which the
world’s governments are participating, along with
NGO’s and corporate entities. Yet this high level
activity, as Wired reports, “has been largely ignored
by those not participating in it.” (Wendy Grossman,
“Nations Plan for Net’s Future,” October 11, 2004)
This process is known as the World Summit on
the Information Society (WSIS). After preparatory
activities for almost two years, the first of two plann-
ed summits was held in Geneva, Switzerland in
December 2003. Since that summit, a continuing
series of meetings are scheduled to set the foundation
for the second Summit which is planned to take place
in Tunisia in November of 2005.
Heads of state of many nations, particularly
developing nations came to the Geneva summit and
spoke about the importance of the Internet to the
people in their countries and to their present and
future economic and social development and well
being. The participants recognized that the Internet is
an international network of networks, and that it has
been built by a great deal of public and scientific
effort and funding. The disagreement arises over the
nature of the present and future management struc-
ture and processes for the governance of the Internet.
In 1998 the U.S. government, which had previ-
ously overseen the Internet’s infrastructure managed
as a non commercial, scientific and educational me-
dium, made a decision to begin to transition it to a
private sector entity which is called the Internet Cor-
poration for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN).
In the WSIS process there has been a lot of
contention over the form and processes of ICANN.
The concern is that ICANN was constructed as a
business and technical creation and that this process
marginalized governments.
Another way of describing this disagreement is
that there is a contest about whether the development
and management of the Internet and its infrastructure
Page 4
should be left to the market to determine or set by the
policies of governments.
Concern is being raised about what are the issues
pertaining to Internet governance. Stimulating the
spread of the Internet and who has access is one such
issue. Others include safeguarding the Internet’s
integrity, oversight of the distribution of Internet
addresses and domain names, determining the nature
of the public interest and how to protect that interest,
etc.
At the core of this dispute is the question of what
kinds of policy decisions need to be made about the
Internet and determining the process by which they
will be made.
The WSIS meetings include those who it is
claimed have an interest in questions of Internet
governance. These are called the “Stakeholders” and
thus far include representatives from:
governments
civil society (NGOs)
private sector
Others are sometimes mentioned, such as the
scientific community, or the academic community.
In looking back at the origins of the Internet, I
feel it is helpful to start with the vision of JCR
Licklider, a psychologist, who was invited to begin a
research office within the U.S. Department of De-
fense in Oct 1962. Licklider called the office the
Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO).
Licklider was an experimental psychologist who
had studied the brain. For his PhD thesis he did
pioneering work mapping where sound is perceived
in the brain of the cat. Licklider was also excited
about the development of the computer and of its
potential to further scientific research.
He was particularly interested in the potential of
the computer as a communication device. He saw it
as a means of helping to create a community of re-
searchers and of making it possible to strengthen the
education available to the whole society through
access to the ever expanding world of information.
He envisioned that increased social contact would
become available via the computer and computer
networks.
Licklider created a community of researchers
that he called the Intergalactic Network. He had in
mind a network of networks. Though it was too early
to create such a network when he began at IPTO in
1962, he set a foundation that inspired the researchers
that followed him. He returned briefly to head the
IPTO from 1974-75 just at the time that the research
on the Internet was being developed.
In a paper Licklider wrote with another
researcher, Robert Taylor in 1968, Licklider outlined
a vision for a network of networks. Licklider’s vision
was of the creation and development of a human-
computer information utility. For this to develop and
be beneficial, everyone would have to have access.
The network of networks would be global. It
wouldn’t be just a collection of computers and of
information that people could passively utilize.
Rather his vision was of the creation of an on-line
community of people, where users would be active
participants and contributors to the evolving network
and to its development. To Licklider, it was critical
that the evolving network be built interactively.
Also Licklider believed that there would be a
need for the public to be involved in the consider-
ations and decisions regarding network development.
He recognized that there would be problems with
pressure being put on government from other sectors
of society and that active citizen participation would
be needed to counter these pressures. Licklider,
writes:
“. . . many public spirited individuals must study,
model, discuss, analyze, argue, write, criticize, and
work out each issue and each problem until they
reach consensus or determine that none can be
reached – at which point there may be occasion for
voting.”
Licklider believed that those interested in the
development of the global network he was proposing,
would have to be active in considering and determin-
ing its future. He also advocated that the future of
politics would require that people have access to
computers to be involved in the process of govern-
ment. Licklider writes:
“Computer power to the people is essential to the
Page 5
realization of a future in which most citizens are
informed about, and interested and involved in the
process of government.”
Licklider and other computer pioneers of the
1950s and 1960s were concerned with the public
interest and how the computer and networking
developments of the future would be maintained in
the public interest. Licklider writes that it is impor-
tant to not only seek to consider the public interest,
but also to make it possible for the public to be in-
volved in the decision making process:
“[Decisions] in the ‘public interest’ but also in
the interest of giving the public itself the means to
enter into the decision-making process that will shape
their future.”
Through the 1960s and into the early 1970s the
IPTO pioneered new and important computer tech-
nology like the time-sharing of computers and then
the creation of packet switching and the ARPANET
computer network. The research was written up in
professional publications and widely distributed.
By the late 1960s and early 1970s it was recog-
nized that there was widespread interest in develop-
ing computer networking in countries around the
world. A conference was held in 1972 at the Hilton
Hotel, in Washington DC from October 24-26. More
than a thousand researchers from countries around
the world attended and participated in the demonstra-
tion by U.S. researchers that packet switching tech-
nology was functional. The demonstration excited
many of the researchers. Also, however, international
participation was recognized as critical to the devel-
opment of networking technology. “International
participation is no mere adornment to the Confer-
ence,” the organizers wrote. “It is a primary means
towards achieving a diversity of interest and view-
point.”
At the conference, a group was formed of those
working on networking developments in different
countries. It was called the International Network
Working Group (INWG).
The great interest worldwide in computer net-
working was stimulating, but also it presented a
problem. To understand the nature of this problem, it
is helpful to consider the fact that there were packet
switching networks being developed in different
countries. These included Cyclades in France, NPL
in Great Britain, and ARPANET in the U.S. These
networks were different technically and were under
the ownership and control of different political and
administrative entities. Yet networking researchers
realized the importance of making it possible for
these networks to be able to interconnect, to be able
to communicate with each other. This can be articu-
lated as the Multiple Network Problem.
There was the recognition that no one of these
different networks could become an international
network. There would need to be some means found
to make communication possible across the bound-
aries of different networks.
Collaboration among the researchers continued,
with a number of meetings and exchanges about how
it would be possible to design and create a means to
support communication across the boundaries of
these diverse networks.
At a meeting in Sept 1973 at the University of
Sussex, in Brighton, England, two U.S. researchers,
Bob Kahn and Vinton Cerf presented a draft of a
paper proposing a philosophy and design to make it
possible to interconnect different networks. The basic
principle was that the changes to make communica-
tion possible would not be required of the different
networks, but of the packets of information that were
traveling through the networks.
To have an idea of the concept they proposed it
is helpful to look at a diagram to show what the
design would make possible.
In the gateways, changes to the packets would be
made to make it possible for them to go through the
networks. Also the gateways would be used to route
the packets.
The philosophy and design for an Internet was
officially published in a paper over 30 years ago, in
May 1974. The paper is titled “A Protocol for Packet
Network Intercommunication” by Vinton Cerf and
Robert Kahn with thanks to others including several
from the international network research community
for their contributions and discussion.
Describing the process of creating the TCP/IP
protocol, Cerf explains that the effort at developing
(This diagram is from a memo by Vint Cerf, but it is not
an actual plan for the Internet.)
Page 6
In this map you can see the areas of the world where TCP/IP
networking was possible, the areas where there was access to
BITNET but not the Internet and the areas there was only e-
mail access via different networking possibilities like uucp,
FIDONET or OSI (X.25), etc.
SATNET
the Internet protocols was international from its very
beginnings. Peter Kirstein, a British researcher at the
University College London (UCL) presented a paper
in Sept. 1975 at a workshop in Laxenberg, Austria,
describing the international research process. This
workshop was attended by an international group of
researchers, including researchers from Eastern
Europe. Kirstein reports on research to create the
TCP/IP protocol being done by U.S. researchers,
working with British researchers and Norwegian
researchers. Above is the diagram that Kirstein
presents showing the participation of U.S. research-
ers via the ARPANET, along with British researchers
working at the University College London (UCL)
and Norwegian researchers working at NORSAR.
Collaboration between the Norwegian, British
and U.S. researchers continued, demonstrated by the
research to create a satellite network, called
SATNET. Later researchers from Italy and Germany
became part of this work.
Describing this international collaboration, Bob
Kahn writes:
“SATNET... was a broadcast satellite system.
This is if you like an ETHERNET IN THE SKY with
drops in Norway (actually routed via Sweden) and
then the U.K., and later Germany and Italy.”
Networking continued to develop in the 1980s.
Among the networking efforts were those known as
Usenet (uucp), CSnet, NSFnet, FIDONET, BITNET,
Internet (TCP/IP), and others.
By the early 1990s TCP/IP became the protocol
adopted by networks around the world.
It is also in the early 1990s that my co-author of
the book Netizens, Michael Hauben, did some
pioneering on-line research as part of class projects
in his studies at Columbia University. He explored
where the networks could reach and what those who
were on-line felt was the potential and the problems
of the developing Internet.
Schematic of UCL configuration, July 1975.
Page 7
Netizens: On the History and
Impact of Usenet and the
Internet published by the
IEEE Computer Society
Press, 1997,
ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
In the process he discovered that there were
people on-line who were excited by the fact that they
would participate in spreading the evolving network
and contributing so that it would be a helpful com-
munication medium for others around the world.
Michael saw these users as citizens of the net or what
at the time was referred to as net.citizens
Shortening the term to ‘netizen,’ he identified
and documented the emergence of a new form of
citizenship, a form of global citizenship that is called
netizenship.
Describing these on-line citizens, the netizen
Michael writes:
“They are people who understand that it takes
effort and action on each and everyone’s part to make
the Net a regenerative and vibrant community and
resource. Netizens are people who decide to devote
time and effort into making the Net, this new part of
our world, a better place.” (Michael Hauben, 1995)
What are the implications of this background to
the WSIS process? In October 1998, the U.S. govern-
ment decided it needed to privatize the Internet’s
infrastructure. It created ICANN, the Internet Corpo-
ration for Assigned Names and Numbers. ICANN
provided only minimal input for governments in an
official way or for Internet users. There have been
many problems with the structure and functioning of
ICANN and lots of criticism.
The WSIS process led to holding a Summit in
Geneva in December 2003. A number of heads of
state attended. Issues raised included: Affordable
access available to all, what would be the role for
Governments in Internet governance? What would be
the role for others in Internet governance?
In February 2004 a workshop was held to try to
determine the components of Internet governance. At
the workshop there was a proposal for netizens to be
involved in Internet governance, recommending that
netizen involvement would make it possible to
counter the self interest of corporations who were
part of the Internet governance process. The follow-
ing diagram was submitted by Izumi Aizo of Japan.
It still shows only a minimal role for governments
but it introduces a role for netizens which is in line
with Licklider’s vision of the crucial nature of citizen
participation in the network’s development.
On-line, there is a forum involved with the WSIS
process. But few people who are involved with WSIS
seem to pay attention to it. However, a comment on
the forum seemed quite relevant to the problems
being raised. A contributor to the forum, Safaa
Moussa was from Egypt. Moussa, too, echoed
Licklider’s concerns, writing that the crucial issues of
Internet governance involve the issue of public
access and the issue of how to widen the scope of
public engagement in the decision making process.
In September 2004, a meeting was held in
Geneva. Many contributions to that meeting seemed
in line with the vision Licklider expressed to guide
computer network development. But there was con-
tention, also. Summarizing the conflict that has
developed in the WSIS process, a representative of
Egypt, H. E. Dr. Tarek Kamal, explains that there are
two conflicting view points. One view is that Internet
governance involves primarily technical and opera-
tive issues which can be best coordinated by techni-
cal groups and business organizations (this is the
view of those in favor of ICANN). The other view
pointed to by Dr. Kamal is that technical resource
management and other policy matters concerning the
Internet are social and public questions needing
international and government participation.
At the September 2004 meeting, supporting this
second viewpoint, a member of the Brazil delegation,
Page 8
Jose Marcos Nogueira Viana, proposed the need to
create an inter-governmental forum – a meeting place
for governments to discuss Internet related issues.
Also putting public interest into the debate, was Hans
Falk Hoffman, a representative from the international
scientific institution CERN. He described how the
scientific community would continue to try to con-
nect universities and therefore major cities to the
global network with sufficient bandwidth at afford-
able prices. A representative from the Chinese
delegation Madam Hu Quiheng, explained how:
“The Internet is a resplendent achievement of
human civilization in the 20th century. And that
government has to play the essential role in Internet
governance...creating a favorable environment boost-
ing Internet growth while protecting the public
interests.”
I want to propose that this activity as part of the
WSIS process demonstrates the importance of
understanding the fact that the Internet is interna-
tional and that there is a demand for an international
management process and structure.
Similarly, and perhaps even more important is
the need to understand how to determine the public
interest. In connection with this goal, I want to
propose the need to seriously consider whether the
goal of netizen empowerment is one of the important
policy issues to be injected into the WSIS process.
This would imply the need to provide means for the
on-line community to be able to be active partici-
pants in the WSIS process. In the on-line forum on
09 September 2004, Safaa Moussa wrote:
“This on-line forum constitutes an important part
of mobilizing efforts for the pursued effective out-
come. But, in view of the wide-ranging aspects that
Internet Governance covers, I believe it is duly
important to make clearer the inclusion of on-line
contributions into the decision-making process.”
“On-line interaction and feedback need to be
seen all along the decision-making and implementa-
tion processes.”
“Another point I would like to underline is the
creation of on-line working groups to help integrate
and coordinate initiatives and efforts undertaken at
national regional and international levels.”
(Safaa Moussa’s post can be seen at: http://
www.wsis-online.net/igov-forum/forums/message-
view?message_id=416031 )
The Tunis Summit will take place in November
2005. Will it be able to meet the challenges of the
continuing development and spread of the Internet?
There are promising signs that the public and interna-
tional essence of the Internet as envisioned by JCR
Licklider which were so important in the origin and
development of the Internet are being taken up. But
will there be a means of welcoming the on-line
community, the community of netizens into the
WSIS process? Will there be a convergence of
netizen participation and defense of the public
essence of the Internet strong enough for the results
of the Tunis summit to be significant?
*[Reprinted from Amateur Computerist Vol. 12 no. 2,
http://umcc.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/Back_Issues[2003-
2005]/ACn12-2.pdf]
IFWP 1998:
No Consensus*
[Editor's note: For a few months in 1998 just preced-
ing the invention of ICANN, a process took place of
international meetings and mailing list discussions
called the International Forum on the White Paper
(IFWP). From its very beginning, the IFWP followed
almost as little democratic procedure as did ICANN.
The following is a report from the second interna-
tional meeting of the IFWP process.]
