[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

FW: Esther Dyson Report (2of3)

  From: 	Ken Freed[SMTP:kenfreed@media-visions.com]
  Sent: 	Tuesday, November 18, 1997 10:58 AM
  To: 	Ken Freed
  Cc: 	karl@cavebear.com; cook@cookreport.com; dcrocker@imc.or; 
  Jay@Iperdome.com; JimFleming@unety.net; ken@media-visions.com; 
  pres@domains.org; perry@piermont.com; carl@oppedahl.com; usdh@ccnet.com; 
  pvm@software.com; pvm@software.com; erony@marin.k12.ca.us; amr@ngi.org; 
  andy@interactivehq.org; rsexton@vrx.net; shaw@itu.int; rshu@inetnow.net; 
  bobr@dprc.net; dstein@travel-net.com; dont@netsol.com; susanc@netsol.com; 
  at@ah.net; avc@netnamesusa.com; wnoxon@nsf.gov
  Subject: 	Esther Dyson Report (2of3)
  (Part 2 of 3)
  [Ellen Rony at Alexander Works is the author of the
  new book, The Domain Name Handbook, available in
  February from R&D Press, a Miller-Freeman imprint .]
  I don't represent any constituency except the assumed
  readers of my book <grin>, but she ought to talk to Dr.
  Paul Mockapetris, the "father" of the DNS. I think his
  opinions at this point in the maturation of the Internet
  (we call it, "The Coming of Age of the Internet") would
  be very germane and interesting.
                    Dr. Paul V. Mockapetris
                    805/882.2470 ext. 278),
  - - - - - - -
  Ellen Rony
  Director, Alexander Works
  Tiburon, California
  Phone: 415/435-5010
  Fax:  415/435-5010
  Fortiter in re, suaviter in mundo
  [Tony Rutkowski operates the Center for Next
  Generation Internet, and you surely know his
  credits better than I do. He's given this for you.]
  Tell Esther I said hi. If she wants to know about the
  current situation is, you can tell her to check out:
  Like it or not, what she or I like, however, doesn't
  change reality.
  <http://www.wia.org/pub/parts-is-parts.html> is an
  overview and analysis of what's presently occurring
  and where things seem to be heading.
  If interested in an advocacy piece - there is one that I
  facilitated among many parties in this controversy at
  I'm not particularly interested in "my voice" being
  heard. This is complex development involving many
  players and institutions around the world. As to the
  power politics, a lot of us have the ability to influence
  lots of people and outcomes, but unless Esther has
  mastered time travel, she's not going to change
  what presently exists. [What about tomorrow?]
  - - - - - - - - - - -
  Tony Rutkowski
  Center for Next Generation Internet
  Herndon, Virginia USA
  [Andy Sernovitz is the founder and president of the
  Association for Interactive Media. A vocal opponent
  of the IAHC plan, he testified before the House Science
  Committee, 30 September 1997. Below is an excerpt,
  which he asked to have forwarded to you. ]
  Mr. Chairman, the IAHC plan is a poorly veiled attempt
  to take over the domain name system by the Internet
  Society and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
  [IANA]. As is documented in my written testimony,
  the IAHC plan grants unprecedented authority to a
  puppet organization controlled by Dr. John Postel, Mr.
  Don Heath and the technocrat trustees of the Internet
  Society. The IAHC plan sets up it's backers with total
  rule and veto power over an offshore corporation that
  has complete protection from legal liability, its own
  kangaroo trademark courts, all under the protection
  of the Swiss Civil Code. This action has significant
  implications for the authority of the U.S. government,
  U.S. courts and American Internet businesses.
  We call on this committee to stop the Internet
  Assigned Numbers Authority in this unprecedented
  breach of trust by a federal contractor. IANA controls
  the central assets necessary to keep the current
  domain name system working and represents a vital
  national resource. Now this contractor has begun
  taking these assets developed for the U.S. government,
  paid for by the U.S. government, and essential to the
  operations of the Internet and begun transferring
  them to the puppet operation in Geneva that they
  control. This action demands immediate investigation
  by this committee and the GAO of IANA and the
  University of Southern California (who has received
  much of the funding) and Dr. Postel. [Snip]
  My final point today is that the IAHC, the Internet
  Society and IANA are actively working to subvert the
  efforts of this committee and the Administration's task
  force. They intend to take control of the domain name
  system in the next 120 days, intentionally preempting
  the U.S. government. They do this without regard to
  the wishes of the U.S. or risks to the stability of the
  Internet created by such an ill-considered action.
