Subject: USG commerce dept vs. internet

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 02:23:39 +0100 (MET)

(hope this mail is not complitely out of topic as it adress some of the 
 basic infrastructure questions of the internet where ietf is one of it)

dear mr.kalil may i ask you something hier befor the ietf list

what is going on within the commerce departement 
why they are in process to "rule" the internet 

no problem with somebody ruls the internet but i am not shure that
the commerce departement is the right organisation to do so 
(sorry you may also be in commerce departement but of the executive office
 of the president not at departement of commerce)

who give them autority ?
the president ?
(i dont think so)

does this mean that american government would fight to remain control 
over the global internets infrastructure like the dns in the hands of
commerce departement officers ?

Internet Reconfiguration Concerns Federal Officials
(credit:this info was provided to me/particular list from mr.rick weson)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-01/31/028l-013198-idx.html

sory for aproaching you in the public with such delicate questions 
beside your personal position in the wholle afair  but you are known 
as the internet frendly person in the executive office of the president

so could you advice us at this matter please ?

what is the position of the eop-sorry but internet is not only commerce 
thing and could not be handled by the commerce departement allone

we see now the dificultest time in internet history where some 
maybe not so qualifide persons try to get control over such importend 
thing like internet  internet is live and if some persons trys to get 
control over the live of all of us than well what should i say ?

do you have any advice for me and some of us who may feel like that ?

thank you in advance for your posible response

sascha ignjatovic 
individual member of the internet society 
vienna-austria

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:34:02 -0800 (PST)

>  basic infrastructure questions of the internet where ietf is one of it)

You are asking an important question, although this may not be the best
forum for the discussion.
 
> why they are in process to "rule" the internet 

I suspect you are asking about the recent proposals for reconstitution of
the Domain Name System which were issued by the Dept. of Commerce.

Be aware, that despite considerable evidence to the contrary, the United
States is usually a government of laws.  And as such, agencies, such as
the Department of Commerce must be able to articulate, with specificity,
the foundation of their powers to act in a particular situation.

And, unlike the Congress of the United States or the President, agencies,
such as the Department of Commerce, do not have any implied powers --
their sole source of authority is explicit delegation by either
Congressional Statute or Executive Order.

The recent proposals from the Department of Commerce contain no statements
which identify that legal basis upon which the Department of Commerce is
purporting to act. 

Furthermore, the US Constitution does impose limits on governmental power
to interfere with contracts and private property.

Since, NSF has recently declared, in writing and in a legally binding
context, that the contact records (those records supporting the "Whois" 
database and the billing system for domain names)  are effectively the
private property of Network Solutions, Incorporated, a private company,
and beyond the control of the United States Government, the plan put forth
by the Department of Commerce faces some severe obstacles before it can be
implemented. 

[The above mentioned declaration of the NSF is, indeed, a surprising event
with significant ramifications.  Unfortunately, it is not a well known
declaration.  A copy of NSF's statement can be found deep inside a set of
web pages under http://www.cavebear.com/nsf-dns/ ]
 
> (i dont think so)

Very good questions.

Of course, within the United States, being a sovereign nation, there
exists the power somewhere.  It is my interpretation that it is a latent
power in Congress and that it can only become real should Congress enact
legislation enabling the Department of Commerce to follow through on its
plan.  Congress, to my knowledge, has not passed such legislation.

It is not unlikely that the Department of Commerce is acting ultra vires
(or, in other words, beyond its legal powers.)

> do you have any advice for me and some of us who may feel like that ?

As we well know, the Internet is, in actually, a supra-national system. 
We are going to see a period in which individual nations thrash about
trying to treat the network like they have treated internal matters in the
past.  This will, of course, cause friction and discomfort for us, the
users of the network. 

Much of this trashing is based on incomplete knowledge of how the network
works.  We all might be best served by focusing some of our efforts on
educating our respective governmental officials.

		--karl--

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 04:51:10 +0100 (MET)

> (or, in other words, beyond its legal powers.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/daily/jan98/30/network.htm
                  By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
                  Washington Post Staff Writer
                  Tuesday, October 7, 1997;

"American taxpayers, companies and government built the
Internet," Rep.Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.), a member of
the House Science Committee, said at a hearing last week.
"This is something uniquely American."

Ceding governance to a global body "is not going to sell
very well -- not here, not on Main Street," Pickering said.

