The Amateur

Computerist

Fall 2005 The Internet and WSIS Volume 13 No. 2

Table of Contents

From Public Internet to WSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

Who Will Control Internet Infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4

International Origins of the Internet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

IFWP 1998: No Consensus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19

Internet an Int’l Public Treasure Proposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 21

Who Are the Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 28

Netizen List DNS Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30

Cone of Silence.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 50

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 international from its very

beginning in 1973. Major contributions to that development came from

the international 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

Webpage: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

Page 1

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 privatize 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 Internet at such

a meeting in 1991. No public discussion 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 privatiza-

tion and commercialize the Internet were treated as appropriate. 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 investment, 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 process for the distribution of Internet names and numbers

including control over the authoritative root name server. They called

themselves the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) and included

participation by the International Telecommunications 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 groups or at least the ITU into what was up

until then exclusive U.S. government oversight of the infrastructure of

the Internet. This activity drew the attention of the European Union

Page 2

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 appearance 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 continued its controversial dominance of

Internet governance 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 debated at the preparatory meeting for the upcoming World

Summit on Information Society which concluded 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

Page 3

outside the United States to participate.” Also, it must recognize the

need to maintain “integrity in the Internet architecture 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 Interna-

tional 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 communications 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 erupted over whether the management of the Internet’s

Page 4

names, numbers and protocols should be controlled by one nation or by

a multinational structure.

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 2

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

Technology, 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.

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 Technolo-

gies), 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?”

The U.S. representative to the talks, Ambassador David Gross, who

is with the U.S. State Department, maintained that the current manage-

ment 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 flexibility in what ICANN

Page 5

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, wel-

comed 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.”

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 international level.

The 3

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

government.”

While some progress has been made in understanding 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 understand 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

Page 6

Internet’s development by active Netizens has played a critical role in

the continuing development and spread of the Internet.

While the WSIS process has made a good start at identifying a

critical problem needing solution, it has not yet recognized the impor-

tance of building on the models and practices that have been developed

in 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. Kieren McCarthy, “EU deal threatens end to U.S. dominance of Internet,” The

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 International Public Treasure: A Proposal” (PDF),

http://www.wgig.org/docs/Comment-Hauben-April.pdf (also, pp. 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

[email protected]

[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

Page 7

that knowing something of the nature of the Internet, of its international

origins and early vision and development can provide a useful perspec-

tive 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 planned 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 structure and processes for the governance of the

Internet.

In 1998 the U.S. government, which had previously overseen the

Internet’s infrastructure managed as a non commercial, scientific and

educational medium, made a decision to begin to transition it to a private

sector entity which is called the Internet Corporation for Assigned

Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Page 8

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 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 J. C. R. Licklider, a psychologist, who was

invited to begin a research office within the U.S. Department of Defense

in Oct 1962. Licklider called the office the Information Processing

Techniques Office (IPTO).

Page 9

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 researchers 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

Page 10

of an on-line community of people, where users would be active

participants and contributors to the evolving network and to its develop-

ment. 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 considerations 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 determining 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 government. Licklider writes:

“Computer power to the people is essential to the 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 important to not only seek to consider the

public interest, but also to make it possible for the public to be involved

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 technology 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.

Page 11

By the late 1960s and early 1970s it was recognized that there was

widespread interest in developing 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

demonstration by U.S. researchers that packet switching technology was

functional. The demonstration excited many of the researchers. Also,

however, international participation was recognized as critical to the

development of networking technology. “International participation is

no mere adornment to the Conference,” the organizers wrote. “It is a

primary means towards achieving a diversity of interest and viewpoint.”

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 networking was stimulat-

ing, but also it presented a problem. To understand the nature of this

problem, it is helpful to consider the fact that there were packet switch-

ing 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 articulated 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 boundaries 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

Page 12

to interconnect different networks. The basic principle was that the

changes to make communication 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 interna-

tional network research community for their contributions and discus-

sion.

Describing the process of creating the TCP/IP protocol, Cerf

explains that the effort at developing the Internet protocols was

international from its very beginnings. Peter Kirstein, a British re-

searcher at the University College London (UCL) presented a paper in

Sept. 1975 at a workshop in Laxenburg, 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 Nor-

wegian researchers. Above is the diagram that Kirstein presents showing

the participation of U.S. researchers via the ARPAnet, along with British

researchers working at the University College London (UCL) and

Norwegian researchers working at NORSAR.

This diagram is from a memo by Vint Cerf, but it is not an

actual plan for the Internet.

Page 13

SATNET

Schematic of UCL configuration, July 1975.

Page 14

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 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.