The International Forum on the White Paper one
and a half day meeting held after the INET confer-
ence ended was not a planned extension of INET98
but a last minute event. The U.S. government has had
oversight and control of the domain name and root
server systems that allow all users on the Internet to
send messages and packets to each other no matter
where they are. This is achieved via a conversion of
domain name addresses into numeric addresses. The
U.S. government confirmed its intention in a White
Paper issued June 5, 1998, to end this historic role on
September 30 of this year. The White Paper pre-
sented by presidential advisor Ira Magaziner had as
its purpose the formation of a new private entity to
Page 9
control and manage the root server and domain name
systems which are the central control and nerve
center of the Internet. The IFWP meeting in Geneva
was organized to approve and help give international
support and form to the new private organization.
The method to achieve such support was to disallow
any opposition to privatization. The sessions were
chaired in such a way that all opposition and most
discussion was discouraged and there were frequent
calls for a consensus. Even when it appeared as many
as half or more people were confused or openly
opposed to proposed structures or powers of the new
body the chairs often declared that consensus had
been achieved and that the next issue was in order.
Since the changes being proposed concern the future
of the Internet, e.g., whether it would be the intercon-
nection of different networks or of only networks
adhering to commercial concerns about security, they
require careful consideration and the hearing of
points of view from across the Internet user spec-
trum. But the IFWP meeting was not set up to allow
such democratic procedure. The meeting ended with
the declaration by the organizers that a large degree
of consensus had been achieved. Those who opposed
or disagreed with the process or the purpose of
privatization of the nerve center of the Internet left
the meeting very frustrated. Another such meeting
was planned by the IFWP for Singapore in mid
August while other follow up meetings and activities
were planned by other forces. The value of these
IFWP meetings was that they have alerted a body of
people to significant changes that are being planned
for the Internet.
*[Reprinted from Amateur Computerist Vol. 9 no. 1,
http://umcc.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/Back_Issues[1998-
2002]/ACN9-1.pdf]
[Editor's note: The following Preface and Proposal
were submitted to Ira Magaziner and the U.S. gov-
ernment in early September 1998 in response to the
White Paper. They proposed a prototype that would
build on the lessons learned during the Internet's
development.]
The Internet an International
Public Treasure
A Proposal
by Ronda Hauben
Preface
In testimony before the Subcommittee on Basic
Research of the Committee on Science of the U.S.
Congress on March 31, 1998, Robert Kahn, co-
inventor of TCP/IP, indicated the great responsibility
that must be taken into account before the U.S.
government changes the administrative oversight,
ownership and control of essential aspects of the
Internet that are part of what is known as the Domain
Name System (DNS).
Kahn indicated that “the governance issue must
take into account the needs and desires of others
outside the United States to participate.” His testi-
mony also indicated a need to maintain “integrity in
the Internet architecture including the management of
IP addresses and the need for oversight of critical
functions.” He described how the Internet grew and
flourished under U.S. government stewardship (be-
fore the privatization - I wish to add) because of two
important components.
1) The U.S. government funded the neces-
sary research.
2) It made sure the networking community had
the responsibility for its operation, and insulated
it to a very great extent from bureaucratic obsta-
cles and commercial matters so it could evolve
dynamically.
He also said that “The relevant U.S. government
agencies should remain involved until a workable so-
lution is found and, thereafter retain oversight of the
process until and unless an appropriate international
oversight mechanism can supplant it.”
And Kahn recommended insulating the DNS
functions which are critical to the continued opera-
tion of the Internet so they could be operated “in such
Page 10
a way as to insulate them as much as possible from
bureaucratic, commercial and political wrangling.”
When I attended the meeting of the International
Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) in Geneva in July,
which was a meeting set up by the U.S. government
to create the private organization to take over these
essential DNS functions September 30, 1998, none of
the concerns that Kahn raised at this Congressional
hearing were indicated as concerns by those rushing
to privatize these critical functions of the global
Internet. I wrote a report which I circulated about the
political and commercial pressures that were operat-
ing in the meeting to create the Names Council that
I attended. (See Amateur Computerist Vol. 9 no. 1,
“Report from the Front, Meeting in Geneva Rushes
to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server
Systems”.)
But what is happening now with the privatization
plan of the U.S. government involves privatization of
the functions that coordinate the International aspects
of the Internet and thus the U.S. government has a
very special obligation to the technical and scientific
community and to the U.S. public and the people of
the world to be responsible in what it does.
I don’t see that happening at present.
A few years ago I met one of the important pio-
neers of the development of time-sharing, which set
the basis for the research creating the Internet. This
pioneer, Fernando Corbató, suggested I real a book
Management and the Future of the Computer which
was edited by Martin Greenberger, another time-
sharing pioneer. The book was the proceedings of a
conference about the Future of the Computer held at
MIT in 1961 to celebrate the centennial anniversary
of MIT. The British author, Charles Percy Snow
made the opening address at the meeting and he
described the importance of how government deci-
sions would be made about the future of the com-
puter.
Snow cautioned that such decisions must involve
people who understood the problems and the technol-
ogy. And he also expressed the concern that if too
small a number of people were involved in making
important government decisions, the more likely it
would be that serious errors of judgment would be
made.
Too small a number of people are being involved
in this important decision regarding the future of
these strategic aspects of the Internet and too many of
those who know what is happening and are partici-
pating either have conflicts of interest or other
reasons why they are not able to consider the real
problems and technological issues involved. (About
the 1961 conference, see chapter 6 of Netizens at
What is happening with the process of the U.S.
government privatization of the Domain Name
System is exactly the kind of danger that C. P. Snow
warned against.
I have been in contact with Ira Magaziner, senior
advisor to the U.S. President on policy with these
concerns and he asked me to write a proposal or find
a way to put my concerns into some “operational
form.” The following draft proposal for comment is
my beginning effort to respond to his request.
Proposal
Toward an International Public
Administration of
Essential Functions of the Internet –
The Domain Name System
Ronda Hauben
Recently, there has been a rush to find a way to
change significant aspects of the Internet. The claim
is that there is a controversy that must be resolved
about what should be the future of the Domain Name
System.
It is important to examine this claim and to try to
figure out if there is any real problem with regard to
the Domain Name System (DNS) that has to be
solved.
The Internet is a scientific and technical achieve-
ment of great magnitude. Fundamental to its develop-
ment was the discovery of a new way of looking at
computer science.
1
The early developers of the
ARPANET, the progenitor of the Internet, viewed the
computer as a communication device rather than only
as an arithmetic engine. This new view, which came
from research conducted by those in academic
computer science, made the building of the
ARPANET possible.
2
Any changes in the administra-
tion of key aspects of the Internet need to be guided
by a scientific perspective and principles, not by
political or commercial pressures. It is most impor-
tant to keep in mind that scientific methods are open
and cooperative.
Page 11
Examining the development of the Internet, an
essential problem that becomes evident is that the
Internet has become international, but the systems
that allow there to be an Internet are under the
administration and control of one nation. These
include control over the allocation of domain names,
over the allocation of IP addresses, over the assign-
ment of protocol numbers and services, as well as
control over the root server system and the protocols
and standards development process related to the
Internet. These are currently under the control and
administration of the U.S. government or contractors
to it. Instead of the U.S. government offering a
proposal to solve the problem of how to share the
administration of the DNS, which includes central
points of control of the Internet, it is supporting and
encouraging the creation of a new private entity that
will take over and control the Domain Name System.
This private entity will magnify many thousands fold
the commercial and political pressures and prevent
solving the genuine problem of having an interna-
tionally shared protection and administration of the
DNS, including the root server system, IP number
allocations, Internet protocols, etc.
Giving these functions over to a private entity
will make it possible for these functions to be
changed and for the Internet to be broken up into
competing root servers, etc. It is the DNS whose key
characteristic is to make the internetwork of networks
one Internet rather than competing networks with
competing root server systems, etc.
What is needed is a way to protect the technol-
ogy of the Internet from commercial and political
pressures, so as to create a means of sharing adminis-
tration of the key DNS functions and the root server
system.
The private organization that the U.S. govern-
ment is asking to be formed is the opposite of pro-
tecting the Internet. It is encouraging the take over by
a private, non-accountable corporate entity of the key
Internet functions and of this international public
resource.
In light of this situation, the following proposal
is designed to establish a set of principles and recom-
mendations on how to create an international cooper-
ative collaboration to administer and protect these
key functions of the Internet from commercial and
political pressures. This proposal is to create a
prototype for international cooperation and col-
laboration to control and support the administration
of these key Internet functions.
I. The U.S. government is to create a research
project or institute (which can be in conjunction with
universities, appropriate research institutes, etc.). The
goal of this project or institute is to sponsor and carry
out the research to solve the problem of what should
be the future of the DNS and its component parts
including the root server system.
II. The U.S. is to invite the collaboration (includ-
ing funding, setting up similar research projects, etc.)
of any country or region interested in participating in
this research. The researchers from the different
nations or regions will work collaboratively.
III. The researchers will, as much as possible,
utilize the Internet to carry out their work. Also they
will develop and maintain a well publicized and
reachable online means to support reporting and
getting input into their work. They should explore
Usenet newsgroups, mailing list and web site utiliza-
tion, and where appropriate RFC’s etc.
IV. With clearly set dates for completion, the
collaborative international research group will under-
take the following:
1) To identify and describe the functions of the
DNS system that need to be maintained. (The RFC’s
or other documents, that will help in this, need to be
gathered and references to them made available to
those interested.)
2) To examine how the Internet and then how the
DNS system and root server system are serving the
diverse communities and users of the Internet, which
include among others the scientific community, the
education community, the librarians, the technical
community, governments (National as well as local),
the university community, the art and cultural com-
munities, nonprofit organizations, the medical com-
munity, the business community, and most impor-
tantly the users whoever they be, of the Internet.
3) To produce a proposal at the end of a speci-
fied finite period of time. The proposal should
include:
a) an accurate history of how the
Internet developed and how the Domain
Name System developed and why.
b) a discussion of the vision for the
future of the Internet that their proposal is
part of. This should be based on input gath-
ered from the users of the Internet, and from
research of the history and development of
the Internet.
Page 12
c) a description of the role the Domain
Name System plays in the administration
and control of the Internet, how it is func-
tioning, what problems have developed with
it.
d) a proposal for its further administra-
tion, describing how the proposal will pro-
vide for the continuation of the functions
and control hitherto provided by U.S. gov-
ernment agencies like NSF and DARPA.
Also, problems for the further administra-
tions should be clearly identified and pro-
posals made for how to begin an open pro-
cess for examining the problems and solv-
ing them.
e) a description of the problems and
pressures that they see that can be a danger
for the DNS administration. Also recom-
mendations on how to protect the DNS
administration from succumbing to those
pressures. (For example from pressures that
are political or commercial.) In the early
days of Internet development in the U.S.
there was an acceptable use policy (AUP)
that protected the Internet and the scientific
and technical community from the pressures
from political and commercial entities. Also
in the U.S., government funding of a size-
able number of people who were the com-
puter science community also protected
those people from commercial and political
pressures.
f) a way for the proposal to be distrib-
uted widely online, and the public not on-
line should also have a way to have access
to it. It should be made available to people
around the world who are part of or inter-
ested in the future development of the
Internet. Perhaps help with such distribution
can come from international organizations
like the ITU, from the Internet Society, the
IETF, etc.
g) comment on what has been learned
from the process of doing collaborative
work to create the proposal. It should iden-
tify as much as possible the problems that
developed in their collaborative efforts.
Identifying the problems will help clarify
what work has to be done to solve them.
h) It will be necessary to agree to some
way to keep this group of researchers free
from commercial and political pressures –
government funding of the researchers is
one possible way and maybe they can be
working under an agreed upon Acceptable
Use Policy for their work and funding.
This proposal is an effort to figure out what is a
real way to solve the problem that is the essential
problem in the future administration of the Internet.
If the principles and prototype can be found to solve
this problem, they will help to solve other problems
of Internet administration and functioning as well.
Notes:
1. See Michael Hauben, “Behind the Net: The Untold Story of
the ARPANET and Computer Science,” in Netizens: On the
History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, IEEE CS Press,
1997, p. 109. See also “Internet, nouvelle utopie humaniste?” by
Bernard Lang, Pierre Weis and Veronique Viguie Donzeau-
Gouge, Le Monde, September 26, 1997, as it describes how
computer science is a new kind of science and not well under-
stood by many. The authors write: “L’informatique est tout a la
fois une science, une technologie et un ensemble d’outils….
Dans sa pratique actuelle, l’introduction de l’informatique a
l’ecole, et malheureusement souvent a la’universite, est
critiquable parce qu’elle entretient la confusion entre ces trois
composantes.”
2. Ibid.
The draft proposal “The Internet an International Public Trea-
sure” is online in English and French at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~ronda/other/
Submitted to the NTIA of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
[Editor's note: The following is excerpted from the
editorial introducing a Special Issue of the Amateur
Computerist concerning Stakeholders in the DNS
Controversy (July 1998).]
Who Are the Stakeholders in
the DNS Controversy Over
the Future of the Internet?*
On June 5, 1998 the U.S. government issued a
White Paper elaborating its plans and position to
fundamentally change the control and ownership over
the Domain Name System (DNS) that is the nerve
Page 13
center of the Internet. The basic premise of the White
Paper is that the DNS must be put into private hands.
Such changes are very important issues for the
public of the U.S. and around the world to consider
and discuss as the Internet, in the words of Judge
Dalzell of the U.S. Federal District Court, is: “a far
more speech enhancing medium than print, the
village green or the mails.”
In the court case of ACLU vs. Reno over the
Communications Decency Act, the Federal Court
Judges wrote that “The Internet is... a unique and
wholly new medium of worldwide communication.”
In his opinion in that case, Judge Dalzell goes on
to direct the U.S. government saying, “We should
also protect the autonomy that such a medium con-
fers to ordinary people as well as media magnates.”
Does the White Paper issued by the U.S. govern-
ment undertake to protect the autonomy that the
Internet confers to ordinary people? Will placing the
DNS into private hands (most likely dominated by
powerful corporate entities) be a way that the U.S.
government can fulfill on its obligation to ordinary
people?
... We include [on pages 14 to 23 in this issue] a
discussion that occurred on the Netizens mailing list
over what would be a position toward the plans of the
U.S. government that would reflect the interests of
Netizens, i.e. of those who contribute to the Net to
help it grow and flourish as a means of global com-
munication. This online discussion raises issues
about the Framework that U.S. government advisors
have created to make the Internet into a
Commercenet. Rather it should be creating a
“Framework for the Net as a New Means of Interna-
tional Communication,” that a government would be
creating if it were to uphold its obligation to protect
the autonomy of the ordinary people, as the U.S.
Federal District Court mandated. ...
The rush to give the nerve center of the Internet,
the DNS functions which include the root server over
to some private interests, in a to-be-created organiza-
tion which doesn’t even have a public proposal for its
founding 4 months before it is to get control of key
Internet functions, is a very serious change of direc-
tion from the obligations that a government has to its
citizens....
Given that the originating conception of the
Internet was to be a Net of Networks and that no one
network was to dominate others, it is imperative that
these origins be discussed and understood and actions
like that proposed by the U.S. government Green and
White papers be widely discussed and challenged.
Can any private sector organization even begin to
protect the “autonomy of ordinary people” to have
the ability to communicate globally? Isn’t that is an
obligation for governments which have a social
obligation to their peoples?