That sentiment also has been expressed by the Clinton
administration. A top Commerce Department official, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration director Larry Irving,
told the panel that the White House doesn't want "bureaucrats in Brussels
or Geneva running the system."

> educating our respective governmental officials.

it would be great to have a discussion and working group/organisation on 
this isue  your juridical knowledge and work is mostly useful and needed 

              --karl--
              thank you
               sascha

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:59:57 -0500

Karl,
 
   I actually agree with quite a bit of your comments below
   (and, in particular, the closing points regarding the 
   supra-national nature of the Internet, the inability of 
   some existing national models to cope with such, and the
   need for increased education on this aspect of the Internet).

   However, it's worth noting the Department of Commerce has
   fairly broad authority with respect to issues which effect
   ability of US folks to engage in interstate commerce.  Further,
   the "Framework For Global Electronic Commerce" paper issued
   from the White House under the President's name includes a
   specific request for the Department of Commerce to study
   the DNS Governance issue.  

   Given that the Green Paper is a simply a proposal at this 
   time for consideration by the community, there's not much
   "authority" being exercised.  From my reading, it appears
   that much of the actual execution would require explicit
   cooperation of many folks, including the IANA, the IAB,
   the regional IP registries, NSI, and parties interested in 
   operating additional DNS registries.  I imagine that many
   folks will provide feedback on the proposal and we'll see
   more refinement, but in the end, it's going to have to be
   the community that actually decides to adopt and execute
   any plan for moving forward.

   We, the Internet Community, have not successfully evolved the
   current IANA and DNS situation into a stable, competitive, 
   and representative infrastructure.  It should be no surprise
   that the US Goverment wants to see this come about and is 
   providing its thinking on how to move forward; the only real
   surprise is how carefully they're trying to work with the 
   community given all the options at their command.

/John

>...
>[From: "A Framework For Global Electronic Commerce"]
>
>                                 President William J. Clinton
>                                 Vice President Albert Gore, Jr.
>                                       Washington, D.C.
>...
>Governance of the domain name system (DNS) raises other important issues
unrelated to intellectual property. The
>Administration supports private efforts to address Internet governance
issues including those related to domain names and has
>formed an interagency working group under the leadership of the Department
of Commerce to study DNS issues. The
>working group will review various DNS proposals, consulting with
interested private sector, consumer, professional,
>congressional and state government and international groups. The group
will consider, in light of public input, (1) what
>contribution government might make, if any, to the development of a global
competitive, market-based system to register
>Internet domain names, and (2) how best to foster bottom-up governance of
the Internet.

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 05:39:53 +0100 (MET)

mr.john thank you for your encouraging vuews

On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, John Curran wrote:

>    providing its thinking on how to move forward;

but it was iana starting the process of dns reform and the green paper
is a copy of that what iana and isoc hase achive with the community
=gtld-mou slightly changed 

>    the only real

"you can kill me but this not mean i would love you" :-)

i see also the momentan process quayt interesting 

the governemtns learn how to involv them self in internet governance 
and the community learns how to make a use of the governments for the
nexst step of internet development 

so the cooperation is the best thing for all of US :-)

the only question remains 

WHO IS THE MASTER BRAIN :-)

> /John

and be cearful  the next thing they may want to "privatize" could be the 
IETF :-)

the reall question is WHO IS THE HIGHEST AUTORITY 

this we have to work and deal out  

thanks
sascha

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:53:30 -0500 (EST)

Sascha writes:

Cook:  Sorry Sascha....that is not the right question. the internet
doesn't run on HIGHEST AUTHORITY.  it runs on rough consensus.

Magaziner is doing an amazing job of trying to nurture consensus.  In the
absence so far of our ability to get there ourselves we are fortunate to
have him involved.  john Curran said it much better than i can.  the US
government is *NOT* trying to rule the internet.  it is trying to assist
us in the process of consensus building.

Forget the senator's crude rtemarks.  he will become a player only if we
continue to tear each other apart.

************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet               New Special Report: Building
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     Internet Infrastructure ($395)
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              www.cookreport.com/building.html
[email-masked]                       Index to 6 years of COOK Report,
glossary, executive summaries, special reports found at www.cookreport.com
************************************************************************

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 00:37:07 -0500

On Internet Governance:
An Independant Blue Paper.

<http://www.fcn.net/blue.html>

Comments and Criticisms Requested.

 TeleVirtually Yours,

 Bob Allisat

 Director, World TeleVirtual Network             http://www.wtv.net
 PO Box 191 St E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2                 [email-masked]

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 00:51:55 -0500

>us in the process of consensus building.