  They have been accepting and empowering domain
  name registrars; they have a bid out that closes on
  Friday to purchase [Emergent] software to run their
  shared registry, and they have announced that they
  will be operating a full domain name system by
  January 15.
  When they attempt to delay your investigation with
  promises of change, remember that their intent is
  clear and well documented. They are playing a stalling
  game, attempting to distract this committee until their
  control is secure. Mr. Chairman, hold them accountable
  by demanding a sign of good faith. Ask them to stop
  implementation of their plans until this committee
  completes its work. Ask them to give up their total
  veto power over the IAHC system. [snip]
  We in the Internet industry ask that this committee
  and the Administration take immediate action to
  secure the stability of the Internet by proactively
  stopping the illicit implementation of the IAHC's
  takeover. We also ask that immediate measures be
  taken to secure control of the Internet Assigned
  Numbers Authority before it is transferred outside of
  U.S. jurisdiction. That will enable us to take the time
  necessary to follow the original, well-considered plan
  of action of this committee.
  For a copy of Mr. Sernovitz' full written
  testimony, call AIM or visit the Web site at
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Andrew L. Sernovitz, President
  Association for Interactive Media
  Washington, DC
  Voice: (202) 408-0008
  Fax:    (202) 408-0111
  Robert Shaw - Int'l Telecommunications Union
  Richard Shu - Universal DNS Confederation
  Dan Steinberg - Attorney (Independent)
  Donald Telege - Network Solutions Inc. (InterNIC)
  Adam Todd - UURSC/Ah.Net (AuNIC)
  Richard Zare - National Science Board/NSF (InterNic)
  [Richard Sexton operates VRX Network services
  in Ontario, offering domain registration operations.
  He's an outspoken adversary of the IAHC proposal
  and supporter of alternative DNS registration.]
  >Richard --
  >Is there any way to get a statement from Eugene?
  >-- Ken
  Yeah, I'll give you a statement from him. I know him,
  his friends and his family well, and I've been in the
  company of those that have visited him. Consider this
  statement below, from him, as authoritative:
  He is now extremely depressed. He's been 15 days in
  custody [as of Nov. 15], and he was punched a couple
  of times for no reason [by other prisoners] ,and now he
  feels like he's going to spend a LONG time in jail. Bail
  in the U.S. apparently will be hundreds of thousands
  of dollars. He has 4 kids, who miss him terribly.
  Because it's impossible that NSI lost any real money
  (they're gonna get those customers who apparently
  were too stupid to click on the real link to Inter.NIC at
  the Alter.NIC page; it's not like they can go somewhere
  else to buy a .com address), and because the wire
  fraud charge is only valid if there was $5,000 worth of
  lost business, it looks to me like the charge is bogus.
  They want this guy and don't care how they get him.
  Look at it this way: Eugene wanted to compete with
  the legacy root servers. The US Government runs the
  legacy root servers and prevents his business from
  being able to compete with the InterNIC. Then the
  USG has him arrested on trumped up charges. By it's
  inaction to do something about the mess it has created
  with the cluster of IANA, NSI, NSF, etc., the USG is the
  one who is in the wrong and should be embarrassed.
  Eugene is being railroaded. For him to be locked up for
  having a social conscience is unconscionable. To ruin a
  man's life over a political protest serves nobody well.
  - - - - - - - - - -
  Richard Sexton
  (613) 473 1719
  Bannockburn, Ontario
  [Robert Shaw represents ITU in the gTLD-MoU.
  Below is his latest gTLD-Discuss announcement.]
  The following updates have been posted on the gTLD-
  MoU web site at http://www.gtld-mou.org. As always,
  news announcements relating to the gTLD-MoU can be
  found at http://www.gtld-mou.org/index.html#news.