We hope this special issue will serve to raise
some of the important questions surrounding the
plans by various groups and interests for the future of
the Net. We don’t want to be going backward to a
single Net, to an ARPAnet, but this time one that is
devoted to buying and selling and to commercial
activities. Instead we want to go forward to the
further development and flourishing of the Internet as
“a unique and new means of worldwide communica-
tion.” We hope this special issue will help to encour-
age the discussion and activities that will make this
vision more and more a reality.
*[Reprinted from Special Issue Amateur Computerist July 1998,
(Vol. 8 no. 2), http://umcc.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/Back
_Issues[1998-2002]/ACN8-2.pdf
[Editor's note: On January 30, 1998, comments were
solicited about the U.S. government's Green Paper: A
Proposal to Improve Technical Management of
.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm). The
following was posted on mailing lists and Usenet
newsgroups to alert Internet users and netizens to that
Green Paper and the privatization it was proposing.]
Netizen List
DNS Discussion*
From: [email protected] (Ronda Hauben)
Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
Subject: [netz] Internet as Communications Medium
– Need for Discussion
Date: 20 Mar 1998 11:07:07 -0500
I welcome comments and discussion on the following
draft and on the issues it is raising.
Page 14
Internet as a Communication Medium
and How That is not Reflected in the
Proposal to Restructure the DNS
There is currently a proposal by the U.S. govt. to
change the way that Internet domain (site) names are
given out, and thus to affect in an important way the
future of the Internet.
The proposal is at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/
domainname130.htm
March 23 is the end of the time that one can
submit comments on it to the NTIA and comments
up till then can be submitted electronically.
It is interesting to look at the Framework that Ira
Magaziner, the advisor to the President, has created
looking at the future of the Internet.
In the document called Framework, he fails to
mention or consider that the Internet is an important
new *communication* medium. Instead he substi-
tutes the word *commerce* for *communication*
and sets out a framework for making the Internet into
an important new means of commerce.
In two sentences at the beginning of his docu-
ment he says that “the Internet empowers citizens
and democratizes societies” and then he goes on and
spends the next 24 pages describing changes that
have to come about to make the Internet into an
electronic marketplace for business.
Nowhere in the “Framework” does he discuss
the fact that Netizens are those who come on line to
contribute to the growth and the development of the
Net. Instead Magaziner sees the Internet as “being
driven... by the private sector.”
If the “Framework” has *no* understanding of
the ways that the Internet and Usenet contribute to
and make possible new forms of *communication*
between people, then there is no way that the pro-
posal he has made for changing the DNS (domain
name system), that assigns address and maintains the
lookup tables, can help to facilitate the communica-
tion that is so important as the essence of the Internet.
The Proposal “Improvement of Technical Manage-
ment of Internet Names and Addresses: Proposed
Rule” is listed in the February 20, 1988 Federal
Register. (And one can make comments on it till
March 23. It is also online at the NTIA web site.)
Instead of examining how this *communication*
has been developed and why it is so important,
Magaziner is rushing to replace the current system
(which was also developed without any analysis of
the importance of the communication aspects of the
Internet) with a “privatized” new form.
In this “privatized” new form, he has proposed
creating a “membership association” that will repre-
sent Internet users. So Internet users are not to
represent themselves, but the U.S. government is
proposing creating a rubber stamp organization to
promote its attempt to change the Internet from a
medium for human-to-human communication into
something that only conceives of users as “custom-
ers” of unregulated advertisers and other forms of
business.
This is hostile to the whole nature and develop-
ment of the Internet. Magaziner claims that the
“marketplace, not governments should determine
technical standards.” What he seems to have no
knowledge of is how government support for a
standards process that wouldn’t be dominated by the
most powerful corporations, is some of how helpful
standards have been developed. Instead Magaziner is
trying to recast the standards development process to
mirror the unhealthy situation that develops when the
supposed “marketplace” is allowed to set standards.
Magaziner is proposing creating a supposed “not
for profit” corporation to take over the domain name
system functions currently being administered by
IANA (the root system and the appropriate data-
bases). This new corporation he proposes will have a
board of directors which will be made up of 5 mem-
bers who are commercial users. There are proposed
two directors from “a membership association of
regional number registries,” two members designated
by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and two
members from an association he is proposing be
created representing domain name registries and
registrars, and 7 members from the membership
organization he is creating. (Of which he says at least
one of those board seats could be designated for an
individual or entity engaged in non-commercial,
not-for-profit use of the Internet, and one for individ-
ual end users. The remaining seats could be filled by
commercial users, including trademark holders.)
Thus he is basing his proposal on to-be-created
associations that will not be based on the Internet, but
created to provide for commercial control of the
domain naming system.
The proposal is an effort to change the nature
Page 15
and character of the Internet from a means of com-
munication to a means of “commerce.” It is almost
like claiming that the advertisers in a newspaper
should have an organization that will assure their
control of the newspaper, and ignoring the fact that
the newspaper exists to present the news, editorials,
etc.
The Internet has been developed and continues
to be for most of its users, a place where one can
communicate with others, whether by email, posting
to Usenet newsgroups, putting up a WWW site, etc.
As such it is the nature of this communication that
has to be understood and protected in any proposals
to change key aspects of how the Internet is adminis-
tered.
Also the Internet makes possible communication
with people around the world. Thus creating a board
where commercial businesses are the main control-
ling interests is hostile to facilitating this communi-
cation. While Magaziner’s proposal is being distrib-
uted electronically, it gives no indication of where it
came from, and why it fails to be based on the most
essential aspects of the Internet. Why doesn’t the
advisor making up such a proposal ask for discussion
on line and participate in the discussion so as to be
able to create a proposal that will reflect the needs
and interests of those who are online rather than a
narrow group of commercial interests. The Judges in
the Federal District Court in Philadelphia hearing the
CDA case (the Communications Decency Act) and
the Supreme Court Judges affirming their decision
recognized that the Internet is an important new
means of mass communication. The Judges in the
Federal District Court case wrote: “The Internet is...
a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide
communication.”
Judge Dalzell, in his opinion, wrote explaining
how “The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing
medium than print, the village green, or the mails....
We should also protect the autonomy that such a
medium confers to ordinary people as well as media
magnates.... There is also a compelling need for
public education about the benefits and dangers of
this new medium and Government can fill that role as
well.”
However, there is no indication in either of
Magaziner’s proposals, the longer “Framework”
proposal, or the specific proposal to restructure the
DNS, that he is interested in or has considered the
benefits of the Internet for the public of the U.S. or
elsewhere around the world. Instead he is only
putting forward the wishes of certain commercial
entities who want to grab hold of the Internet for
their own narrow purposes. By restructuring the
domain naming system in a way that can put it up for
control by a few commercial interests, Magaziner’s
proposal is failing to protect the autonomy that the
medium confers to ordinary people, as the court
decision in the CDA case directed U.S. government
officials.
The ARPAnet and Internet (up till 1995) devel-
oped because of an Acceptable Use Policy encourag-
ing and supporting communication and limiting and
restricting what commercial interests were allowed to
do. As such it developed as an important means of
people being able to utilize the regenerative power of
communication to create something very new and
important for our times.
Pioneers with a vision of the future of the
Internet called for it to be made available to all as a
powerful education medium, not for it to be turned
into something that would mimic the worst features
of a so called “democratic nation” which reduces the
rights and abilities of its citizens to those of so called
“customers” of unregulated and unaccountable
commercial entities.
The Internet and the Netizens who populate the
Internet have created something much more impor-
tant than the so called commercial online “market-
place” that the Framework is trying to create.
Netizens have created an online international market-
place of ideas and discussion which is needed to
solve the complex problems of our times. The pro-
cess of “privatizing” what is a public trust will only
result in more problems and fights among the com-
mercial entities that are vying for their own self
interest, rather than having any regard for the impor-
tant communications that the Internet makes possible.
Both the government processes and purposes in
proposing the DNS restructuring do not ground
themselves on the important and unique nature of the
Internet. Proposals and practices to serve the future
of the Internet and the Netizens who contribute to
that future, can only be crafted through a much more
democratic process than that which led to the current
proposal. There is a need to examine the processes
that have actually given birth to and helped the Net to
grow and flourish, and to build on those processes in
creating the ways to solve the problems of the further
development of the Net. Sadly Magaziner’s proposal
Page 16
has ignored that process, and thus we are left with a
proposal that doesn’t reflect the democratic and
communicative nature of the Internet and so can only
do harm to its further development and cause ever
more problems.
Ronda Hauben
Comments and Discussion needed!
Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and
the Internet
and in print edition ISBN # 0-8186-7706-6
Kruggel)
Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet as Communications
Medium - Need for Discussion
Date: 20 Mar 1998 16:28:50 -0500
Hello Ronda,
On 20-Mar-98 17:05:11, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>There is currently a proposal by the U.S. govt to
> change the way that Internet domain (site) names
> are given out, and thus, to affect in an important
> way the future of the Internet.
Thanks for pointing it out to me. After reading
this document and your draft, I think this document
is a good starting point to discuss two crucial matters
of the future of the Internet: who will control and set
standards and in which way will the Netizens be
represented.
>This is hostile to the whole nature and develop-
> ment of the Internet. Magaziner claims that the
> “marketplace, not governments should determine
> technical standards.” What he seems to have no
> knowledge of is how the government support for a
> standards process that wouldn’t be dominated by
> the most powerful corporations, is some of how
> helpful standards have been developed. Instead
> Magaziner is trying to recast the standards develop
> ment process to mirror the unhealthy situation that
> develops when the supposed “marketplace” is
> allowed to set standards.
As setting the standards of something is a power-
ful means to determine its future development,
setting the Internet standards can’t be done by mar-
kets as long there’s still an agreement that the net has
more than the commercial function, and especially
when the social implications of the net are stressed.
Social interests can’t be managed through a market
mechanism as social interests always need a reconcil-
iation of the strong and the weak that the market
simply cannot accomplish: the means of communica-
tion on a market is money and so the strong (“rich”)
can gladly ignore any opposition of the weak
(“poor”) as those don’t have the means of getting
through to the arena of the market. In our case that
means that any standards set by “markets” will not
promote any social interests that are opposing the
commercial interests.
That brings me to the second point: the social
interests as well as the commercial interests regard-
ing the net have to be identified as well as their
possible connections to Internet standards. To explain
what I mean: in the early 80s a communication
system called BTX was introduced in Germany
(quite similar to Minitel in France and other systems)
that used the phone line and the TV to give electronic
information to the user. This system had a channel
bias, that means the channel from the network to the
user was much bigger than the channel from the user
to the network (I think it was 1200 bps vs. 75 bps).
Possible net standards nowadays could go into a
similar direction, converting it into a one way street
that serves the needs of commercial interests while
those pedestrians can still find their way on the
sidewalk.
To actually fight against such a threat, it is IMO
vital that both interests are identified and translated
into “standard matters,” to prevent that we discover
afterwards that a change of a standard led to a advan-
tage of the commercial interests on cost of the social
interests.
>Magaziner is proposing creating a supposed “not
> for profit” corporation to take over the domain
> name system functions currently being
> administered by IANA (the root system and the
> appropriate databases). This new corporation he
> proposes will have a board of directors which (...)
>7 members from the membership organization he
> is creating. (Of which he says at least one of those
> board seats could be designated for an individual
Page 17
> or entity engaged in non-commercial, not-for-
> profit use of the Internet, and one for individual
> end users. The remaining seats could be filled
> by commercial users, including trademark
> holders.)
Here’s the other point why I think the proposal
could have very negative effects on the net’s future:
representation is mainly built on who is paying. In
such a board the “non-commercial, not-for-profit”
voice would only be heard - if at all - but would not
be able to influence any of the decision made. Such
a model of representation would be another means of
ensuring a domination of commercial interest in
crucial matters of net administration.
And if it is applied in the case of the DNS
administration, why shouldn’t this be the model for
other areas: a few technicians, many commercial
users and one “non-commercial, not-for-profit”
voice.
>The proposal is an effort to change the nature and
> character of the Internet from a means of
> communication to a means of “commerce.”
I agree wholeheartedly to this comment.
>While Magaziner’s proposal is being distributed
> electronically, it gives no indication of where it
> came from, and why it fails to be based on the
> most essential aspects of the Internet. Why doesn’t
> the advisor making up such a proposal ask for
> discussion on line and participate in the
> discussion so as to be able to create a proposal
> that will reflect the needs and interests of those
> who are online rather than a narrow group of
> commercial interests.
Indeed. A more open and democratic way of
discussing these matters is needed. Somehow our
interests have to find their way into the discussion
but I’m quite unsure how this could be solved. Hope-
fully, as Ronda pointed this document out to us, we
are able to discuss the implications of this proposal
and make them more public on the net (that is, if this
isn’t the case already).
Bye,
*Markus Kruggel, 40217 Duesseldorf, Germany*
markus.krugg[email protected]
From: [email protected] (kerry)
Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet as Communications
Medium - Need for Discussion Date: 21 Mar 1998
18:48:58 -0500
The Proposal seems to contradict itself several times.
In itemizing the reasons for change, it’s clear that the
concept of “government” as exactly the stabilizing
force required in society has lost out to “Govern-
ment” as merely an entrenched bureaucracy. The
initial premise that the Net *should* be completely
commercialized is maintained, despite the fact that it
is “increasing commercial value” of domain names
which leads to trademark conflicts, while the “wide-
spread dissatisfaction” exists only among those who
see a *commercial* opportunity in DN registration.
Again, “Certain technical management functions
require coordination. In these cases, responsible,
private-sector action is preferable to government
control.” - but, “we divide the name and number
functions into two groups, those that can be moved to
a competitive system and those that should be coordi-
nated.” How private-sector coordination is to differ
from private-sector competition is not explained., or,
if “objective criteria” are found, what the means are
of bringing them into wide acceptability if the first
guess proves faulty.
One is reminded of the proposed Multilateral Agree-
ment on Investment, which would give corporations
the power of nations, with all the benefits of govern-
ment with none of the disadvantages, like equal
representation or free speech. Perhaps that’s all one
should expect of a concoction of the OECD and the
cohorts of international business, but it’s a bit alarm-
ing to see the USG, the bastion of democracy, ignor-
ing - indeed actively dismantling - its own fundamen-
tal principles.
Kerry
========
www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domain
name130.htm
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
Subject: Re: [netz] Internet as Communications
Medium
Page 18
Hello Markus and others on the Netizens Mailing list.
I wrote an answer to this on March 23, but
somehow it got lost, and then things got very hectic
and I haven’t had a chance till now to respond. But I
did want to respond so please excuse how late the
response is.
>From: markus.krugg[email protected] (Markus
> Kruggel)
>Newsgroups: alt.society.netizens
>Subject: Re: [netz] Internet as Communications
> Medium - Need for Discussion
>Date: 20 Mar 1998 16:28:50 -0500
> Hello Ronda,
> On 20-Mar-98 17:05:11, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>There is currently a proposal by the U.S. govt to
>> change the way that Internet domain (site) names
>> are given out, and thus to affect in an important
>> way the future of the Internet.
>Thanks for pointing it out to me. After reading this
> document and your draft, I think this document is
> a good starting point to discuss two crucial
> matters of the future of the Internet: who will
> control and set standards and in which way will
> the Netizens be represented.