 For once we are dealing with intelligent
 persons in the US Executive Offices. This
 is an unusual cirumstance one that is sure
 to end. I suspect that if the leadership of
 the Internet would finally decide to seek
 consensus the W.H. would not comment or
 involve itself again. Not under this
 administration anyways. And they would
 tell the Commerce department and all the
 rest to bug off as well.

 And yes I god damn well include myself in
 that leadership. Frankly the old guard is
 severely falling down in it's ability to
 address the critical TECHNICAL issues at
 hand and ahead of us all. And a new, more
 flexible and expansive generation must take
 the helm. Or this medium will be torn to
 shreds by all those other far less sensitive
 politicos just bidding their time to get a
 hold of this revolutionary phenomenon.

 We are all on notice now. And it is time
 for women and men of good will and insight
 to step forward into the vaccuum of power
 left when the oldbies abdicated their
 responsibilities. No matter how venerable
 if they lead us into disaster we must not
 follow. It is time. Assist in the process,
 get the hell out of the way or be swept
 aside and asunder by onrushing events.

 TeleVirtually Yours,

 Bob Allisat

---

From: "Timothy Glenn Stockstill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 01:16:43 -0500

> plan.  Congress, to my knowledge, has not passed such legislation.

It is not unheard of for an agency of the US government to assume
power not explicitly granted to them, and justify it from
a power that was previously granted (the IRS, commonly employs this
practice).  Although the presumption of these powers (not explicitly
granted but inferred from a precedent established by a previously
granted power) may not be right, and very well may constitute
an act above the authority of the agency involved, it is not an
assurance that the agency will not do it.

Generally when a situation like this occurs it requires action from
another governmental body (such as the Courts or the Congress) to
grant the power to another organization (although not necessary
a Governmental one), before the agency will relinquish the control
which it previously assumed.  The question then becomes who receives
the authority, and what governmental body makes the decision (ie
will it be the Courts, or the Congress).

However with all this conversation over government agencies
superseding there authority, It is essential that we consider
why they (government agencies) are motivated to do so
(assume the authority) in the first place.

When the Media runs articles which frightens people by reporting
(or implying) that a corner stone system can be "easily"
circumvented (such as the article recently printed by the Post).
That fear causes people who are not familiar with the technical
aspects of the Internet to demand that something be done to
prevent a problem from occurring.

This may not be right, and may be the result of ignorance, but
it is none the less the way it is.  We as the engineers responsible
for establishing and providing for the technology which makes
up the Internet, must remember that our responsibility does not
stop there.  We are also responsible for a measurable level of
public relations.  When articles such as this one are published
it is important that the engineering community reassure people
that the current system is sound, and we will make all efforts
to ensure that it remains that way.

--
Timothy Glenn Stockstill
The Ultimate Software Group
mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 00:24:55 -0800 (PST)

(What are we all doing reading and writing e-mail late on this Saturday
night / early on this Sunday morning?!!)

>    Further,

Very good point!  I was writing in the sense of "if this plan were to be
implemented, what powers would be required?"

There's no barrier to mere study and I didn't intend to imply that there
was.

(However, some of the items in the document trigger pretty soon. --For
example, there is a proposal to stop the 30% domain name sales tax as of
April 1 of this year.  That's less than 60 days from now.)

But we have to be very careful to recognize that, at least in the US,
there are relatively few intrinsic powers of the Executive branch that are
relevant to the network (the foreign relations power perhaps being the
most relevant.)

Thus we have to look to the Legislative branch for the source of authority
(DNS SOA pun intended ;-) 

While we may be able to find some authority for some of the actions under
the plans, we must understand that other actions may very well require
enabling legislation from Congress.  And we know how uncertain and long
that process may be.

We also need to be careful not to assume powers of government agencies
unless those powers can be tied to a specific statute or executive order.

So when you say:

  However, it's worth noting the Department of Commerce has
  fairly broad authority with respect to issues which effect
  ability of US folks to engage in interstate commerce.

That is only true insofar as there are specific statutes giving specific
powers.  The Dept. of Commerce does not automatically inherit Congress's
latent power to regulate commerce among the states nor does the Dept. of
Commerce have the ability to extend its powers on the basis of the
"necessary and proper" clause.  Administrative agencies such as the Dept.
of Commerce don't get the benefit of the doubt that goes to the
Constitutionally established bodies such as Congress of the Executive. 

