Subject: Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:52:33 -0400 (EDT)

Jean Camp <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>As friends, or at least a collegial colleague,  of people on both sides of
>what began as a cooperative process and has become a series of sometimes
>personal battles I believe I offer an useful perspective  on ICANN.

It is good to see that there is the effort to continue the discussion
of what the problem is with regard to ICANN's structural nature
and try to determine what to do about it. That is a hopeful sign.

While part of the problem, an important part has to do with
the lack of structural ability of a non profit  corporate form
to support and respond to participation (as others have
found since the legal obligation rests with the Board member,
there is an even more serious problem.

That problem is that ICANN is being entrusted with control and 
even ownership over vital functions of the infrastructure of the 
Internet. This is even less appropriate to put into a private
non profit corporate form, as Elaine Kamarck noted at an ICANN
meeting at the Berkman School in January 1999.

Such overwhelming power and wealth needs a different kind of 
institutional form than the nonprofit corporate form that 
the US government determined would be the form for ICANN.

I had sent a response to Vint Cerf after he responded to my
complaint to Becky Burr (she never responded). I didn't at
the time send that response on this list, but I will do so
now as it is important that there be consideration and discussion not
only of ICANN's structural form which is a serious problem, but also
of the prototype I proposed to the US government in response to a 
request from Ira Magaziner that I put my concerns into an operational 
form or a proposal.

That form was more in keeping with the way the Internet was developed
and with the methods that have proven helpful inthat develpment.

Following is my response to Vint with my proposal included:

>From [email-masked]  Sun Jul 30 13:16:35 2000
>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:16:35 -0400 (EDT)
>From: <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
	[email-masked]

Vint
 
>have you taken time to look into the numbers of people trying to 
>register? do you know what the planning estimates were before
>registration campaigns were initiated by various organizations?
>The planning numbers for registration were on the order of 10,000
>people. As of a few days ago something like 145,000 people had
>sent in raw registrations. Keep in mind also that there is a
>PIN number that has to be sent by mail. There is a calendar
>schedule that ICANN is trying to keep for the election itself,
>so the PINs have to get to the voters in time for that. 

I have sent my complaint to the U.S. government official charged
with overseeing ICANN and who is part of the problem of turning
unbridled power over to an inappropriate body with conflicts
of interest which prevent them from being able to either identify
or carry out the public interest.

I don't consider your question of whether I have taken time to 
understand the problem to be any sign of an appropriate response
on anyone's part.

I have taken much time over the past several years identifying the 
real problems and trying to bring them to the attention of the 
US government, other governments around the world, users of the 
Internet and people who don't yet have access, and to the ICANN
board as well.

And I have spent much time attempting to encourage open discussion
of the real problems.

This process has been fruitful in that many people realize that
what you have created as ICANN is an anti-model for Internet
governance.

It doesn't seem helpful for you to tell me that you don't understand
the problems of the size of the Internet or of its users or 
of claiming you will have an election that basically disenfranchises
users as it gives then no means for interactive participation (which
is the basis for the Internet).

Instead of your finding a way to solve the problems, and appreciating
that I have indeed taken the time to register my complaint over
ICANN's failure to have any regard for users with the U.S. government,
you have asked me if I have taken "time".

I have indeed taken "time" much "time" and instead of abusing users
who do take "time" it would be more appropriate if you encouraged
the US government officials who should be responding and maintaining
oversight over ICANN to be actively involved in the process.

When I tried to speak with you at the 1998 Internet Society meeting,
you walked away rather than discuss the difference we had over
whether there is a need to protect or get rid of the public nature
of the Internet.

It is appropriate that the US government seriously discuss my 
proposal with me, and I welcome the ICANN board and anyone else
who feels any interest, to discuss the proposal.

I am sending you both the URL for it and the proposal itself.

You are welcome to submit it to the ICANN board or the GAC or
whoever you feel appropriate. I am requesting that Becky
Burr contact me soon regarding how the US governmment will
act to give it the attention it deserves so it can be
implemented.