I agree that there is a need to discuss the two
topics you mention:
1) who will control and set standards
2) in which way will the Netizens be represented.
There is one other topic I think very important,
which is
3) what is the nature of the Net as a new medium of
international communication and how to nourish and
continue to develop it.
>As setting the standards of something is a
> powerful means to determine its future
> development, setting the Internet standards can’t
> be done by markets as long there’s still an
> agreement that the net has more than the
> commercial function, and especially when the
> social implications of the net are stressed. Social
> interests can’t be managed through a market
> mechanism as social interests always need a
> reconciliation of the strong and the weak that the
> market simply cannot accomplish: the means of
>communication on a market is money and so the
> strong (“rich”) can gladly ignore any opposition of
> the weak (“poor”) as those don’t have the means...
Yes the social implications and importance of
the Net need to be considered. This is more important
than any commercial function. There is only market
dysfunction in reality. What the market means in the
U.S. is the development of unregulated, govt support
for monopolies like Microsoft.
Interesting. But why do you say “the means of
communication on a market is money” ?
I agree that money (or some other form of
power) is what functions to determine who wins and
who loses, but I am interested in why you say this is
communication.
> of getting through to the arena of the market. In
> our case that means that any standards set by
> “markets” will not promote any social interests
> that are opposing the commercial interests.
Yes this is helpful. “Standards” cannot be set by
a “market” mechanism as it only makes what the
most powerful wants the “standard”.
>That brings me to the second point: the social
> interests as well as the commercial interests re-
>guarding the net have to be identified as well as
>their possible connections to Internet standards. To
>explain what I mean:
This is helpful – I agree that the social interests
have to be identified.
How do we work to have that happen?
In the U.S. at least, the government is *only*
interested in what the commercial interests want, and
not at all interested in what the people or Netizens
want.
Somehow we need to find a way to not just react
to the government support for the commercial sector,
but we need to find a way to define what are the
social interests and how to work to have them devel-
oped.
I was thinking perhaps to try to develop a
“Framework for the Net as a New Means of Interna-
tional Communication” as opposed to the Magaziner
Framework of the Net for Commerce.
But I don’t know if that is the way forward.
However, I do think it is important to try to
identify the communication aspects of the Net and
Page 19
then how to continue to support and spread the
advantage this makes possible more broadly.
> in the early 80s a communication system called
> BTX was introduced in Germany (quite similar to
> Minitel in France and other systems) that used
> the phone line and the TV to give electronic
> information to the user. This system had a channel
> bias, that means the channel from the network to
> the user was much bigger than the channel from
> the user to the network (I think it was 1200 bps
> vs. 75 bps). Possible net standards nowadays
> could go into a similar direction, converting it into
> a one way street that serves the needs of
> commercial interests while those pedestrians can
> still find their way on the sidewalk.
This is a very helpful example.
I am interested in what you think is the way we
should try to go forward to have the broader social
interests with regard to the Net discussed and brought
onto the public agenda.
> To actually fight against such a threat, it is IMO
> vital that both interests are identified and
> translated into “standard matters,” to prevent that
> we discover afterwards that a change of a standard
> led to a advantage of the commercial interests on
> cost of the social interests.
I am trying to understand how we do this.
>> Magaziner is proposing creating a supposed “not
>> for profit” corporation to take over the domain
>> name system functions currently being
>> administered by IANA (the root system and the
>> appropriate databases). This new corporation he
>> proposes will have a board of directors which
>> (...) 7 members from the membership
>> organization he is creating. (Of which he says at
>> least one of those board seats could be
>> designated for an individual or entity engaged in
>> non-commercial, not-for-profit use of the
>> Internet, and one for individual end users. The
>> remaining seats could be filled by commercial
>> users, including trademark holders.)
> Here’s the other point why I think the proposal
> could have very negative effects on the net’s
> future: representation is mainly built on who is
> paying. In such a board thee “non-commercial,
> not-for-profit” voice would only be heard - if at all
> - but would not be able to influence any of the
> decision made. Such a model of representation
> would be another mean of ensuring a domination
> of commercial interest in crucial matters of net
> administration.
Yes – Magaziner’s proposal was only to take a
crucial aspect of the Internet – the DNS (Domain
Name System) and give it over to the commercial
sector. This will create a real problem as the com-
mercial interests have a very different agenda with
regard to Internet development than the Netizen or
user agenda.
It seems important to find some way to work to
challenge such a power grab and also the whole
backhanded way this is all being done. Magaziner
didn’t come online and ask for comments and discus-
sion on what should be done regarding the DNS –
and there are U.S. govt newsgroups where he could
have done so.
Instead he seems to have responded to the
proposals by the commercial interests to give them
this important aspect of the Internet. There does seem
to be a lot of opposition to what Magaziner is doing
– it is a problem for many so it would be good to see
if there could be a common battle, or some alliance
of all those who will be harmed by this proposal.
> And if it is applied in the case of the DNS
> administration, why shouldn’t this be the model
> for other areas: a few technicians, many
> commercial users and one “non-commercial,
> not-for-profit” voice.
Yes - and in fact the Net then to made into
mainly a vehicle for commerce. I noticed recently
that some of the search engines mainly list commer-
cial listings when you search for something, rather
than the broad view of what they used to list.
>> The proposal is an effort to change the nature and
>> character of the Internet from a means of
>> communication to a means of “commerce.”
> I agree wholeheartedly to this comment.
I wonder if it would be worth trying to write a
framework for the Internet as a means of communi-
cation.
Page 20
>> While Magaziner’s proposal is being distributed
>> electronically, it gives no indication of where it
>> came from, and why it fails to be based on the
>> most essential aspects of the Internet. Why
>> doesn’t the advisor making up such a proposal
>> ask for discussion on line and participate in the
>> discussion so as to be able to create a proposal
>> that will reflect the needs and interests of those
>> who are online rather than a narrow group of
>> commercial interests.
> Indeed. A more open and democratic way of
> discussing these matters is needed. Somehow our
> interests have to find their way into the discussion
> but I’m quite unsure how this could be solved.
> Hopefully, as Ronda....
I wonder if there are mailing lists where govt
officials are discussing these issues with the commer-
cial interests - in the past the com-priv (commercial-
ization - privatization) functioned to provide for such
discussion (but it doesn’t seem to do so much lately)
But if one tried to bring up social interests, one was
attacked.
But there seems to be a need for a Netizen
framework for the future of the Net – and then to
apply this in responding to the commercial frame-
work.
> pointed this document out to us, we are able to
> discuss the implications of this proposal and make
> them more public on the net (that is, if this isn’t
> the case already).
I didn’t see much discussion of the DNS on
UseNet – actually I don’t know what newsgroups
would be discussing it.
I wonder if anyone on the Netizens list knows of
where such discussion has taken place online.
But in any case, it hasn’t been open and obvious.
>*Markus Kruggel, 40217 Duesseldorf, Germany*
> markus.krug[email protected]
Ronda
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 18:06:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: markus.kruggel@uni-duisburg.de
Subject: [netz] Internet as a Means of Communica-
tion - Need for Discussion
Hi all,
Sorry for this late reply, but my workload here was
tremendous, and I wanted to write a decent answer as
I find the topic quite important.
On 08-Apr-98 03:35:08, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>> There is currently a proposal by the U.S. govt to
>>> change the way that Internet domain (site)
>>> names are given out, and thus to affect in an
>>> important way the future of the Internet.
>> Thanks for pointing it out to me. After reading
>> this document and your draft, I think this docu-
>> ment is a good starting point to discuss two
>> crucial matters of the future of the Internet: who
>> will control and set standards and in which way
>> will the Netizens be represented.
> I agree that there is a need to discuss the two topics
> you mention:
>
>1) who will control and set standards
>2) in which way will the Netizens be represented.
>
>There is one other topic I think very important,
> which is:
>
> 3) what is the nature of the Net as a new medium of
> international communication and how to nourish
> and continue to develop it.
I agree. But IMO 3. comes before 1. and 2. as the
answer(s) to this question will determine possible
answers to 1. and 2.
>> As setting the standards of something is a power
>> ful means to determine its future development,
>> setting the Internet standards can’t be done by
>> markets as long there’s still an agreement that the
>> net has more than the commercial function, and
>> especially when the social implications of the net
>> are stressed. Social interests can’t be managed
>> through a market mechanism as social interests
>> always need a reconciliation of the strong and the
>> weak that the market simply cannot accomplish:
>> the means of communication on a market is
>> money and so the strong (“rich”) can gladly
>> ignore any opposition of the weak (“poor”) as
>> those don’t have the means
Page 21
> Interesting. But why do you say “the means of
> communication on a market is money” ? I agree
> that money (or some other form of power) is what
> functions to determine who wins and who loses,
> but I am interested in why you say this is
> communication.
I was a bit unclear here, I suppose. What I meant
was that communication on a market is realized by
setting (seller) and offering (buyer) prices. What’s
communicated on market are plans: plans to sell or to
buy at a certain price. So, it’s probably better to say
that all market communication *refers* to money
instead of saying the money is the *means* of
communication on a market. However, both lead to
same result: whatever can’t be formulated in terms of
quantities and prices can’t be communicated on
market.
>> That brings me to the second point: the social
>> interests as well as the commercial interests
>> regarding the net have to be identified as well as
>> their possible connections to Internet standards.
>> To explain what I mean:
> This is helpful- I agree that the social interests have
> to be identified.
>
> How do we work to have that happen?
I think those who have the interests have to
formulate them. I see that this bears another problem,
because the broad majority of people around the
world who have *no* access to the Internet would be
excluded from this process. If this happens, chances
are that interests that those people have would be
excluded, too.
> In the U.S. at least, the government is *only* inter-
> ested in what the commercial interests want, and
> not at all interested in what the people or Netizens
> want which is what is in the best interest of the
> society.
Same here in Germany, I’m afraid.
> Somehow we need to find a way to not just react to
> the government support for the commercial sector,
> but we need to find a way to define what are the
> social interests and how to work to have them
> developed.
I think this mainly goes via influencing the
public agenda. My idea concerning this are described
a little bit further down.
> I was thinking perhaps to try to develop a “Frame-
> work for the Net as a New Means of International
> Communication” as opposed to the Magaziner
> Framework of the Net for Commerce.
>
> We need to try to figure out what is a way forward.
I don’t think that such an extensive framework
should *oppose* the framework for commerce. IMO
commerce has to get it’s place on the Internet, too,
but it shouldn’t rule. So it seems to me that the best
approach is to incorporate social and commercial
interests in some way and to find a compromise
between both. But I probably misunderstood you and
what you had in mind was a not a comprehensive
framework but one that concentrates on social inter-
ests. It’s probably best for us to develop the latter as
I’m sure that Magaziner is not alone and others are
happily developing concept with a commercial bias
right now.
>> in the early 80s a communication system called
>> BTX was introduced in Germany (quite similar to
>> Minitel in France and other systems) that used
>> the phone line and the TV to give electronic infor-
>> mation to the user. This system had a channel
>> bias, that means the channel from the network to
>> the user was much bigger than the channel from
>> the user to the network (I think it was 1200 bps
>> vs. 75 bps). Possible net standards nowadays
>> could go into a similar direction, converting it
>> into a one way street that serves the needs of
>> commercial interests while those pedestrians can
>> still find their way on the sidewalk.
> This is a very helpful example.
>
> I am interested in what you think is the way we
> should try to go forward to have the broader social
> interests with regard to the Net discussed and
> brought onto the public agenda.
One way to do this seems to make use of the
conventional mass media. The problem that I see
here is, that Netizens are a minority within the
society and as long as this state remains, it will be
Page 22
quite hard to interest a broader public for this topic,
simply because it won’t make a story on conven-
tional mass media.
Another way I could think of would be to
sensibilize more or less prominent and public figures
to realize what power over standards can mean for
the future of communication. Sayings of those public
figures would be perceived more probably than any
statement that is made by us – on this list, for exam-
ple.
A third way, and probably the most promising
one, is to point out the importance of the topic to
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of different
kinds and not only the EFF and the like. I think the
NGOs could be helpful because they are benefitting
a lot from the Internet (in fact, already the fax ma-
chine was a powerful tool for them) and hence they
would be harmed from processes that exclude social
interests. NGOs could probably advocate Netizens’
interests best and they could start immediately and
they could do it on world scale as they already work
together. IMO the last is a really huge advantage.
>> Here’s the other point why I think the proposal
>> could have very negative effects on the net’s
>> future: representation is mainly built on who is
>> paying. In such a board thee “non-commercial,
>> not-for-profit” voice would only be heard - if at
>> all - but would not be able to influence any of
>> the decision made. Such a model of
>> representation would be another mean of
>> ensuring a domination of commercial interest in
>> crucial matters of net administration.
>Yes - Magaziner’s proposal was only to take a
> crucial aspect of the Internet – the DNS
> (Domain Name System) and give it over to the
> commercial sector. This will create a real problem
> as the commercial interests have a very different
> agenda with regard to Internet development than
> the Netizen or user agenda.
>
> It seems important to find some way to work to
> challenge such a power grab and also the whole
> backhanded way this is all being done.
The only way I see is to make such develop-
ments public. If the regarding persons and institu-
tions don’t do this themselves it has to be done by
those who take note of it. One tool we have to ac-
complish this is the net itself. Obviously, a simple
web site wouldn’t do the trick, instead the discussion
has to be spread to inform as many people as possible
– carried into newsgroups and mailing lists for
example.
> There does seem to be a lot of opposition to what
> Magaziner is doing – it is a problem for many so
> it would be good to see if there could be a
> common battle, or some alliance of all those who
> will be harmed by this proposal.
Where is this opposition forming up at the
moment? Is there any news?
>> And if it is applied in the case of the DNS
>> administration, why shouldn’t this be the model
>> for other areas: a few technicians, many
>> commercial users and one “non-commercial,
>> not-for-profit” voice.
>Yes - and in fact the Net then to made into mainly
> a vehicle for commerce. I noticed recently that
> some of the search engines mainly list commercial
> listings when you search for something, rather
> than the broad view of what they used to list.
That’s an interesting observation. Do you have
any further info on this?
(...)
> Perhaps what is needed is a Netizen framework for
> the future of the Net - and then to apply this in
> responding to the commercial framework.
Yes, I really think that developing this frame-
work should be the next step. The first things that I’m
aware of now and which should be included in this
framework are:
– the Net’s nature from the Netizens’ point of view
– a plan for the future development of the Net
– other possible plans (commercial ones, for exam-
ple)
– which development ideas exclude each other
– the levers to influence the Net’s development
(standards, ...)
– how these levers can be used to realize the above
future plan
– in which ways the levers can be used to the
Netizens’ disadvantage
Page 23
Of course this list is far from being complete or
detailed. But IMO it should be completed before the
framework is worked out.
Bye,
- --
*Markus Kruggel, 40217 Duesseldorf, Germany*
markus.krugg[email protected]
(To Be Continued)
*[Reprinted from Special Issue Amateur Computerist July 1998,
(Vol. 8 no 2), http://umcc.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/Back
_Issues[1998-2002]/ACN8-2.pdf
[Editor’s Note: The following analysis of ICANN is
reprinted with permission from TELEPOLIS
Cone of Silence
ICANN or Internet
Democracy is Failing
by John Horvath
We take for granted a lot of the inventions of the
late 20th century. We are naturally under the assump-
tion that things we use every day which are so handy
and so useful will always be the way they are, and
that the technological improvements underway will
only make them better. Even the Internet, which has
become so much a part of modern life for many
people, has fallen prey to such assumptions.