We have a very tricky situation in that NSF has been turning down requests
under the Freedom of Information Act on the basis that the underlying
records are beyond the "control" of the NSF.  And similarly, the NSF has
been turning down requests under the Privacy Act on the basis that
the portion of the record base underlying the DNS which contains the names
of individuals are internal operating materials of NSI and hence not part
of the system of records which NSF contracted for (and hence beyond NSF's
control and hence not covered by the Privacy Act.)

Assuming you were able to parse the above rather dense paragraph ;-), a
difficulty facing the "green paper" is that it assumes that the government
has sufficient control over the records underlying the DNS to push pieces
into new cubbyholes under new management.  That assumes "control", which
is something that NSF has explicitly disclaimed.

		--karl--

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 00:12:54 -0800

I am responding to all the prior correspondence in this IETF thread.

02/01 02:23+01 Sascha Ignjatovic  USG commerce dept vs. internet
01/31 18:34PST Karl Auerbach      Re: USG commerce dept vs. internet
02/01 04:51+01 Sascha Ignjatovic  Re: USG commerce dept vs. internet
01/31 22:59EST John Curran        Re: USG commerce dept vs. internet
02/01 05:39+01 Sascha Ignjatovic  Re: USG commerce dept vs. internet
01/31 23:53EST Gordon Cook        Re: USG commerce dept vs. internet
02/01 00:37EST Bob Allisat        On Internet Governance
02/01 00:36EST Bob Allisat        New TLD BOF @ LA IETF '98
02/01 00:51EST Bob Allisat        Re: USG commerce dept vs. internet
02/01 01:16EST Timothy Glenn Sto  Re: USG commerce dept vs. internet

FIRST: It is no mystery as to how the USGovt came to be so involved in
working toward a new form of Internet Administration.  The facts are
that IANA has always been a US Government contracted activity, and as
such, it is the duty (to the Internet and to US Citizens) for the US
Government to clean up the mess that has been created (or allowed to
create itself) before casting the Internet Community adrift in the
cosmos to fend for itself.  A smooth casting off would be very nice!

This is what I see the Green Paper initiating.  At this point, it is a
draft intended to draw comments.  It already reflects a great deal of
careful listening to a great many voices, many of which have been
engaged in vociferous infighting over who is going to control things,
such as: (1) the Authoritative DNS ROOT ZONE, and (2) IP Address
allocations, and (3) who is going to administer protocol registries
and assigned numbers -- All things that IANA has been doing since we
can remember.

(By the way, the IETF and IAB are not as I understand it, part of what
the Green Paper addresses.  Perhaps we should ask for a clarification)

It should be relatively easy to see that IANA has achieved a Peter
Principle promotion to its level of incompetence, in that many of the
transition things that it has tried to achieve of late have not turned
out terribly well.  Certainly not as planned by IANA or anyone else.

So, there really is a need for some responsible party to step in and
help us as a self organizing community to do our self organizing
thing.  This is a rather difficult thing to do if the responsible
party (Our US Govt) must step in as a newbie and apply the wisdom of
Solomon while learning what the internet is all about in the first place.

I have been watching this process for a long time now, and I must say
that Ira Magaziner has done a very responsible job of doing his
homework, and figuring out what the Internet is really all about.  
Of course, he has the resources of the White House at his disposal to
help him become educated, and he has some rather interesting past
experience with past attempts as consensus building from his White
House position, which appear to have taught him some really important
lessons about consensus building processes.  He has done a good job.

SECOND: What we need now that we have been given protective cover for
the next two years (more or less) for a transition, is to find ways to
cooperate with each other within the fast growing Internet Community
to find the right ways to manage our own administrative and allocation
and registry problems.

What we do not need is to engage in bashing each other (or the old
guard) as though this is a zero sum game where-in "whatever you get
must be my loss".  We are staring into a vast non-zero-sum opportunity
with room for all of us, if we can just quit fighting over who is
going to control whom, and how.  Our fighting is our only crisis!

The very essence of the Internet's power is drawn from the cooperation
of all the people on the edges that make their own decisions about
where they want to buy their ISP service, and what quality of service
they want to buy, and how they are going to configure their systems to
InterOperate across the Internet, and how they configure their
end-user applications to InterWork with other end-user' Applications
at some other edge site.

It is clear that it is not possible for anyone to do anything in the
Internet by themselves.  Every action on the Internet requires some
kind of cooperative protocol interaction with some other end.  