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

Page 15

felt was the potential and the problems of the developing Internet.

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

communication 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. government decided it needed to privatize the

Internet’s infrastructure. It created ICANN, the Internet Corporation 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.

Page 16

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 Govern-

ments 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, recommend-

ing that netizen involvement would make it possible to counter the self

interest of corporations who were part of the Internet governance

process. The following 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 prob-

lems 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 contribu-

tions to that meeting seemed in line with the vision Licklider expressed

to guide computer network development. But there was contention, 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 operative issues which can be best

coordinated by technical 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, Jose Marcos Nogueira Viana,

Page 17

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 connect universities and

therefore major cities to the global network with sufficient bandwidth at

affordable 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 boosting 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 international and that there is a demand for an international manage-

ment process and structure.

Similarly, and perhaps even more important is the need to under-

stand 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 participants 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 outcome. 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 implementation 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 )

Page 18

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 international

essence of the Internet as envisioned by J. C. R. 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 conver-

gence 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 preceding 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

international meeting of the IFWP process.]

The International Forum on the White Paper one and a half day

meeting held after the INET conference 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

Page 19

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 presented

by presidential advisor Ira Magaziner had as its purpose the formation

of a new private entity to 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 commer-

cial concerns about security, they require careful consideration and the

hearing of points of view from across the Internet user spectrum. 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 signifi-

cant 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]

Page 20

[Editor’s note: The following Preface and Proposal were submitted to Ira

Magaziner and the U.S. government 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

[email protected]

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 adminis-

trative 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 testimony 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 (before the privatization

- I wish to add) because of two important components.

1) The U.S. government funded the necessary research.

2) It made sure the networking community had the responsibility for

its operation, and insulated it to a very great extent from bureau-

cratic obstacles and commercial matters so it could evolve dynami-

cally.

He also said that “The relevant U.S. government agencies should

remain involved until a workable solution 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

Page 21

critical to the continued operation of the Internet so they could be

operated “in such 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 operating 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 pioneers 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 decisions would be

made about the future of the computer.

Snow cautioned that such decisions must involve people who

understood the problems and the technology. 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.

Page 22

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 participat-

ing 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

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120)

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

[email protected]

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 achievement of great

magnitude. Fundamental to its development was the discovery of a new

way of looking at computer science.

The early developers of the

ARPAnet, the progenitor of the Internet, viewed the computer as a

Page 23

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.

Any

changes in the administration 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 important to keep in mind that scientific

methods are open and cooperative.

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 administra-

tion 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 internationally shared protection and administra-

tion 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 technology of the Internet

from commercial and political pressures, so as to create a means of

sharing administration of the key DNS functions and the root server

system.

The private organization that the U.S. government is asking to be

formed is the opposite of protecting the Internet. It is encouraging the

Page 24

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 recommendations on how to create an

international cooperative 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

collaboration 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 (including 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 utilization, 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, govern-

ments (National as well as local), the university community, the art and

cultural communities, nonprofit organizations, the medical community,

the business community, and most importantly the users whoever they

Page 25

be, of the Internet.

3) To produce a proposal at the end of a specified 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

gathered from the users of the Internet, and from research of

the history and development of the Internet.

c) a description of the role the Domain Name System plays

in the administration and control of the Internet, how it is

functioning, what problems have developed with it.

d) a proposal for its further administration, describing how

the proposal will provide for the continuation of the functions

and control hitherto provided by U.S. government agencies like

NSF and DARPA. Also, problems for the further administra-

tions should be clearly identified and proposals made for how

to begin an open process for examining the problems and

solving 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 sizeable number of people who were the computer science

community also protected those people from commercial and

political pressures.

f) a way for the proposal to be distributed widely online,

and the public not online 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 interested in the future development of the

Internet. Perhaps help with such distribution can come from

Page 26

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

identify 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 administra-

tion 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 understood 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 Treasure” is online in English

and French at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~ronda/other/

Submitted to the NTIA of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Page 27

[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

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 confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates.”

Does the White Paper issued by the U.S. government 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 communication. This online discussion

raises issues about the Framework that U.S. government advisors have

Page 28

created to make the Internet into a Commercenet. Rather it should be

creating a “Framework for the Net as a New Means of International

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 organization 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 direction 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 govern-

ments 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 communication.” We hope this special issue will

help to encourage 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

Page 29

[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 Internet Names and Addresses (http://www.ntia

.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.

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 electroni-

cally.

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 substitutes the word *commerce* for *communication* and sets out

a framework for making the Internet into an important new means of

Page 30

commerce.