Unfortunately, the assumption is dead wrong.
There’s a battle being waged behind the scenes that
many of us don’t know about — even those whose
lives have now become dependent on computer
mediated communication systems like the Internet.
The process to hand over government control of the
Internet to a private body — a process which was
formulated last summer and initiated toward the end
of that same year — has been rife with problems that
various sides are continually struggling to deal with.
While many people who use the Internet will
have heard about this process and the organisation in-
volved — ICANN , to which the whole process has
become synonymous – the truth of the matter is that
for the vast majority it is something relatively un-
known. Indeed, there’s been a “cone of silence” over
the issue, and for those involved that’s just the way
they like it.
In order to try and break this cone of silence and
to better understand what is really at stake, what will
be looked at is the origin and evolution of the process
and the organisation it has created, ICANN. Its first
moves and the corresponding negative reaction that
gave the whole process a stillborn start will be
examined, along with ways in which attempts have
been made to rescue the process. This will be fol-
lowed by a more in-depth look at those for and
against ICANN and the process, along with some
observations as to how and why the silent complicity
that surrounds the issue exists.
In the end, it will be shown how the issue is not
just one involving the transformation of the Internet
from a government body to a private one, but strikes
at the very heart of democracy in the digital age. It
also affects the emergence of a new form of civic
discourse, one that transcends the limits of physical
space. In fact, it’s something which will profoundly
change our lives, and unless more attention is paid to
what is actually going on behind the scenes, a future
will be built for us that will run counter to many of
our hopes and expectations.
The origin and evolution of ICANN
For many, ICANN (the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers) was established in
the most mysterious of ways. What is more, they see
a grand disaster being set up by an organisation with
tenuous legitimacy and experience in Internet-related
matters. In order to understand what exactly is at
stake, we have to go to the very beginning — not
merely the birth of ICANN, but the structural frame-
work upon which it was conceived.
ICANN is an organisation, established in the
form of a private non-profit corporation and suppos-
edly managed by an international board, that was ex-
pressly formed to take over the responsibility for
duties now performed under U.S. government con-
tract by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA) and other entities. The transition is expected
to last about a year, during which time the Initial
Board of ICANN will create a permanent governance
structure with members and member-elected direc-
tors. In addition to overseeing technical standards,
the group is supposed to devise and administer a new
Page 24
plan for managing the top-level domains: .com, .org.,
and .net. At issue is the Domain Name System (DNS)
which governs the routing of World Wide Web
pages, electronic mail and other communications
over the Internet. (The DNS is a hierarchical arch-
itecture to keep the number of root level lookups for
the Internet at a minimum.) The ownership/ control
and allocation of the IP numbers of the Internet, the
port numbers, the protocol process, and the scaling of
these systems are all issues that are to be dealt with
by the new organisation.
The supposed need for a transition was form-
ulated by the U.S. government last year through what
has come to be known as the International Forum on
the White Paper (IFWP). The Commerce Depart-
ment’s Green Paper/White Paper process was initi-
ated with primary purpose of turning to e-commerce
as the policy for the Internet. However, so as to make
it appear more broad-based, it was also announced
that the “need” for a transition was because “broad
segments” of Internet users were deeply unsatisfied
with the process conducted by the IANA, which was
subsequently criticised as being closed and unfair.
Also, conflicts between Network Solutions (NSI), the
company which had been in charge of administering
the DNS, and the on-line community had given rise
to what many have termed the “DNS wars”.
It was on the basis of this that a new, more
responsible organisation was to be established. Some
observers see ICANN as the brainchild of just one
man: Jon Postel, the director of the IANA. The irony
of the situation, it has been argued, is that some of
the most critical network functions done by Postel
actually had no authority in law. Moreover, the
IANA functions had no institutional basis. Thus, as
the argument goes, what Postel did was on the basis
of nothing more than informally agreed upon custom.
Despite this supposed lack of legitimacy, Postel
worked on articles of incorporation for the new
organisation. Although reactions to some of his drafts
were largely negative
1
, Postel still continued to enjoy
support of a wide spectrum of the Internet commu-
nity, especially the technical insiders. Shortly before
his untimely death, he hammered out the final frame-
work for what was to be called ICANN.
There is some debate, however, about this interp-
retation of events. Although Postel did much of the
work to bring about ICANN, some counter that
Postel was not the sole author and may not have had
that much to do with the authoring of the ICANN
proposal. According to one source, a lawyer named
Joe Sims claims to have written some of the Postal
drafts. When a reporter tried in Geneva to ask Postel
about some of the details of the draft and its con-
sequences he was not willing to answer them. “It is
unlikely that so important a document would have
been left to Postel especially when his experience
was not in the by-laws or corporate field and when so
much was at stake,” remarked Jay Hauben, an editor
of the Amateur Computerist. He goes on to mention
that the only clue given by Esther Dyson, who event-
ually became chairperson of the new organisation,
about the origins of ICANN is that she was contacted
by a person from IBM before she spoke with Postel
about it.
“What is ironic is that a story about ICANN
being a one person creation occurred only after that
person had died,” adds Hauben. “Moreover every-
thing Postel did, he did under contracts with the U.S.
government subject to U.S. government oversight
and direction. Postel was mainly under contract to
ARPA.” Jake Feinler, who worked at the NIC,
relates: “Jon and I were both government contractors,
so of course followed the directions of our contract-
ing officers. He was mainly under contract to ARPA,
whereas the NIC was mainly under contract to DCA.
BBN was another key contractor. For the most part
we all worked as a team... .”
2
Therefore, contrary to those who see the birth of
ICANN as a one man affair, Postel actually had
authority from the U.S. government to do what he
was doing with regard to carrying out the functions
of IANA. However, a question can be raised as to
whether Postel was under the impression the U.S.
government had the right to and was directing him to
create ICANN.
3
Whether or not Postel was the sole creator of
ICANN and had the authority to do whatever he did,
one thing is for certain: ICANN is being portrayed as
the first legally-constituted, international governing
body for the Internet. Indeed, at the outset, some
considered that ICANN would be nothing more than
a process designed to provide a formalised mech-
anism for the execution of the IANA functions. In
retrospect, this was mere wishful thinking. Many
have since speculated how history might have been
different if Postel had not died so unexpectedly.
4
Page 25
First Moves
All during the Fall of 1998 controversy raged
over the future of the IANA. Proposals were made by
Ronda Hauben, by the Boston Working Group, the
Open Source Root Consortium and by the IANA
itself. The IANA’s proposal to create ICANN was
particularly controversial because the two U.S. gov-
ernment contractors – the IANA and NSI – had split
over it. It began to appear as if the U.S. Congress was
going to investigate Postel himself because of this
split and the method of choosing the ICANN interim
board. Then Postel suddenly died.
No sooner had Postel been buried and eulogies
about him circulated throughout the Internet, contro-
versy over ICANN re-erupted. The problem right
away had to do with the different views of what
ICANN represented: for some it was to privatise key
aspects of the Internet, the DNS and control of the
root server of the Internet; for others, it was to
establish a new regime whereby social-technical
issues such as scalability were to be resolved; and
still others continued to fight against any private
entity being created.
For members of the interim board of ICANN,
they see their work as a clear mandate for privatizing
the Internet. The optimism with which the chair-
person of ICANN, Esther Dyson, approaches the
privatisation of the Internet is akin to the supposed
benefits of telecom liberalisation, most of which are
unfounded. According to Dyson, “in every market I
know where telecom has been privatized and ren-
dered competitive, prices have gone down. And
generally, service has even improved!” As far as she
is concerned, this goes not only for the U.S. but for
the U.K., Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary,
and Russia.
5
The assumption that “competition” and so-called
“market forces” bring better service is a grand myth
of telecom liberalization, second to that of cheaper
prices. As Ronda Hauben, co-author of Netizens: On
the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet
points out, it is basic research which is responsible
for advanced communications technology. In the US,
for instance, basic research was funded by govern-
ment setting the rates to provide for the research that
went on at Bell Labs. Conversely, private companies
have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of vision and
even aversion to new technology unless it has some-
how already proven itself to be a worthwhile and
profitable investment. As a result, most companies
won’t support basic research unless profits are high
and immediate. Meanwhile, old technology is kept in
place for as long as possible at high prices.
This process can be clearly seen in the evolution
of the Internet itself. In its early days, big business
was approached with the idea of funding its devel-
opment but they refused, for it was not considered to
be a worthwhile (i.e., profitable) project. Likewise, in
1977, DEC was convinced that PCs would never
become a mainstream consumer item. Apart from
stifling technological innovations, what many people
fear is the real meaning behind the privatisation of
the Internet: an offer to private sector corporations
competition in selling root level gTLDs. To this
extent, they see ICANN embroiled in a conflict of
interest. One of the primary purposes of ICANN is to
make policy and recommendations for how to in-
crease the number of gTLDs. Those presently pro-
posing this structure have a commercial self-interest
in the issues, and thus a conflict of interest in being
involved in proposing or setting public policy re-
garding the future of the Internet.
“The history of the Domain Name System
(DNS) reform controversy is repeating itself,” notes
one commentator. “The Commerce Department must
make sure that this second occurrence is not a trag-
edy.” What he and many others feel is that the
problem with NSI is now being repeated under
ICANN. What is especially worrying is that profits
are being made on a government contract for what
should have been a simple administrative function —
giving out domain names, like giving out license
plates for cars. In the case of ICANN, not only is the
profit motive lingering in the background, but so too
is the potential to grab the central points of control of
the Internet from a legitimate and responsible entity
(i.e., a public governmental entity with responsibility
and obligations and means of punishing abuses) and
putting them into the hands of an entity with no
means of accountability, no means of knowing who
is doing what, and no means of punishing criminal
activity.
In debating the legitimacy of ICANN, supporters
often point to the fact that the Internet community
has been attempting for years to terminate NSI’s
commercial monopoly on .com, .net and, .org regis-
trations. Consequently, through ICANN the com-
munity has been attempting to establish new sorts of
DNS oversight.
Opponents of ICANN see the situation in an-
Page 26
other light. They see ICANN as merely a replace-
ment for the NSI — with the exception that it has a
much broader base of technical and economic power.
Thus, rather than the Internet community attempting
to initiate some sort of change, they see the whole
process as being hijacked by a small group of people
who, at the instigation of the U.S. government, have
been trying to get themselves a piece of the NSI pie.
In other words, ICANN is not particularly interested
in identifying or solving any of the problems that
exist, such as the scalability of the Internet.
“The real problem that the DNS wars show is
that is that the U.S. government doesn’t seem to be
supporting the needed scientific research about how
to provide for the scaling of the Internet,” explains
Hauben. “The U.S. government has initiated and is
directing this process with no regard for the concerns
and interests of the people on-line or not yet on-line.”
Action, Reaction
People are still debating on what exactly ICANN
is, whether it is an interest group or a regulatory
body. One thing is clear: Many feel that ICANN
should be nothing more than a body that sets policy
for the development and use of domain name space,
the assignment of IP numbers, and the assignment of
port numbers to new protocols. These are consid-
erable powers in itself, especially when we recall that
the first allocations of IPv6 numbers are expected
this year.
With the growing criticism surrounding ICANN,
along with numerous lawsuits related to domain
name disputes already launched against the new
organisation, not to mention complaints that reform
plans were drafted behind closed doors without
public input, the White House quickly halted its
operations and ordered the group to realign its
membership structure, hold open meetings, publish
minutes, and set up a process for appealing decisions.
Accordingly, ICANN came out with a number of
“by-laws” designed to satisfy specific structural
concerns noted by the government. These changes
included financial accountability; a fully transparent
decision-making process, with minutes of each
ICANN Board, Supporting Organization or com-
mittee meeting to be publicly posted within 21 days
following every meeting; the creation of a Conflicts
of Interest policy of all ICANN institutions, includ-
ing the Supporting Organizations; a globally repre-
sentative governance structure; and respect for a
nation’s sovereign control over its individual Top
Level Domain.
While some see this as an effort on the part of
the U.S. government to keep the process as fair and
transparent as possible, others see this move as mere
whitewash. They argue that the U.S. government still
went ahead with its de facto recognition of ICANN
anyway, only asking it to clean up its act a bit.
Furthermore, the memorandum of understanding
between the U.S. government and ICANN calls for a
period of “design and testing” with a 50-50 split of
responsibility, but in subsequent events the U.S. gov-
ernment did not play any obvious or helpful role.
Thus, although ICANN has been officially
receiving parental supervision from the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), pending a show of its ability to muster
strong enough consensus support from the Internet
Community, dissatisfaction with the organisation is
still strong. According to Jim Dixon, telecommunica-
tions director of EuroISPA, a European ISP trade
group based in Brussels, “there is widespread mis-
trust of ICANN’s board.”
This mistrust is based on a number of factors.
Many feel that ICANN is rushing through the process
without any ethical considerations or social obli-
gations, squelching discussion and dissent along the
way. As far as the Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility (CPSR) is concerned, the problem is
much more rudimentary: simply, the approach of
ICANN is unilateral, unaccountable, and non-con-
sensus. The foremost complaint against ICANN is its
lack of transparency. Furthermore, the fact that many
decisions are made in secret has many worried.
Indeed, since its inception late last year, ICANN has
been widely criticised for being secretive and unac-
countable.
In a way, this kind of behaviour is nothing new,
and is something that preceded ICANN. Postel’s
creation of the organization was, for the most part,
unilateral. Similarly, ICANN-nominated interim
Board members were never discussed nor confirmed
by any public process whatsoever. What is more,
ICANN was incorporated in California at the unilat-
eral direction of the IANA.
ICANN itself, meanwhile, has defended their
policy of closed meetings by saying they are more
like a corporate than a government board, and that
corporations typically hold board meetings in private.
Moreover, ICANN’s interim president and chief
Page 27
executive, Mike Roberts, said his group is responsive
to criticism and that important policy proposals are
submitted for public scrutiny and comment. “We are
incredibly open for a private, non-profit organisa-
tion,” claims Roberts.
Dyson went further, stressing that ICANN will
be a public entity — and not just the U.S. public. To
this extent, the board had announced a series of
“open” meetings throughout the world where mem-
bers of the Internet community and others can speak
directly to ICANN’s interim board and management.
“We have an international board, we will have an
international membership, and we are an interna-
tional organization,” says Dyson.
Hauben disagrees. “ICANN is not in any way an
International [sic!] but something created by the U.S.
government to empower those obligations that the
U.S. government currently holds.” What is more, she
argues that the activities of a small set of people who
can afford to globe trot around the world to partic-
ipate in trying to grab what belongs to the public and
claim they have the right to make decisions for the
Internet community is no way representative of a
global and public entity. On this point, even the
European Commission is in agreement.
6
Indeed, con-
cern has also been raised by an observer from
Namibia about the U.S. government giving away the
authority to administer country code domains to a
private entity.
