Subject: We Should be Overcoming ICANN by Listening to Paul Baran

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:26:04 -0500

We Should be Overcoming ICANN by Listening to Paul Baran

On June 23, 1995 Paul Baran, the inventor of packet networks gave a 
talk at the MARCONI CENTENNIAL SYMPOSIUM Bologna, Italy. He end his 
talk with four paragraphs that seven years later and after almost 4 
years of ICANN read like prophecy.

REGULATION FOR THE FUTURE --THE INTERNET MODEL

"The Internet provides an instructive model for the future of 
telecommunications regulations. The Internet allows worldwide 
communications at a far lower cost than any alternative; serving data 
users inexpensively, and opening access to the world's information to 
a greater number of people than ever initially imagined."

"In the Internet, there is no central node, and only a minimal 
centralized management structure, limited to a few housekeeping 
functions such as standards setting. Local decisions essentially 
control the network. The independent pieces of the network operate in 
a coordinated manner with a minimum of restrictions. This lack of a 
limiting centralized structure has permitted the Internet to be 
responsive to a very large unregulated constituency and allowing 
explosive growth and with increasing usefulness to its users. 
Probably the closest parallel structure to the Internet is the free 
market economy. We know that works. Will it work for regulating the 
radio spectrum?"

"The Internet is an organization of users sharing a common resource, 
as appropriate to the sharing of a common band of frequencies by all 
comers. The Internet model for regulation would be similar to the 
data network in which each user follows a simple set of commonly 
observed rules. Which frequency to use and when, or which form of 
modulation to use would be left to each user. The Internet model has 
many of the characteristics of a desired communications regulatory 
approach for the future."

"Such a direction does require a big evolution in the thinking of the 
current communications regulatory agencies. The present regulatory 
mentality tends to think in terms of a centralized control structure, 
altogether too reminiscent of the old Soviet economy. As we know 
today, that particular form of centralized system didn't work all 
that well in practice and, in fact, ultimately broke down. Emphasis 
with that structure was on limiting distribution, rather than on 
maximizing the creation of goods and services. Some say that this old 
highly centralized model of economic control remains alive and well 
today -- not in Moscow but, rather, within our own radio regulatory 
agencies."

Baran foresaw the future.  Only three months later ISOC on October 1 
1995 issued a plan by which it proposed to take control of domain 
names.
http://dns.vrx.net/news/by_date/old/1995/Oct/isocplan.html

There followed the DNS wars. the IAHC, the Green paper, the White 
paper, New co, IFWP and in October of 1998 ICANN. It was battle royal 
over the DNS which had become the sole single point of failure for 
the Internet. Among the key architects of ICANN were Vint Cerf, John 
Patrick, Mike Roberts, Larry Landweber, Dave Farber and Scott Bradner.

The ICANN that was created was precisely what Baran had warned 
against 39 months before. It bore a "regulatory mentality [that] 
tend[ed] to think in terms of a centralized control structure. 
Emphasis with that structure was on limiting distribution, rather 
than on maximizing the creation of goods and services. As we know 
today, that particular form of centralized system didn't work all 
that well in practice and, in fact, ultimately broke down."

On March 18, 2002 David J. Farber, Peter G. Neumann, and Lauren 
Weinstein issued a manifesto http://www.pfir.org/statements/icann 
acknowledging the breakdown that Baran had warned against. It began

"Despite its best efforts, the Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers (ICANN) has proven overall to be a failed 
experiment in Internet policy development, implementation, and 
management. ICANN's lack of meaningful representation, and its 
continuing pattern of drastic and seemingly arbitrary structural and 
policy changes (among other shortcomings), have created an unstable 
and suspicion-ridden environment that is detrimental to the interests 
of the vast majority of Internet users around the world. The 
resulting overly politicized situation not only threatens the 
stability of the Internet itself, but also invites drastic and 
undesirable interventions by a variety of vested interests."

They concluded: "First, as an immediate temporary measure, all 
Internet policy, operational, and other Internet-related functions 
currently performed by ICANN should be transferred, as soon as 
practicable while maintaining continuity, to a different, already 
existing non-profit organization (or organizations) on a 
non-permanent, strictly stewardship basis. One potential candidate we 
would suggest considering for this role would be the Internet 
Architecture Board (IAB), although there are a range of other 
possibilities of course. The process to plan and begin a transfer of 
responsibilities from ICANN should be initiated immediately."

"Next, we recommend that an intensive, international study be started 
at once, with a mandate to propose detailed and meaningful paths for 
the Internet's development, operations, and management."

"Our third recommended step would be for the results of this study to 
be carefully considered and, as deemed appropriate, to be 
implemented. Internet-related functions would be transferred from the 
temporary stewardship organization(s) to the entities developed from 
the study results."