In two sentences at the beginning of his document 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 develop-

ment 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 proposal

he has made for changing the DNS (domain name system), that assigns

address and maintains the lookup tables, can help to facilitate the

communication that is so important as the essence of the Internet. The

Proposal “Improvement of Technical Management 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 devel-

oped 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 “member-

ship association” that will represent 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 “customers” of unregulated

advertisers and other forms of business.

This is hostile to the whole nature and development 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

Page 31

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

databases). This new corporation he proposes will have a board of

directors which will be made up of 5 members 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 individual 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 and character of the

Internet from a means of communication 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, editori-

als, 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

administered.

Also the Internet makes possible communication with people

around the world. Thus creating a board where commercial businesses

are the main controlling interests is hostile to facilitating this communi-

cation. While Magaziner’s proposal is being distributed electronically,

Page 32

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) developed because of an

Acceptable Use Policy encouraging 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

Page 33

“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 important than the so called commercial

online “marketplace” that the Framework is trying to create. Netizens

have created an online international marketplace of ideas and discussion

which is needed to solve the complex problems of our times. The

process of “privatizing” what is a public trust will only result in more

problems and fights among the commercial entities that are vying for

their own self interest, rather than having any regard for the important

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 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

[email protected]

Comments and Discussion needed!

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/

and in print edition ISBN # 0-8186-7706-6

Page 34

From: markus.kruggel@uni-duisburg.de (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.

> This is hostile to the whole nature and development 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 development 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 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 implica-

tions 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

Page 35

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 regarding 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 pedestri-

ans 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” corpora-

> tion 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 (...) 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 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

Page 36

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. Hopefully, 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]

http://online-club.de/members1/rp10930/

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

Page 37

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 “widespread dissatisfaction”

exists only among those who see a *commercial* opportunity in DN

registration.

Again, “Certain technical management functions require coordina-

tion. 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 coordinated.” 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 Agreement on

Investment, which would give corporations the power of nations, with

all the benefits of government 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 alarming to see the USG, the bastion of democracy, ignoring –

indeed actively dismantling – its own fundamental 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

Hello Markus and others on the Netizens Mailing list.

I wrote an answer to this on March 23, but somehow it got lost, and

Page 38

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.kruggel@uni-duisburg.de (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

Page 39

> 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 “stan-

dard/”

>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 identi-

fied.

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

Page 40

what are the social interests and how to work to have them developed.

I was thinking perhaps to try to develop a “Framework for the Net

as a New Means of International 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 communica-

tion aspects of the Net and 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

Page 41

>> 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 commercial

interests have a very different agenda with regard to Internet develop-

ment 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 discussion 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

Page 42

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.

>> 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 communication.

>> 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 discuss-

ing these issues with the commercial interests - in the past the com-priv

(commercialization - 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

framework.

> pointed this document out to us, we are able to discuss the implica-

> tions of this proposal and make them more public on the net (that is,

> if this isn’t the case already).

Page 43

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

[email protected]

Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 18:06:46 -0400 (EDT)

From: markus.kruggel@uni-duisburg.de

Subject: [netz] Internet as a Means of Communication - 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 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.

Page 44

>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 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

> 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 commu-

nication 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 commu-

nication *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

Page 45

>> 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* interested 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 “Framework 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

Page 46

but one that concentrates on social interests. 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 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.

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 quite hard to

interest a broader public for this topic, simply because it won’t make a

story on conventional 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 example.

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 machine 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

Page 47

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 developments public. If the

regarding persons and institutions don’t do this themselves it has to be

done by those who take note of it. One tool we have to accomplish 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

Page 48

>> 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 frame-

> work.

Yes, I really think that developing this framework 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 example)

– 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

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]

http://online-club.de/members1/rp10930/

Page 49

(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 (http://www.heise.de/tp/)]

Cone of Silence ICANN or Internet

Democracy is Failing

by John Horvath

We take for granted a lot of the inventions of the late 20

century.

We are naturally under the assumption 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 com-

munication systems like the Internet. The process to hand over govern-

ment 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 involved – ICANN, to which the whole

process has become synonymous – the truth of the matter is that for the

vast majority it is something relatively unknown. 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 under-

stand what is really at stake, what will be looked at is the origin and

Page 50

evolution of the process and the organization 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 followed 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 supposedly managed by an international

board, that was expressly formed to take over the responsibility for

duties now performed under U.S. government contract 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 directors. In addition to overseeing technical standards,

the group is supposed to devise and administer a new 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

Page 51

DNS is a hierarchical architecture 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 organization.