Closely related to the lack of transparency is
what many have come to regard as the abandonment
of open structures. For most, the establishment and
early operation of ICANN has been done in a way
that is totally antithetical to the time honored open
and democratic processes of IETF working groups.
Not surprisingly, this was one of the first criticisms
of ICANN that Dyson had to face.
Consequently, in the letter transmitting the
bylaws as formally adopted by ICANN to the Com-
merce Department, Dyson acknowledged that the
bylaws “will have to be changed to reflect the work
of the Initial Board and to create the permanent
governance structure of ICANN. We will carefully
consider any and all suggestions for improvement as
we move forward in this process. Nobody should
operate under the illusion that any issue has been
resolved ‘once and for all.’ Similarly, nobody should
feel that issues that are important to them and have
not been addressed to their satisfaction cannot be
revisited. The process is just beginning.”
Despite this pronouncement, critics like Hauben
have complained that issues important to her have
not been addressed to her satisfaction. She points out
that while the Harvard Berkman Institute conducts
serious discussions about how to “vote” for “mem-
bership” in the new ICANN organization, other
issues, such as increasing the say of those online in
what is happening with regard to what the U.S.
government is mandating, are not being discussed.
“Instead, there is a cherade [sic!] of how the Internet
should be ‘governed’ by this U.S. created and run
private corporation staffed by people ‘voted for’ by
some form of ‘membership’ that has come from the
Internet.” “This is the very opposite of not only the
grassroots process that has given birth to and helped
to build the Internet,” adds Hauben, “but also to the
kind of grassroots democracy that is needed to
continue to make it possible for the Internet to grow
and flourish.”
Along with the abandonment of open structures,
ICANN is often seen as over-extending their author-
ity in a number of areas. This was clearly apparent at
the very beginning when Dyson had indicated that
aside from the issues ICANN was mandated for there
were many others, including e-commerce and pri-
vacy, with which she would find it attractive to
become involved.
The ways in which ICANN goes about over-
extending their authority, however, is not always so
obvious. For example, while ICANN claims to be a
membership organization of a non-profit corporate
entity, the membership list is based at an isi.edu
domain. This is a site at the University of Southern
California, despite the fact that ICANN is not an
“edu” (i.e., educational) entity. What this clearly
demonstrates is that ICANN is moving to take over
and make private all that has been publicly held as
part of the IANA - which includes the isi.edu domain
as well as other aspects. Again, this all has a lot to do
with not only the attitudes of individual board mem-
bers but the structure and theoretical framework upon
which ICANN was conceived. In essence, the form
being created for ICANN was fundamentally in-
appropriate for the task that it was being created for.
In addition to this, it must be remembered that
the U.S. government is keen on maintaining a certain
amount of control. This not only has to do with tech-
nology, but has been an integral part of U.S. foreign
policy since the end of the Cold War. This is a view
not only shared by observers like Hauben, who is
Page 28
convinced that “the U.S. government, despite its
disclaimers will maintain both control and ultimately
liability for whatever mess it is planning,” but also by
certain governments as well. For the European Union
especially, this is an important factor, for “there are
certain issues [...] still not fully dealt with [by
ICANN], such as the improvement of safeguards
against extra-territorial application of U.S. law and
public policies.”
7
As with the other complaints it has received,
ICANN has been made aware of this public displea-
sure over the way it over-extends its authority. And
like the way in which it responded to other com-
plaints, when the board had not simply turned a deaf
ear to criticism, it exhibited behaviour which proves
old habits not only die hard, they are innately in-
grained.
A case in point was the recent ICANN board
meeting in Singapore, which was to lay foundations
for its own operation as well as domain name policy.
At this meeting general issues included membership
criteria, a call for open board meetings, and ensuring
a fair international balance. In the area of domain
names, the board moved forward toward creating a
subordinate group called the Domain Name Support-
ing Organisation (DNSO). Strangely, it also made
policy rulings that one would expect would have
been left open until the DNSO could meet and handle
the matters itself. In the end, what this shows is how
very little has changed in the way ICANN does
things. One reason why ICANN feels comfortable in
over-extending its authority in such a way is because
it feels it’s not accountable to anyone. This lack of
accountability is still prevalent among board mem-
bers even after ICANN came under NTIA supervi-
sion in November.
Meanwhile, what draws criticism from many
quarters is that a business-based “self governance”
model or “private self regulation model” as a modus
operandi for ICANN is essentially setting up a
system for abuse. “The fundamental problem is that
they are not engaged in two-way communication,”
observes Gordon Cook, author and publisher of The
Cook Report on Internet . As a result, a line of
responsibility that hitherto existed between the IANA
and the online community is being severed.
The need to ensure such a line of responsibility
continues to exist was brought up during the
Berkman Institute meeting at the end of January. A
person from China noted that if ICANN was to
balance the distribution of scarce resources, then
checks and balances would be needed, much like the
present political system in the U.S. where there is a
President (the executive branch), Congress (the
legislative branch), and a Supreme Court (the judicial
branch). Indeed, although the American regulatory
framework which has tried to keep corporate behav-
iour in line has been effectively shattered by the
onslaught of a neo-liberalist political agenda, checks
and balances still do exist. For example, the FBI
checks on government officials who are responsible
for administering regulatory bodies and if they abuse
their obligations they can be subject to criminal
prosecution. How this translates into practice, of
course, is another story. Nevertheless, with the
Internet a trail of responsibility of sorts did exist. The
IANA was under DARPA; thus, DARPA was
responsible for what went on in the IANA.
8
Hence,
there was a line of responsibility backed up by
penalties for abuse. “This is all the opposite of what
is happening with the privatizing of the DNS,” notes
Hauben, “and throwing it to the corporate interests
who are the so called ‘market forces’.”
While all these arguments and observations per-
taining to the secretive, undemocratic, and even
unconstitutional behaviour of ICANN and its mem-
bers have been made repeatedly, what irks most
people is the smug attitude of ICANN board mem-
bers and their blatant disregard for public opinion.
For instance, on the issue of transparency and se-
crecy, board members still meet in private despite
protests. A classic example of the contempt board
members hold toward the public is the following
from ICANN president Mike Roberts: “some of those
people think the management should check with the
public every time they make a decision, which is
crazy. That’s flat-out crazy.”
9
But what about what Dyson said previously, that
ICANN “will carefully consider any and all sug-
gestions for improvement” and that “nobody should
feel that issues that are important to them and have
not been addressed to their satisfaction cannot be
revisited.”? Obviously, such contradictions doesn’t
deter Roberts: “I’m not very warm and fuzzy about
the opinions of a bunch of self-appointed critics out
there,” he adds. “They create a context of their own,
they create their own standards and then criticize us
against those standards.... I am responsive to criti-
cisms that we don’t live up to the standards set out in
the White Paper [that mandated ICANN].”
Page 29
Some agree with this. “Regardless of my own
desire for more openness in ICANN’s processes, I
think he and others at the Berkman Center have
behaved in an honest and forthright manner, trying to
include as many people in the discussions as pos-
sible,” admitted one observer on the Netizen mailing
list. “I’ve listened to the Real Audio feed from at
least three fora where Ronda Hauben has participated
(two hosted by BCIS), and in each instance she was
given ample time to state her case. She has been
treated fairly, but she is not fair enough to admit it.”
In this particular case, however, those defending
Hauben see the whole debate differently. They
maintain that the silencing of critics has nothing to do
with the time allotted nor the styles of the speeches
made at the various meetings. Rather, it has to do
with blurring the focus of some of the more critical
attacks. Hence, at the Berkman Center meeting at the
end of January, where the content of what Hauben
was presenting was the case for a public and scien-
tific oversight of the Internet, the ultimate purpose
was not to deprive her of the right to speak, but to
somehow penalize her so others would be cowed and
wouldn’t make the same criticism.
In face of such accusations and growing crit-
icism, ICANN has had to rely on the services of a
professional spin doctor, mostly to address charges of
secrecy and inaccessibility. This in itself was a cause
for severe criticism. “I think it’s a bad idea and silly
waste of money,” said Dixon. “They should open up
their [board] meetings and hold them in public rather
than hire a PR firm to spin their decisions.” Cook
was more scathing: “this is the normal PR approach
to putting a friendly face on a dictator or a carcino-
gen.”
Roberts defended the move, stating that ICANN
is a world-wide organisation that gets world-wide
press coverage and thus needs professional help. Yet
critics say the move is merely cosmetic and that the
corporation should institute democratic decision-
making processes. “The PR firm now stands between
them and the Internet community,” notes Dixon. “It
polishes their pronouncements and puts them out. It’s
just a familiar means of continuing the same kind of
failed, bankrupt effort at communication that’s not a
meaningful two-way dialog, but merely a series of
pronouncements.”
While a professional spin doctor has been busy
taking care of ICANN’s defensive strategy, lately
there seems to have appeared what can be referred to
as an offensive strategy in support of ICANN. This
strategy comes as ICANN teeters on the brink of
legitimacy.
This offensive strategy has taken the form of
scare tactics based on an increased fear of “cyber-
terrorism.” In the beginning of March a top Pentagon
official cautioned the U.S. Congress about the “very
real threat” of cyber-terrorists who are more likely to
hit commercial targets than military ones. This
followed an unconfirmed report by Reuters about
hackers seizing control of a UK military satellite.
By ushering in a fear of cyber terrorists,
ICANN’s role is already being semi-legitamised.
Also, a sense of urgency has been added, in where
public opinion is coerced into believing that some
form of control over the Internet is needed - and
needed quickly. Secrecy is likewise justified; conse-
quently, the open structures of the Internet is no
longer being regarded as an advantage, and should
thus be discarded.
The blatant contempt of ICANN board members,
coupled with their lack of transparency and the over-
extension of their authority, has many wondering
what the ulterior motives for the organisation really
is. For many, the problem with Dyson as Chairperson
of the Interim Board of Directors of ICANN is that
she personifies the U.S. government’s effort to create
a private corporate entity that they control which, in
turn, controls the Internet. Subsequently, the com-
munication that the Internet makes possible among
people is under attack by the likes of Dyson and
ICANN who want to convert the new media into a
place for buying and selling, and for safe “trans-
actions.” In conjunction with this, is concern over the
problem of scaling the Internet. According to the
Office of Inspector General’s Report for February 7,
1997, the Internet needs to have its scaling overseen
by those with the kind of scientific knowledge that
built the Internet.
Yet, instead of solving the problem of scaling the
Internet, ICANN has been more concerned with
determining who gains control of its various fun-
ctions. What is more, they are involving themselves
with such issues as the transfer of valuable and
controlling assets of the Internet to a private entity,
despite the fact that the Memorandum of Under-
standing with the NTIA in November 1998 didn’t
provide any authority to transfer any such assets (it
only provided authority of the U.S. Department of
Commerce to make contracts).
Page 30
Many believe the hidden agenda behind ICANN
to be not just as a means for the administration of
critical technical functions, but as a vantage point
from which interested parties can determine how the
Internet should be governed by using it to make the
rules under which the Internet would operate. This
includes the DNS and other Internet functions.
Within this context, it seems ICANN is more
concerned with first grabbing the functions needed to
scale the Internet rather than solve the problems at
hand. For Cook, the question is not what ICANN is
up to; for him, that much is already clear and quite
obvious. Rather, it comes down to simply this: “The
Golden Egg – Will ICANN Kill the Goose or Just
Steal It?”
Saving the process
With widespread discontent over the formation
of ICANN, the policies it has thus far pursued, and
the attitudes of its members, attempts have been
made to keep the transition under some sort of
control. At the recent meeting in Singapore, ways to
save the process were explored. What has come to be
known the CENTR proposal (or document) was one
of the outcomes of this attempt to save and even
realign the process.
Shortly before the March meeting in Singapore,
critics of ICANN had coalesced around a proposal
called the Paris Draft, with the Open Root Source
Consortium (ORSC) being one of the main drafters
of this proposal. Meanwhile, large commercial
interests rallied around a proposal called the BMW
(not to be confused with a famous trademark). In the
end, members of both sides met and reached a sort of
compromise, creating “consensus principles” which
was later called the CENTR document. Supporters of
the CENTR document argue that it’s a common
document, agreed by all participants in the previous
day’s DNSO meeting. In fact, they go so far as to
regard the document as the “Singapore Draft.” What-
ever name is applied to it, the ultimate aim of the
document was to confront some of the grievances
shared by many over the way ICANN has been con-
ducting its business.
Foremost among them was a call for open
meetings. As Dixon aptly observed, ICANN is
“making some very important decisions and have a
great public trust.... The only thing they can do to
make the people trust them is to conduct their meet-
ings in public.” Although ICANN responded to this
by considering an open membership model, some
opponents grumble that this is still not enough, for all
the important decisions will be locked up before the
membership would even have a chance to meet.
In addition to this, opponents see other problems.
For some, what started out as a presentation of the
CENTR compromise proposal at the Singapore
meeting quickly devolved into an attempt to accept
the BMW draft as the basis for the DNSO. For
others, the CENTR compromise is structurally
flawed, for it’s just as elitist as ICANN. They argue
that most Internet users have not been able to (or
could not afford to) participate in the meetings taking
place, so the CENTR document is, in effect, a doc-
ument of a very small and privileged set of people.
Along these lines, criticism has been leveled at
the DNSO itself. Many feel the structure of DNSO
ensures heavy representation for narrow, corporate
interests. As a result, by their representation in the
leadership of the DNSO, these interests would
outweigh the interests of ordinary domain-name
holders and non-profits. As if adding fuel to the fire,
proposals put forward by the World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO) to restructure the way
Internet domain names in .com, .net, and .org are as-
signed and adjudicated have been brought to the fore.
As one observer put it, “it is like having an auto
dealer be the regulatory agent for the automobile
manufactures. He can only make decisions in his own
self interest.”
It quickly became obvious that small businesses,
non-profit organizations, and individuals would
derive no benefit from the WIPO proposal because
they simply can’t go through the expense of regis-
tering their name as a trademark. But more impor-
tantly, however, are some deeply embedded flaws
within the proposal which A. Michael Froomkin, law
professor at the University of Miami, points out in a
detailed report . These flaws include bias in favour
of trademark holders, a failure to protect fundamental
free-speech interests including parody and criticism
of corporations, and zero privacy.
According to Froomkin, the only way in which
the whole process can be saved is through a simpler
reform plan. This would include compulsory advance
payment before registration of a domain name in
order to reduce speculative registration; penalties for
false contact details, including de-registering do-
mains with fake contact information; special rules to
penalise large-scale domain speculation; trust courts
Page 31
to continue to clarify relevant law; an understanding
that rapid changes in technology may make domain
names less important; and, finally, create differ-
entiated commercial and non-commercial top-level
domains.
The campaign for and against ICANN
With battles lines drawn, it’s time to take a more
in-depth look at those who support ICANN and those
who not only oppose it, but the privatization of the
Internet in general.
The campaign in support for ICANN is, by and
large, more low-key than those protesting against the
organisation. Their main point of focus is that there
is actually nothing wrong with ICANN or the transi-
tion process. Accordingly, several people from the
ISOC see nothing basically at stake in what ICANN
is doing. As far as they are concerned, the issues the
organization are dealing with are just boring techni-
cal functions. Hence, there’s no reason for anyone to
be concerned with what is being done with ICANN.