So, as people who use the Internet, we need to take a lesson from all
this and settle down into a cooperative effort to resolve our
differences and get along without conceding Czar Power to anyone.

This is the opportunity that the USGovt, through Ira Magaziner's
guidance, and his support from an interagency working group, is now
giving to the Internet Community.

I, for one, am pledging myself to constructive cooperation with
whomever else is involved with trying to work out good solutions for
the problems that face us.  I am also working with a group of diverse
Internet people who are similarly committed, and I hope that this idea
will turn out to be very contagious.  It is clear that the Green Paper
needs some changes, and it is our assignment to constructively work on
making them.

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:38:39 -0500

>needs some changes, and it is our assignment to constructively work on

 And I for another will assist the process
 in whatever manner I can. But I will not
 sit idly by as alleged solutions are put
 forward again and again that are just re-
 hashed versions of the same, exact nonsense
 that landed us in all this trouble.

 CORE/POC/IAHC is dead. IETF, ISOC, IANA,
 IAB, ETC (as you understand these groups)
 are doing the death rattle.

 Wake up people. It's time to revision and
 rethink. If you can't do that it's time to
 get the hell out of leadership roles and
 quietly merge into retirement nul. Because
 if you don't myself and others will ensure
 your legacy is dismembered. Because it
 threatens our liberty, independance and
 freedom to engage in peaceful commerce and
 harmonious, open communicatiions. All of
 which are vastly more important than your
 aconymaniacal house of cards.

 I remain as dedicated to reform and the hard
 process of consensus building as Mr.Stefferud.

 TeleVirtually Yours,

 Bob Allisat

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:23:26 -0500

>(assume the authority) in the first place.

 It is not unheard of for a group of technical
 advisors and support staffers to assume powers
 not explicitly granted to them. Especially when
 understanding of their work and medium is so
 lacking in both administrative and public circles.
 These technically competant persons justify this
 ignorance as a power vucuum and, instead of working
 to inform bth government and the general public
 step into roles and processes they have no essential
 business entering into from what are basically
 technical support roles previously granted. IANA,
 ISOC, IAB, IETF, IAHC, CORE/POC all immediately
 spring to mind. The presumption of these new, more
 expansive powers was in no way granted either
 explicitly or implicitly but greatly infered from
 a percieved precedent established by their singular
 responsibilites of a previous rather limited role
 and spectrum ofpparticipants. This assumption of
 powers that are fundamentally those of governments
 and public, democratic process is not right, and
 certainly constitutes an act way outside the real
 time authority of the elements invovled.

 When specific incidents like this occur it elicits
 swift exposure of these facts by the press and
 concerned citizans and then stern and rapid
 intervention from governmental oversight agencies
 to restore order and place decision making authority
 in more legitimate channels. It forces what are in
 fact renegade social elements to relinquish usurped
 powers by simple force if all reason fails. The
 question, indeed, becomes who assumes legitimate,
 sanctioned control of what the displaced entities
 misappropriated and, indeed, what body or group
 makes the pivotal decisions.

 Trusting the very individuals and entities which
 usurped governmental level power is unwise to the
 extreme. As we have all witnessed this course of
 actions simply puts into motion a reeling set of
 events trying to reapply the usurpation to a situation
 that requires full revisioning and complete renovation.
 Furtehrmore it creates a succession of crises of
 confidence  and the slow dawning of awareness that
 the situation is spiralling very much out of control.
 Motivating, indeed FORCING government to step in where
 they fully realize they niether belong nor fully
 comprehend.

 And all you god damned blatherers who let this happen
 are emmensely lucky to have people of reason to deal
 with in the US Executive Branch at this present moment
 in history. Another regime and it would have simply an
 occupation by storm, an imposition of order by decree
 and that would have been that.

 All of which may supply the answer to Mr. Stockstill's
 hanging question...

 We are on notice. Time is ticking. If Clinton falls and/or
 Gore stumbles the next administration may be radically
 differant from this one. And then our time will be very
 much up and our golden goose very much cooked for Right
 Wing dinner. What may await us will make the Communications
 Decency Act look like fun and games.

 Assist the process, remove yourself from harms way or
 face the prospect of being steam rollered on the road to
 true consensus and a real solution. Your choice as individuals
 and organized groups of individuals.