The supposed need for a transition was formulated 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

Department’s Green Paper/White Paper process was initiated with pri-

mary 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 seg-

ments” 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,

Postel still continued to

enjoy support of a wide spectrum of the Internet community, especially

the technical insiders. Shortly before his untimely death, he hammered

out the final framework for what was to be called ICANN.

There is some debate, however, about this interpretation 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

Page 52

Postal drafts. When a reporter tried in Geneva to ask Postel about some

of the details of the draft and its consequences 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 eventually became

chairperson of the new organization, 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 everything 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 contracting 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....”

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.

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

mechanism 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.

Page 53

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. government 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, controversy over ICANN re-erupted. The

problem right away had to do with the different views of what ICANN

represented: for some it was to privatize 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 chairperson 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 rendered 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.

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 government setting

the rates to provide for the research that went on at Bell Labs. Con-

versely, private companies have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of

vision and even aversion to new technology unless it has somehow

already proven itself to be a worthwhile and profitable investment. As

Page 54

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 development 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 privatization 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 increase the number of gTLDs. Those presently proposing

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 regarding the future of the Internet.

“The history of the Domain Name System (DNS) reform contro-

versy is repeating itself,” notes one commentator. “The Commerce

Department must make sure that this second occurrence is not a

tragedy.” 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 community has been

Page 55

attempting to establish new sorts of DNS oversight.

Opponents of ICANN see the situation in another light. They see

ICANN as merely a replacement 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 considerable 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 organization, 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 accountabil-

ity; a fully transparent decision-making process, with minutes of each

ICANN Board, Supporting Organization or committee meeting to be

Page 56

publicly posted within 21 days following every meeting; the creation of

a Conflicts of Interest policy of all ICANN institutions, including the

Supporting Organizations; a globally representative 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 understand-

ing between the U.S. government and ICANN calls for a period of

“design and testing” with a 50-50 split of responsibility, but in subse-

quent events the U.S. government 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 organization is still strong. According to Jim Dixon, telecom-

munications director of EuroISPA, a European ISP trade group based in

Brussels, “there is widespread mistrust 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 consider-

ations or social obligations, 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-consensus.

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 unaccountable.

In a way, this kind of behavior 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 unilateral

Page 57

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 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 organization,” 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 members 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 international 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 participate 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.

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 establish-

ment 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 Commerce Department, Dyson acknowledged

that the bylaws “will have to be changed to reflect the work of the Initial

Page 58

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 ad-

dressed 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 ser-

ious discussions about how to “vote” for “membership” 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 authority 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 privacy, 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

Page 59

with not only the attitudes of individual board members 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 technology, 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 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.”

As with the other complaints it has received, ICANN has been made

aware of this public displeasure over the way it over-extends its

authority. And like the way in which it responded to other complaints,

when the board had not simply turned a deaf-ear to criticism, it exhibited

behavior which proves old habits not only die hard, they are innately

ingrained.

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 Supporting

Organization (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 accountabil-

ity is still prevalent among board members even after ICANN came

under NTIA supervision in November.

Meanwhile, what draws criticism from many quarters is that a

Page 60

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

behaviour 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.

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 pertaining to the

secretive, undemocratic, and even unconstitutional behaviour of ICANN

and its members have been made repeatedly, what irks most people is

the smug attitude of ICANN board members and their blatant disregard

for public opinion. For instance, on the issue of transparency and

secrecy, 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

Page 61

make a decision, which is crazy. That’s flat-out crazy.”

But what about what Dyson said previously, that ICANN “will

carefully consider any and all suggestions 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 criticisms that we don’t live up to the standards set out in the White

Paper [that mandated ICANN].”

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 possible,” 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 scientific 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 criticism, 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

Page 62

scathing: “this is the normal PR approach to putting a friendly face on

a dictator or a carcinogen.”

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 U.K. military satellite.

By ushering in a fear of cyber terrorists, ICANN’s role is already

being semi-legitamized. 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; consequently, 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 organization 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 communication 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

Page 63

selling, and for safe “transactions.” 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 functions. 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

Understanding 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).

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

Page 64

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 compro-

mise, 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.” Whatever 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 conducting 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 meetings 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 document 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 Organisa-

tion (WIPO) to restructure the way Internet domain names in .com, .net,

and .org are assigned and adjudicated have been brought to the fore. As

one observer put it, “it is like having an auto dealer be the regulatory

Page 65

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 registering

their name as a trademark. But more importantly, 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 domains with fake contact information;

special rules to penalise large-scale domain speculation; trust courts to

continue to clarify relevant law; an understanding that rapid changes in

technology may make domain names less important; and, finally, create

differentiated 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 organization. Their main point of focus

is that there is actually nothing wrong with ICANN or the transition

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 technical

functions. Hence, there’s no reason for anyone to be concerned with

what is being done with ICANN.