ICANN has received heavy backing from impor-
tant representatives of the founding Internet technical
community, as well as from some large corporations
such as IBM and MCI WorldCom. Upon taking a
closer look at some of this latter support going to
ICANN, the picture of a corporate power play be-
comes evident. For instance, according to ICANN’s
own web site, the following have “contributed”
financial resources to the organization:
Compaq Computer Corporation, $25,000
IBM, $25,000
MCI WorldCom, $25,000
Netscape Communications Corporation, $15,000
Paul D. Stauffer, $1,000
Symantec, $15,000
UUNET, $25,000
While this may seem harmless enough, closer
inspection reveals some startling facts. For instance,
UUNET is owned by, and part of, MCI WorldCom.
Thus, the figure for MCI WorldCom is actually
$50,000 and not $25,000. Moreover, IBM people
have been on MCI WorldCom’s Board of directors.
What is more, in the privatization of the NSF Back-
bone, IBM and MCI worked together on the project,
with MCI ending up with a great benefit as a result.
Taking this into account, the MCIWorldCom/IBM
investment in ICANN comes out to be $75,000.
It would be wrong at this point to conclude that
those who oppose ICANN are simply the opposite,
that is, anti-corporatist activists and people with a
deep social conscious who see the organisation as
nothing more than the latest example of intransigent
neo-liberalism. Indeed, ICANN has faced opposition
from all sectors, including a large numbers of experts
who had been debating the domain-name question for
over a year. This includes many Internet Service
Providers and companies in the business of regis-
tering domain names.
At the same time, however, it’s easy to blame the
likes of Dyson et al. for the way ICANN has been
acting and the pro-business agenda it has been
pushing. It must be remembered that often people in
such positions are not actually the ones pulling the
strings, but are tangled-up puppets themselves. One
just has to look at the conceptual foundations for
creating ICANN in the first place, the White Paper
issued by the U.S. government (IFWP). It begins:
“On July 1, 1997, as part of the Clinton Admin-
istration’s ‘Framework for Global Electronic Com-
merce’ the President directed the Secretary of Com-
merce to privatize the Domain Name System (DNS)
in a manner that increases competition....”[author’s
emphasis].
Thus, the political objectives of ICANN are
quite clear. The political rationale for ICANN and the
privatisation of the Internet has nothing to do with
technology or communications. Rather, it has to do
with fulfilling neo-liberalism’s political agenda of
providing economic growth and low unemployment
at all costs. The objectives that have been put forth
by Magaziner and others are consistent with what
Clinton and Gore’s objectives are for stimulating the
U.S. (and world) economy by “opening up” markets
and “creating competition.” From this point of view,
with the euphoric promises associated with e-com-
merce coupled with the phenomenal expansion of the
Internet’s user base, turning over the Internet to
corporate control seems like a logical step. Naturally,
whether or not those who voted for Clinton wanted
the Internet to be the vehicle for this is debatable.
Unfortunately, neo-liberalism’s dewy-eyed optimism,
much like that of the digerati, often isolates from the
real world those that espouse its virtues.
But as the row over ICANN has shown, not
everyone is so dewy-eyed and optimistic. At the
Berkman Institute meeting at the end of January, it
was commonly felt that ICANN was getting the
Page 32
“crown jewels” of the Internet. Even John Zittrain
10
,
director of Harvard University’s Berkman Center for
Internet and Society, admitted as much.
For many, ICANN has become the latest, and
perhaps, biggest government give-away in terms of
corporate welfare. Basically, central points of control
of the Internet is being handed over to a private entity
— one that it’s creating. In turn, this private entity is
being given control over IP numbers (at present,
around 4.3 billion, of which 2 billion are allocated).
11
Meanwhile, control over the root server system and
other aspects of the network gives it additional
power.
In order to try and expand the level of discourse
over these and other issues involving ICANN, at-
tempts have been made to broadcast the debate to
those not already involved. A formal and broad-based
protest has been called against ICANN, the purpose
of which is to “bring ICANN out of the shadows”
and to end its policy of conducting board meetings
behind closed doors. Known as “the grey ribbon pro-
test,” supporters have been encouraged to display a
grey ribbon on their web sites in order to draw public
attention to the issue. This protest wasn’t limited to
just electronic media: grey ribbons were worn by
some participants during the recent ICANN meeting
in Singapore.
Of all the individuals involved in the campaign
against ICANN, none has been more vociferous than
Ronda Hauben. Having done in-depth research on the
history and impact of the Internet, she is well aware
of the stakes involved. As she sees it, the Internet
was developed and has grown and flourished through
opposing procedures. It is a democratic process
where all are welcomed to speak, where those who
disagree are invited to participate, and to voice their
concerns along with those who agree, where those
who can make a single contribution are as welcome
as those with the time to continually contribute.
12
Moreover, the processes for discussion on key issues
regarding the development of the Internet have been
historically carried out online. Hence, the Internet as
a medium of online communication — as opposed to
a new marketing medium — is at the very heart of
what was being built. Consequently, she is vehe-
mently opposed to what she regards as the shameless
commercial exploitation of the Internet. What is
more, she holds the U.S. government directly respon-
sible for the faulty process.
Hauben’s main bone of contention is with the
corporate status of the new organisation. As far as
she is concerned, its board of directors will have
power of an unimaginable kind over all of the
Internet. In addition to this, the present structure is
open to abuse. To illustrate this point, she uses the
recent scandal involving the Salt Lake City bid to
host the Olympic games. The Olympics Committee
scandal clearly reveals the dangers of non-transparent
organisations that act as if they are unaccountable to
the general public, and the kind of criminal activity
that can come as a result. The difference between the
Olympic Committee and ICANN is that with the
latter the essential functions of the Internet are at
stake.
“The whole concept of ICANN is contrary to
any public interest concerns and even to most com-
mercial interest concerns,” warns Hauben. The entire
process involving ICANN, therefore, is one in which
self interest is totally dominant, which runs counter
the spirit and energy that gave birth to the Internet.
Some might argue that this may be going a little
too far, that the process is not as corrupt as Hauben
and others make it out to be. For instance wasn’t the
U.S. government, through the NTIA late last year,
looking out for the public interest by putting ICANN
under its supervision?
It’s undeniable that the NTIA responded swiftly
to growing discontent over ICANN. On the other
hand, it wasn’t so much a matter of genuine concern
as of political expediency. Neo-liberalism differs
from other political philosophies in that it attempts to
co-opt opposition – whether by hook or by crook – so
as to give the impression of true democracy based on
civic discourse. However, as the CDA and NTM (the
New Transatlantic Marketplace) issues demonstrated,
when faced with growing opposition political leaders
will adhere to the rule of law or public pressure, only
to push through their agenda in a reconstituted form
(e.g., CDA II and TEP respectively) – one that is
more palatable for public consumption.
It’s this fraudulent use of public opinion that
substantiates Hauben’s claim that what ICANN, and
hence the U.S. government, is doing through the pro-
cess is actually illegitimate and in some cases out-
right illegal. In effect, this explains why ICANN has
been so secretive: “Obviously this is an important
battle,” Hauben observes, “and that the forces behind
the creation and development of ICANN hide so
carefully shows the illegitimacy of what they are
doing.”
Page 33
Not only has Hauben been active in trying to
make people aware of what she sees are the illegal
actions of ICANN, but she has taken an active part in
the process itself, raising issues and pointing out
inconstancies to the board. In addition to this, she has
even formulated a counter-proposal to ICANN which
was submitted to Magaziner and the NTIA. In her
words, “it was for a different kind of form, than the
corporate form.” She adds that “a corporate member-
ship form is not appropriate[...] with regard to giving
control over vital controlling functions of the Internet
[...] It’s a set up for illegitimate activity, to put the
problem mildly.”
Aside from Hauben, another prominent critic of
ICANN and its policies is Gordon Cook of The Cook
Report. Unlike Hauben, who opposes the privat-
ization of the Internet
13
in principle, arguing that there
is a continuing need for scientific direction and
research to make the Internet scale and grow, and
that that this requires government support of science
and continuing government role in Internet matters,
Cook doesn’t actually oppose the privatization of the
Internet per se. Rather, he is more concerned about
how it is being done and for what reason.
While making the same observations as Hauben
over how and what the “morally bankrupt ICANN”
has been doing, Cook has gone a bit further and
delved into the tricky question of why. What he ends
up concluding is that ICANN is not so much the
creation of something new as much as the preser-
vation of something old. It’s a reaction to what he
terms the “IP insurgency”.
The IP insurgency is, basically, the advance of
Internet technology to the point of upsetting the
balance of power in the world of telecommunica-
tions. This is a profound threat not only to business
interests that seek monopoly market power, but also
those whose livelihood depends on social and politi-
cal control of the masses.
As computing power increases and bandwidth
restraints are overcome, coupled with the innovations
made in the field of mobile and insular technology,
fixed line digital infrastructure has been relegated to
the background. So much so, observes Cooks, that
“suddenly in 1998, with the impact of the TCP/IP
insurgency about to change the face of a multi-
trillion dollar world wide telecommunications indu-
stry, the stakes were very real.”
Consequently, what seems to lie at the crux of
the privatisation of the Internet is not the use of the
technology as a new communications medium.
Instead, the U.S. government appears more interested
in using Internet technology as a means to promote
the spread of deregulated U.S. phone companies. In
essence, the Internet is seen as a cheap way of mak-
ing money off voice telephony, despite the fact that
it will destroy the Internet as a new communications
medium. “Thus, the old is trying to resurrect itself
and take over the new,” writes Cook.
The ultimate purpose of ICANN, therefore, is a
means by which large, American based (or owned)
telecoms can forestall their demise in the face of the
IP insurgency. In the process of institutionalising the
IANA functions they are trying to form ICANN into
an international regulatory governing body for the
Internet — one that they can indeed use to protect
their own interests. As Cook surmises, “if they can’t
win on technical merit, ICANN may be the vehicle
for their self-preservation.”
Yet even if major telecom interests are unable to
gain absolute control of ICANN, the way in which
they would be able to attain a certain amount of
influence to forestall or even short-circuit progress is
being done by way of a stratagem that is purely
American in character: not through the use of pen or
sword, but the gavel. As Cook eloquently puts it:
“letting the lawyers in the door would be giving them
carte blanche to destroy IETF culture.” As a result, as
the process moves along its present course, “nothing
would suit the agenda of the huge legacy telecom
empires better than a world in which their lawyers
are able to tell the engineers of the Internet what they
can and cannot do.”
This goes a long way to explain not only the
battles being waged with ICANN, but why Central
and Eastern European telecom giants (such as
MATÁV in Hungary, which is part owned by
Ameritech and Deutsche Telekom) pursue policies
which implicitly restrict access and stunt the develop-
ment of on-line communities. What we are witness-
ing, in effect, is a reactionary, “counter insurgency”
movement by established telecom interests.
What Cook and many others realise, however, is
that this IP counter-insurgency is bound to fail in the
long run. The reason for this — even if ICANN
would triumph in pushing through its hidden agenda
— is because unlike traditional telecommunications
technology, there is no central point of location for
the Internet.
14
Still, this doesn’t mean there’s nothing to worry
Page 34
about. Although a telecom-led counter-insurgency is
doomed to failure, what is at stake is the ability of
making the Internet a means by which to “level the
playing field” so to speak. It’s quite apparent that at
present the Internet is not a level playing field: the
high cost of access (especially in regions like Central
and Eastern Europe), coupled with the educational
background and financial resources needed to be able
to use the technology effectively, has rendered the
use of computer mediated communications an elitist,
First World activity. Nonetheless, many of these
problems can be overcome in due course; however,
if ICANN pushes through its agenda, the present
barriers that exist between the haves and have-nots
will become solidified.
Silent Complicity
While controversy rages over ICANN’s very
existence, it’s difficult to decipher who exactly is to
blame. Some argue that the five IANA advisory
council folks (Roberts, Farber, Cerf, Bradner, and
Landweber), people who epitomise the Internet com-
munity, have actually failed in their ethical obligation
they have as computer scientists. Indeed, they have
helped to form ICANN and forged alliances with the
large corporate forces. Dyson, meanwhile, who has
been put at the head of it all (that is, to privatise the
Internet essential functions), has been singled out as
the one pushing forth a globalist, corporate agenda,
since she is also out to help certain venture capitalists
privatise public assets in Central and Eastern Europe.
Yet the whole transition process is a complex
issue, not one simply between “good” and “evil.” An
implacable rancour remains between ICANN sup-
porters and Network Solutions, the company that
holds the (soon to end) monopoly on the .com do-
main and that was hitherto the nemesis of the small-
business forces. Thus, the controversy over ICANN
can’t be leveled to simply a split between corporatists
and anarchists. Because the whole situation is rather
complex, with no clear demarcation of “good” and
“bad” guys (don’t forget, Postel was highly respected
right up to the time of his death even though some
felt he was the one personally responsible for the
creation of ICANN), it’s hard for people not involved
to focus on the issue at hand when so many con-
tradictions abound. Some have even argued that it’s
exactly this lack of clear-cut divisions which is being
exploited by those favouring ICANN. In this way,
silent complicity among the majority of users and
non-users alike is being cultivated. Thus, while the
debate rages over the heads of ordinary people, a
form of self-censorship protects many from the
burden of having to sift through truths, half-truths,
and lies.
For this reason, it can be seen why the issues at
stake are purposely being muddled by the powers that
be. At the Berkman Institute in January, the meeting
was fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies,
namely that of doing government functions outside of
any accountability by government. This issue had
been repeatedly brought up by those from the audi-
ence and even a speaker on the final panel. Hauben
summed up the meeting in this way: “In general of
what these respondents said was that there was
nothing at issue in the transfer to ICANN of Internet
essential functions, assets, policy making etc. That
these were just boring tasks. In this way they threw
up confusing examples to spread sand in the eyes of
anyone trying to figure out what the issues were.”
As a result, there is almost no public discourse.
The lack of public debate compares starkly to when
the U.S. government attempted to push through the
CDA in its original form. Then, everyone, including
big business was against it; however, now that big
business is a part of the problem, discourse has
suddenly dwindled. “There is a battle being waged
today,” observes Hauben, “one that is of great impor-
tance to the future of society, but most people have
no idea it is taking place.”
This suits governments and other interests just
fine. In Europe, the European Commission’s (E.C.)
request for action on the new IANA calls for “the
need for the attention of the private sector to be
drawn to this matter.”
15
There is distinctly no mention of the public
sector. Likewise, “the European Commission has
called a number of consultative meetings. As a result
of one of these meetings, the E.C. Panel of Partici-
pants (E.C.-PoP) was established, consisting of a
European group of stakeholder representatives.” In
this case, the term “stakeholder” is deliberately
vague. Hence, it seems in Europe governments are
just as secretive as ICANN, leaving little room for
public input. This is a totally different approach to
how the Commission searched out public input on its
Green Paper on Convergence in the telecom sector
last year. In conjunction with this, there is the feeling
that the process must be rushed through as soon as
possible. According to the E.C., their panel of “ex-
Page 35
perts” have concluded that “delays in incorporating
the new IANA could create lasting imbalances with
respect to the required international and competitive
equilibrium.”