Put quite simply their manifesto shows they haven't pondered Paul 
Baran's prophecy of June 1995. For they are proposing yet again to 
create a set of central control structures for the Internet where 
none are needed. And where by their own admission the first Internet 
administrator offered but a "continuing pattern of drastic and 
seemingly arbitrary structural and policy changes (among other 
shortcomings), [that] have created an unstable and suspicion-ridden 
environment." They now ask for permission to go out and do it all 
over again.

They miss however the absolutely key point. What they did then and 
are getting ready to do again by proposing ICANN 2 is shaped by their 
control oriented view of the world. The phrase that was on many 
peoples lips including Dave Farber's in the mid 90s: the Internet may 
need to have "adult supervision" imposed upon it. ICANN was 
constructed to do just that. This is the paternalistic concept behind 
computer networks of the ARPAnet era. An internetwork.... that is to 
say a network of networks can have no central controller. TCP/IP 
pushed verifiable end- to-end connectivity into the hands of the 
users and made it possible to do away with central control. Vint Cerf 
doesn't understand what he and Kahn did. And now Dave Farber, having 
been one of the primary builders of the original ICANN, admits that 
the first effort to bring the Internet under central control has 
failed. Sadly, like the kid with his finger in the dike trying to 
hold back the onrush of the North Sea, he proposes yet another study 
group of elite industry and academic vested-interests to do over 
again what he and EDUCAUSE and ISOC and IANA tried to do in 1998. The 
1998 attempt failed. So will the 2002 attempt. So will the attempt of 
2006.

You cannot adequately grasp what is at stake without an understanding 
of the end to end architecture of the net. I can't emphasize this too 
much because I am amazed at my own slowness to grasp these 
fundamental issues. The 1984 Clarke Reed paper first pointed them 
out. They have been built on by Larry Lessig and Yochai Benkler. In 
particular, I recommend the Benkler paper below.

 From Consumers to Users 
http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v52/no3/benkler1.pdf

Consider Benkler's statement: "Today, as the Internet and the 
digitally networked environment present us with a new set of 
regulatory choices, it is important to set our eyes on the right 
prize. That prize is not the Great Shopping Mall in Cyberspace. That 
prize is the Great Agora-the unmediated conversation of the many with 
the many."

If you place commerce as the most important priority of the Internet, 
you are inviting outside regulation.  Government may regulate 
commerce.  But it may not regulate speech - the Great Agora.  ICANN 
has been underwritten by the GIP to make the Internet safe for global 
commerce.  While one cannot and should not attempt to ban commerce 
from the Internet, one can also act to ensure that the Internet is 
not surrendered to those who wish to use it not for many to many 
communication but to build a better shopping mall.  ICANN is there to 
empower the Great Shopping Mall in Cyberspace. Any Farber, (PFIR) 
inspired ICANN progeny will be there to do the same.  Deal with it 
people. PFIR's Overcoming ICANN essay merely proposes that a new 
group of central architects come together to construct the Really 
Great Shopping Mall in Cyberspace. ICANN failed because it was built 
in a darkened smoke filled room. The ICANN for the Really Great 
Shopping Mall in Cyberspace will try to use open meetings involved in 
the National Academy process to put window dressing over a structure 
that will drafted behind the scenes by the very interests who are 
horrified that something like the Internet could exist without being 
under their control. If you want the Agora and what Benkler calls 
users, and you do not want consumers and the shopping mall, stay far 
away from the Farber, Weinstein, Neuman effort. Removing ICANN is 
fine. It should indeed be done immediately. But the rest of the 
prescription is unneeded. The Internet has never been a monolithic 
unity. There never needed to be an authority to give permission to 
communicate.  Given the many kinds networks that choose to connect to 
the Internet, it has never been possible to reach from one point 
every single other point on the Internet.  Nevertheless, the Internet 
still works just fine thank you. The Overcoming ICANN manifesto hints 
at all manner of sinister disasters waiting to happen.  And yes those 
who favor the total control model, the adult supervision model and 
the Really Great Shopping Mall have reason to be afraid.  Their 
vision is breaking apart as it should.

The rest of us have no reason to fear.  Not, as long as we wake up, 
look at what the architecture is telling us and vote with our DNS for 
the inclusive roots. The "adult" supervisors fooled us once. We now 
have plenty of evidence not to let them fool us again.  Should they 
do so we would have proven ourselves to be the children they perceive 
us to be. We must not permit them to replicate their previous errors, 
but send them back instead to study the wisdom of the inventor of the 
packets that started it all - Paul Baran.

-- 
========================================================
The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609)
882-2572 (phone & fax) [email-masked]  Subscription info & 
prices at   http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml    Summary of 
content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml 
The Future of the Industry  -  Googin &
Odlyzko on telco viability  -  April may issue available at 
http://cookreport.com/11.02.shtml
========================================================