ICANN has received heavy backing from important representatives

of the founding Internet technical community, as well as from some

large corporations such as IBM and MCI WorldCom. Upon taking a

Page 66

closer look at some of this latter support going to ICANN, the picture of

a corporate power play becomes 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 Backbone, 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 organization 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 registering 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

Page 67

Administration’s ‘Framework for Global Electronic Commerce’ the

President directed the Secretary of Commerce 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 privatization 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-commerce 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 “crown

jewels” of the Internet. Even John Zittrain,

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).

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, attempts 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

Page 68

ICANN out of the shadows” and to end its policy of conducting board

meetings behind closed doors. Known as “the grey ribbon protest,”

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.

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 vehemently opposed to what she regards as the shameless commercial

exploitation of the Internet. What is more, she holds the U.S. govern-

ment directly responsible for the faulty process.

Hauben’s main bone of contention is with the corporate status of the

new organization. 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 organizations that act as if they are unac-

countable 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 commercial interest concerns,” warns

Hauben. The entire process involving ICANN, therefore, is one in which

Page 69

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 supervi-

sion?

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 process is actually illegitimate and in some cases outright

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.”

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 incon-

stancies 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 corp-

orate form.” She adds that “a corporate membership 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

Page 70

policies is Gordon Cook of The Cook Report. Unlike Hauben, who

opposes the privatization of the Internet

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 preservation 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 telecom-

munications. This is a profound threat not only to business interests that

seek monopoly market power, but also those whose livelihood depends

on social and political 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 industry, 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 making 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 institutionalizing the

Page 71

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 development of on-line communities. What we are witnessing,

in effect, is a reactionary, “counter insurgency” movement by estab-

lished 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.

Still, this doesn’t mean there’s nothing to worry 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

Page 72

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 epitomize the Internet community, 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 privatize 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 privatize 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 rancor remains between

ICANN supporters and Network Solutions, the company that holds the

(soon to end) monopoly on the .com domain 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 demarca-

tion 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 contradictions

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 inconsisten-

cies, namely that of doing government functions outside of any

Page 73

accountability by government. This issue had been repeatedly brought

up by those from the audience 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 importance 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.”

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 Participants

(E.C.-PoP) was established, consisting of a European group of stake-

holder representatives.” In this case, the term “stakeholder” is deliber-

ately 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 “experts” 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 con-

cerned, the IP Insurgency is now so close to total triumph in undermin-

ing the old telecom order that immediate action must be taken in order

Page 74

to forestall the demise of the large telecoms. This goes a long way to

explaining why governments and telecom interests alike are so con-

cerned 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....”

Ironically, it seems the closer ICANN comes toward legitimacy and

as the debates become more heated, mailing lists are swamped by other

information deflecting the topic away from ICANN. Naturally, 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 back-

ground 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

Page 75

cyber-ass ever more painfully into silence and abeyance, subsequently

forcing teams of hitmen 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 unsettling plans for world

re-domination despite their own better anarcho-intellectual instincts.”

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 Yugosla-

via 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 transparency 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 expressed 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 what is going on or, because of the sheer complexity of the issues

before them, are unable or even unwilling 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

Page 76

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

democracy. Simply voting online and obtaining statistical 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, democracy 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 establish, 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>

<http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/domnam/ 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.general.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. government 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 associated with it. The NSF Office of Inspector General Report

<http://www.columbia.edu/~jrh29/geneva/NSF. inspector.general.txt> makes the point

that the Internet has been developed with a great deal of public funding and by

Page 77

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 consumers (as opposed to corporate entities) have seen prices go up for

basic, local phone services in the U.S., Canada, and throughout 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 number of junk phone calls.

cf. <http://www.consunion.org/other/0406atdc499.htm> see also <http://

www.consunion.org /other/ tele2sw299.htm>

6. According to a statement released by the European Commission in mid-October, “the

E.C.-PoP [the European Commission’s representatives for the transition process] also

underlined the need to ensure a more balanced international representation.” 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 recommendations 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

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,

Page 78

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 whitehouse.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.

Page 79

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 fundamen-

tally 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 Network

<http://fcn.net_http://fcn.net/allisat> and <http:// robin.fcn.net>

Additional Links

1. The Amateur Computerist web site is at:

<http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/> In particular, the July 1998 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>

Page 80

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 Communications 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.:

<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:

<http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/ 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

Page 81

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] 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 submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

ACN Webpage:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ All issues of the Amateur

Computerist are on-line. Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are available at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/

All issues can be accessed from the Index at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf

Page 82