Others, see this rush in a different light. As far as
Cook is concerned, the IP Insurgency is now so close
to total triumph in undermining the old telecom order
that immediate action must be taken in order to fore-
stall the demise of the large telecoms. This goes a
long way to explaining why governments and
telecom interests alike are so concerned with rushing
through the process as fast as possible. Either way,
the apparent rush is at odds with the intended aim of
establishing ICANN through a public consultancy
process, which takes time to elicit a wide range of
responses.
Not only is discourse limited in the public
sphere, but within the realms of the Internet as well.
Surprisingly, little mention has been made about
ICANN’s activities, despite the fact that it involves
the future of the Internet. Even on some of the
mailing lists where Dyson throws in her two cents
worth along with promoting digerati corporate
philosophy, there has been little mention of ICANN.
On the On-line Europe list, for example, the only
significant amount of information provided was
when she forwarded an article entitled “ICANN asks
Commerce Department to begin DNS transition” to
which she simply added “what I’ve been up to
lately....”
16
Ironically, it seems the closer ICANN comes
toward legitimacy and as the debates become more
heated, mailing lists are swamped by other informa-
tion deflecting the topic away from ICANN. Natu-
rally, the war in Yugoslavia has exasperated this
condition. In the case of On-line Europe, there has
been a substantial increase in traffic on myriad
issues, yet there was no mention at all about NSI’s
recent courtroom triumph, this despite the fact that
previously disgruntled users wrote frequently about
the DNS wars.
Not only is it odd that there has been little on-
line debate about the issue, but even conspiracy
theorists seem to have faded to the background in
spite of the fact that there is ample material available,
such as the sudden death of John Postel right after the
creation of ICANN. The only one that has thus far
come close is the following from Bob Allisat:
“The Big Boys unleash their once upon a time
free wheeling cyber anarchist cowboys now erstwhile
lap dog shareholders and Vice Presidents of same
corporations (emphasis on vice) who also become
alarmed at the potential loss of revenue and power
they all face should the rambunctious, raucous and
revolutionary New Guard become successful. Said a-
hole net heavy shills of THE BOARD OF DIRECT-
ORS begin pinching previously unsullied dear oldbie
bearded friends cyber-ass ever more painfully into
silence and abeyance, subsequently forcing teams of
hitman attorneys, high priced lobby call boys and
girls upon their ancient buddy and, once the guy
croaks from all the massive pressure thereafter wheel
free forcing enyone [sic!] they were ever even
remotely affiliated with to adopt their rather unset-
tling plans for world re-domination despite their own
better anarcho-intellectual instincts.”
17
In the end, what both the on-line and off-line
worlds are suffering from is information overload
and overkill. With the issues not clearly understood
and the lines dividing various interests blurred, it’s
hard for people to become passionate about what is
going on. Furthermore, it seems to be something over
which they have no control over anyway. With so
many other problems before them, such as the war in
Yugoslavia and economic hardships lurking around
the corner, the best that most people can do is lend a
passing interest to what is going on.
Conclusion
The entire transition process involving ICANN
is in many ways a reflection of Internet democracy.
Sadly, the circumstances in which ICANN was
created, coupled with the attitudes and reactions of its
board members, shows that democratic processes
exist in name only. Lack of openness and transpar-
ency are the major hurdles the new organisation will
need to overcome if it is somehow to emerge from
the process with a shred of dignity and — above all
— true legitimacy.
The fact that some form of opposition does exist
is an indication that all is not lost — at least not yet.
Some form of discourse has appeared that questions
the true motives of ICANN’s board members and the
process in general. The discontent people have ex-
pressed was enough for the U.S. government to step
in to make sure the transition is as smooth and fair as
possible.
Unfortunately, this has not gone far enough.
What is more, there are many more people — both
online and off-line — who are either unaware of
Page 36
what is going on or, because of the sheer complexity
of the issues before them, are unable or even unwill-
ing to take part.
As a result, it is here that Internet democracy
ultimately fails. What should have been the glorious
birth of online democracy and civic discourse on a
truly global scale has been wasted. The need to rush
through the process quickly, along with the fact that
only an elite minority of both on-line and off-line
communities are making decisions about the future of
the Internet, is antithesis to the actual spirit of de-
mocracy. Simply voting online and obtaining statisti-
cal information has not much to do with democracy;
rather, thorough consultation and wide participation
is the key.
Because of the silent complicity of the majority
which, in some ways, has been cultivated by those
wanting to push the process forward quickly, democ-
racy will have suffered a severe setback no matter
what the eventual outcome of the transition process
will be. To be sure, if ICANN is able to maintain the
present course that its board members hope to estab-
lish, it could very well mean the end to the Internet as
we know it.
References
.1 <http://www.thestandard.com/articles/article_print/0,
1454,1718,00.html>
< ht t p : / / www. t e c h we b . c o m/ w i r e / s t o r y / d o mn a m/
TWB19981001S0014?ls=twb_text>
<http://www.egroups.com/list/noframes/rre/ 936.html>
2. <http://www.ietf.org/rfc2555.txt> Hauben also points to the
NSF Office of Inspector General’s Report of 1997 which states
that the U.S. government via its development of the Internet and
of the public funding of the Internet development had - and still
has - the authority to administer the essential functions of the
Internet. cf.
<http://www.columbia.edu/~jrh29/geneva/NSF.inspector.gen-
eral.txt>
3. As one observer noted: “Postel did whatever he wanted. It
worked. And because it worked, nobody messed with him.
There was no need for an institutional basis and there is none.
It’s not broken, so why fix it? The answer of course is obvious,
there is money to be made, obscene amounts in fact, for doing
virtually nothing.” At the same time, many critics see the whole
idea of questioning Postel’s authority in forming ICANN as an
attempt to bury the real issue - the privatization of the Internet
- under a miasma of polemics. They argue that the U.S. govern-
ment did and does have the authority to administer IANA in a
way that supports cooperative processes and public benefit.
However, this same government is now trying to give IANA to
the so called “private sector,” which really means giving it to a
small group for the benefit of the small group and those associ-
ated with it. The NSF Office of Inspector General Report
<http://www.columbia.edu/~jrh29/geneva/NSF. inspector.gen-
eral.txt> makes the point that the Internet has been developed
with a great deal of public funding and by government, and that
the government doesn’t have the authority to give the Internet
Names and Numbers away to anyone. Indeed, they have the
obligation to protect it so that people receive the benefit of the
Internet.
4. As Jay Hauben mentions, before Postel died the Commerce
Committee Chairman at the House of Representatives had sent
a letter to the Secretary of Commerce asking for a series of
documents so as to investigate what was happening in setting up
ICANN and choosing the Interim Board of Directors. A copy of
this letter can be found in the most recent issue of the Amateur
Computerist.
<http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/acn9-1.articles/>
5. For those involved with telecom issues both in Europe and
North America, this is clearly false. Despite the promises of
cheaper phone services due to competition, individual con-
sumers (as opposed to corporate entities) have seen prices go up
for basic, local phone services in the U.S., Canada, and through-
out Europe. Indeed, in Central and Eastern Europe telecom
charges have gone up 25% annually in countries like Hungary
and in some cases doubled, as in Russia. In addition to higher
prices, there are a host of other problems. There have been
reports about the corrupt processes of telecoms in the U.S.
transferring people to their services without the people’s
permission. Also there has been a marked increase in the
/other/0406atdc499.htm> see also <http:// www.consunion.org
/other/ tele2sw299.htm>
6. According to a statement released by the European Commis-
sion in mid-October, “the E.C.-PoP [the European Commis-
sion’s representatives for the transition process] also underlined
the need to ensure a more balanced international representa-
tion.” From: Significant progress made on the new Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority. European Commission, 15
October 1998.
<http://www.cordis.lu> RCN: 11372
7. A sample of its header: >From membership-ow[email protected]
Tue Feb 16 11:59:55 1999 Hauben, Ronda - “[Membership]
Why not ISOC?” posting to the Netizen list, 16 February 1999.
8. The history of DARPA is as intriguing as that of ICANN. In
response to Sputnik, President Eisenhower agreed with recom-
mendations that there be a civilian agency that would be able to
support scientific and technological research, and that would be
part of the Department of Defense. Originally created to support
research in space, its responsibilities changed for various
reasons, so that NASA was created as a result instead. DARPA
remained, however, and was soon put under the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E;) who it would
seem reported to the Secretary of Defense, who is directly under
the President of the U.S. But that Congress provides the
Page 37
funding, the agency also has the obligation to report to Congress
and is in that way overseen by Congress as well. Hence, the line
of responsibility from DARPA is, admittedly, not so clear and
concise but nevertheless exists. According to a 1975 study of
DARPA/IPTO (the Information Processing Techniques Office
which existed from the early 1960's until 1986), the line of
responsibility went from the head of DARPA to the DDR&E;,
then most probably the Secretary of Defense and then Congress,
with support from the President of the U.S. being an important
component of overall support for DARPA.
The study adds, however, that at times there has been more and
at times less support from the President of the U.S. for DARPA.
What is of interest is that from the interviews of those who
worked as part of DARPA which were cited in the study, one
describes how there were various government agencies that
would come to oversee the financial transactions and to make
sure they were appropriate and provided for by law. The irony
of it all is that DARPA was originally set up in opposition to
“vested interests” whereas ICANN seems to be being set up to
be in the control of “vested interests”.
9. Wired News: 2/4/99
10. In a recent Forbes digital article, the opposition of Zittrain
to the apparent direction in which ICANN is heading was made
clear: “ICANN’s possible ascendance to the Internet throne has
some parties up in arms because of the crucial role domain
names play in the economic success of any web venture. “There
is an intrinsic value of these names far beyond what it costs to
register them,” says Jonathan Zittrain, director of Harvard
University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society. He cites
the example of a sex site that grabbed the domain white-
house.com before the U.S. government could and enjoys a lot of
accidental traffic as a result. “ICANN is careful to say they’re
just assigning names and numbers,” says Zittrain, “but that’s
like saying you have the narrow scope of running the printing
presses that happen to print money. It’s a lot of power.”
11. The possible economic implications of this is obvious. If
ICANN would decide to charge a nominal amount for IP
numbers, say $50 a year charge for only those allocated, this
would lead to an income of $100 billion alone (NSI had a gross
income of $900 million just from selling domain names).
12. cf. “Lessons from the early MsgGroup Mailing List as a
Foundation for Identifying the Principles for Future Internet
Governance” by Ronda Hauben, INET ‘98.
13. Noam Chomsky, in an interview he did on April 5, 1999 for
the Boston Phoenix (“Who Runs America?,” interview with
Noam Chomsky by Adrian Zupp for Weekly Wire), similarly
opposes the privatization of the Internet, and not just who
benefits from it. In essence, he opposes the public harm that the
privatization of the Internet represents to the average citizen.
14. This is another area where Cook and Hauben disagree.
While Cook sees that there is no central point of location for the
Internet, Hauben regards IP numbers as a central point of
control, as one must have an IP number to communicate on the
Internet. Similarly, she argues that the other functions that
ICANN is taking over are crucial for communication on the
Internet and so it will give them power and assets that belong to
the public and to cooperative processes. “They do represent
something fundamentally different and are trying to take
ownership and control over actual means of controlling the
Internet,” notes Hauben.
15. see “Commission coordinates action on the new Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority.” European Commission, 30 July
1998.< http://www.cordis.lu> RCN: 10823
16. Dyson, Ester - “ICANN asks Commerce Department to
begin DNS transition” posting to the Online Europe list,
November 7, 1998.
17. Allisat, Bob - “Sister Corruption & Brother Big,” accessed
from Netizens, 18 February 1999. see also: Free Community
robin.fcn.net>
Additional Links
1. The Amateur Computerist web site is at:
Supplement entitled “Controversy Over the Internet” available
at: <http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/dns-supplement.txt>
2. The Amateur Computerist Vol 9 No 1 Winter 1998-99
entitled “Battle over the Future of the Internet” is available at:
<http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACN9-1.txt>
3. The Cook Report on Internet: <http://www.cookreport.com/>
4. The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
(CPSR): <http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/web/dns-
ntia-newcorp.html>
5. David J. Farber’s homepage:
<http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~farber>
6. The Domain Name Handbook:
<http://www.domainhandbook.com/>
7. The EuroISPA homepage: <http://www.euroispa.org/>
8. Froomkin, A. Michael - “Major Flaws in the WIPO Domain
Name Proposal - A Quick Guide”:
<http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf /quickguide.htm>
9. A draft of Hauben’s book Netizens: On the History and
Impact of Usenet and the Internet:
<http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/>
10. Ronda Hauben’s paper distributed at the January 23, 1999
Berkman Center meeting “The Internet: A New Communica-
tions Paradigm,” documents the discussion recently on Usenet
about this problem in the U.S. of the American government
destroying basic research and attacking important entities like
Bell Labs.:
Page 38
<http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/internet.txt>
see also a discussion about Bell Labs at:
<http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers /discussion.txt>
11. Hauben’s account about the Names Council meeting in
Geneva at the IFWP:
<http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ ifwp_july25.txt>
12. Hoedeman, Olivier - TEP of the Iceberg. Toward Freedom,
Winter 1998/99, Vol. 47, Nos. 7 & 8.:
<www.towardfreedom.com>
13. ICANN’s Homepage: <http://www.icann.org/>
14. The request from the Chairman of the Commerce Committee
of the U.S. House of Representatives for information on the
process of formation of ICANN is at:
<http://www.ais.org/-jrh/acn/acn9-1.articles /acn9-1.1.txt>
15. Statement of Gene Kimmelman In Response to AT&T;’s
Announced $3.00 per month Charge for Basic Schedule Long
Distance Customers:
<http://www.consunion.org/other/0406atdc499.htm>
16. McKay, Niall - “ICANN Gets a the Green Light,” Wired
News, 24.11.98.
<http://redirect.wired.com/redir/10025/>
<http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/ 16469.html>
17. McWilliams, Brian - “ICANN Critics Call for Protest”
InternetNews.com Correspondent Business News Archives,
February 23, 1999:
<h tt p: // www. i n te r netnews . com/bus-news/artic l e/
0,1087,3_72161,00.html>
18. NTIA: the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration:
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov> see also
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-
memorandum.htm>
19. Ogilvy PR Public affairs:
<http://www.ogilvypr.com/public_affairs /pubaffrs.html> see
also <http://www.alexanderogilvy.com/>
20. Survey: Deregulation of local phone service results in higher
prices, virtually no competition in Texas:
<http://www.consunion.org /other/tele2sw299.htm>
EDITORIAL STAFF
Ronda Hauben
William Rohler
Norman O. Thompson
Michael Hauben
(1973-2001)
Jay Hauben
The Amateur Computerist invites submissions. Articles
can be submitted via e-mail: [email protected]
A two issue surface mail subscription costs $10.00
(U.S.). Send e-mail to [email protected] for details.
Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue in
a non profit publication provided credit is given, with
name of author and source of article cited.
The opinions expressed in articles are those of their
authors and not necessarily the opinions of the
Amateur Computerist newsletter. We welcome sub-
missions from a spectrum of viewpoints.
ELECTRONIC EDITION
All issues of the Amateur Computerist are on-line and
available via e-mail. To obtain a free copy of any issue
or a free e-mail subscription, send a request to:
Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are
available on the World Wide Web:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/
Page 39