 TeleVirtually Yours,

 Bob Allisat

---

From: "Rick H. Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 10:57:50 -0800 (PST)

Stef,

One of the biggest problems is thar *everyone* wants to be
the responsible party. IMHO, nobody realy seems to be lisening to
eachother.

i wish we could find better ways to deal with political issues
surrounding dns, it seems like its just gona come down to
[technicaly] who you get your .cache file from.

network splits [news at 5] 

-rick

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 13:54:30 -0800

Hi Rick -- There is real hope on the horizon;-)...

*********************
>From Rick H. Wesson's  message Sun, 1 Feb 1998 10:57:50 -0800 (PST):
}
}Stef,
}
}One of the biggest problems is that *everyone* wants to be
}the responsible party. IMHO, nobody realy seems to be lisening to
}eachother.
}
}i wish we could find better ways to deal with political issues
}surrounding dns, it seems like its just gona come down to
}[technicaly] who you get your .cache file from.
}
}network splits [news at 5] 
}
}-rick
}
}On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}> 
}> So, there really is a need for some responsible party to step in and
}> help us as a self organizing community to do our self organizing
}> thing.  This is a rather difficult thing to do if the responsible
}> party (Our US Govt) must step in as a newbie and apply the wisdom of
}> Solomon while learning what the internet is all about in the first place.
*********************

Now that IAHC/POC/CORE has joined the ranks of those DNS TLD wanna-be
folk who have suffered big failures of expectations, and it is quite
clear that no single entitiy or group is going to get to grab the
Brass Ring and become Czar, it is dawning on us all that cooperation,
as I described it in my little essay, is the only game left in town.

So, I am seeing lots of safe and sane discussion these days about how
everyone now sees that cooperation without appointment of a Czar is
the right way to proceed, and so they are beginning to seriously
cooperate.

Now that we have cover for an interim period, to protect the stability
of what we have now in operation, lets just put aside our fears of
cooperation and go after that non-zero-sum opportunity that is right
there in front of us all, just waiting to be plucked.

Lets just put aside all the crap that we have thrown at each other
during the last 2 years, and settle into solving the problems.

There was no crisis, and there still is no crisis, other than that of
a string of failed expectations.  Yes, some people may be frustrated
by not being able to get the DNS name of their choice, but that is not
exactly a crisis.  No one is actually faced with not getting any name
at all.  The DNS system is remarkably robust, as proven by various
recent events, and all we need is a measure of sanity to go forward
from here.

So, I seriously challenge that everyone "wants to be the repsonsible
party" anymore, though if you are looking at things through
IAHC/POC/CORE colored glasses, you might still be blinded by that
shining light.  The rest of us are just waiting for IAHC/POC/CORE to
join the ranks of those of us who are cooperating.

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: Joerg Hartmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:07:36 +0100 (MET)

Just relax.

Even if the DoC took the control over DNS, would that really be such a big
problem? They have that control over the american telephone numbering
stuff, as all goverments over the world - or inter-governmental agencies
like the ITU or the EC - have for the numbering shemes - or radio
frequencies - of their respective regions. And though there are problems
around this - e.g. the protective practics of the European bodies (like
the decision to prefere DECT as the European
wireless-local-loop-technology and not to allow its rival PHS although
DECT needs twice as much radio frequencies, offers half the power and
flexibility, doesn't work while driving and needs five times bigger
equipement) or the kind of problems our friends within the People's
Republic of China are facing if trying to get an IP-address and chineese
domain name, I feel the Department of Commerce - or the ITU, see
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gTLD-MoU.html - controlling the DNS would be a
much smaller problem than the way of private ruling we already have for
most European DNSs: DeNIC (German NIC), e.g., is ruled by the German
counterparts to AOL and UUNET (private ISPs), and though the universities
represent both the biggest customer base and the main part of the
infrastructure, they are mobbed by the ISPs DeNIC. How about AOL
controlling InterNIC? No? Well, out of the U.S. this is most often the
situation.

Much more of a problem - both for competition and personal freedom (of
speech) is what the Department of Commerce does in the
encryption fight. You maybe know that most of the governments of the
western hemisphere that control telephone numbering, already control
(=listen to) the talk on _any_ telephone call as well. And they want that
control over the net as well. (No paranoia, just legal reality...)

AQUILA - Oekologie & Innovationen, mailto:[email-masked]
Hebbelstrasse 9, D-14469 Potsdam; P.O.Box 600844, D-14408 Potsdam, Germany
Voice: +49-331-27092-15; Fax: +49-331-27092-17
CEO, MD IT/OS Joerg Hartmann, mailto:[email-masked]