Ronda Hauben

The URL and proposal follow:

URL: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben.html

   The Internet an International Public Treasure
   A Proposal
   by Ronda Hauben
   [email-masked]
   Preface
   
   In testimony before the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the
   Committee on Science of the U.S. Congress on March 31, 1998, Robert
   Kahn, co-inventor of TCP/IP, indicated the great responsibility that
   must be taken into account before the U.S. Government changes the
   administrative oversight, ownership and control of essential aspects
   of the Internet that are part of what is known as the Domain Name
   System (DNS).
   
   Kahn indicated that "the governance issue must take into account the
   needs and desires of others outside the United States to participate."
   His 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 2 important components.
   1) The U.S. Government funded the necessary research and 2) It made
   sure the networking community had the responsibility for its
   operation, and insulated it to a very great extent from bureaucratic
   obstacles and commercial matters so it could evolve dynamically.
   
   He also said that "The relevant US 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 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 "Report from the Front", Meeting
   in Geneva Rushes to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server
   Systems". The URL is http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ )
   
   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 the U.S. public and the people of the world to be
   responsible in what it does.
   
   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 Corbato, 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.
   
   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
   participating 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 to put my concerns into some "operational form." The
   following proposal is my response to his request.
   -------------------------------------------
   Proposal
   Toward an International Public Administration of Essential Functions
   of the Internet - The Domain Name System
   Ronda Hauben
   [email-masked]
   
   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.(1) The early developers of the
   ARPANET, the progenitor of the Internet, viewed the computer as a
   communication device rather than only as an arithmetic engine. This
   new view, which came from research conducted by those in academic
   computer science, made the building of the ARPANET and then the
   Internet possible.(2) Any changes in the administration of essential
   functions of the Internet need to be guided by such 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
   administration and control of one nation. These include control over
   the allocation of domain names, over the allocation of IP addresses,
   over the assignment 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 these essential Internet functions. Such a 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 administration of the DNS,
   including the root server system, IP number allocations, Internet
   protocols, etc.
   
   Giving these functions over to a private entity will make it possible
   for these functions to be changed and for the Internet to be broken up
   into competing root servers, etc. These essential functions make the
   network 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 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 the kind of
   international cooperation and collaboration needed 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 the use of Usenet
   newsgroup, 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 undertake the following:
   
   1) To identify and describe the essential 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 communication needs of the diverse
   communities and users of the Internet, which include among others the
   scientific community, the education community, the librarians, the
   technical community, Governments (National as well as local), the
   university community, the art and cultural communities, nonprofit
   organizations, the medical community, the business community, and most
   importantly the users whoever they 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 about 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 administrations 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 recommendations 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 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. (in the past an Acceptable use policy has made such
   collaborative work among researchers from different nations possible.)
   
   This proposal is an effort to figure out what is a real way to solve
   the problem that is the essential problem in the future administration
   of the Internet. If the principles and prototype can be found to solve
   this problem, they will help to solve other problems of Internet
   administration and functioning as well.
   ------------------
   Notes:
   
   (1) See Michael Hauben, "Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the
   ARPANET and Computer Science", in "Netizens: On the History and Impact
   of Usenet and the Internet", IEEE CS Press, 1997, p. 109. See also
   "Internet, nouvelle utopie humaniste?" by Bernard Lang, Pierre Weis
   and Veronique Viguie Donzeau-Gouge, "Le Monde", September 26, 1997, as
   it describes how computer science is a new kind of science and not
   well 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.
   Submitted by
   Ronda Hauben
   P.O. Box 250101
   New York, N. Y. 10025-1531
   (212)787-9361
   Co-Author of: "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the
   Internet" published by the IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997.

---

From: "Dawson, Peter D" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:24:47 -0000

..and neither do I see the reason why one would waste 
their time 'harping' about the issue...

->-----Original Message-----
->From: Russ Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
->Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:45 AM
->To: Jean Camp; vinton g. cerf; [email-masked]; [email-masked];

<SNIPPED>

->
->I don't see why anyone would want to waste their time trying 
->to participate
->in something like this.
->
->Russ Smith
->http://consumer.net
->