  November 13, 1997: The gTLD-MoU interim Policy
  Oversight Committee, after reviewing responses
  received to the public request for comments Notice-
  97-02: "Review of new generic Top Level Domains
  (gTLDs)", consultation with the Council of Registrars
  (CORE), and the gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body
  (PAB), has concluded a review of the 7 gTLD names
  suggested in the final report of the International Ad
  Hoc Committee's (IAHC's) Recommendations for
  Administration and Management of gTLDs.
  The conclusions of this review are confirmation of
  .firm, .web, .info, .art, .rec & .nom as new gTLDs and
  the replacement of .store with the gTLD .shop. See
  Re. The November 25, 1997 meeting ,"Internet domain
  name system, European information meeting on the
  gTLD-MoU (sponsored by the European Commission,
  DG XIII) in Brussels, Belgium, the venue for this
  meeting has been changed and additional reduced-rate
  hotel information is now available. Please see
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Robert Shaw, Advisor
  Global Information Infrastructure
  International Telecommunication Union
  Geneva, Switzerland
  [Richard Shu as a leader in the Universal Domain
  Name System (uDNS) root server confederation. He
  represents uDNS at the Root Server Confederation
  (RSC) roundtable, which includes the eDNS, uDNS,
  AlterNIC, caNIC, AURSC confederations. Below is
  an except from a longer work that he supplied.]
  The Players in the TLD Industry:
  - NSI is not going away.
  - gTLD-MoU/iPOC is not going away.
  - AlterNIC/Marc Hurst/caNIC is not going away.
  - eDNS/Karl Denninger is not going away.
  - AURSC/Adam Todd is not going away.
  NSI's TLDs .com, .net and .org may become shared
  TLDs (or they may not). The 7 deadly sins (uh, I mean
  iPOC's gTLDs) are going to be put into service next
  year, and those TLDs will be shared among the 80+
  MoU registries. Additional MoU registries may be
  admitted. I expect MoU will grab 5-10% market share
  initially and may eventually push towards 20%. One
  problem is that their TLD names aren't well chosen.
  My belief is that there is too much greed in the
  current TLD business model. We want to make money
  but we are unwilling to share the potential profits
  with those who can best help us succeed.
  Proposal: Let us create two categories of TLDs:
  proprietary and shared. I believe only trademarkable
  names (like .ITG) should be proprietary. Common
  words such as "hotel" should be shared. Also, let's
  institute a business model with Registration Service
  Companies (RSCs) and Registries. The business model I
  propose would be one where the registry takes 50% of
  the registration fee and the RSC takes the other 50%.
  The catch is: No ISP customer will buy an SLD unless
  their ISP is pointing at a root server that hosts the TLD
  for which they are selling SLDs. Bingo! To sell SLDs
  effectively, the ISP must point to our root servers.
  Which is what we wanted, right?
  - - - - - - - -
  Richard Shu
  uDNS Root Server Confederation
  Bob Racko (bobr@dprc.net)
  [Dan Steinberg, attorney and consultant, represents
  himself and "quite a few of the unaligned people who
  are interested in this arcane subject." Governments ask
  his opinion, he says, "but I don't represent them."]
  Our position is that is it is not necessary to have just
  one winner in this shoot-out. So why lock into one
  solution? Why not give everyone a chance? Three
  1. Apply KISS to DNS
  It is not a good idea nor is it practical for registrars to
  play censor, court, tribunal, board, etc. Registration for
  domains should be first-come-first-served. No other
  scheme makes any sense and creates inequities.
  Complaints can and should be dealt with through the
  courts, even domain/trademark conflicts. [snip]
  2. Monopoly TLDs, Shared TLDs, who cares?
  There is no technical reason why competing registries
  and competing registration models (monopoly vs.
  shared) cannot co-exist. As long as there is no TLD
  conflict, all models are possible.  There is no real
  technical limit on the number of TLDs possible.
  Because of the legal uncertainty surrounding some
  domains like .web, the experimental (Alternic, eDNS,
  uDNS, etc.) should all be grandfathered as monopoly
  TLDs. They all work together already without breaking
  the net.
  3. Rule of Law, Orderly Transfer, yada, yada, yada.
  Who cares who really 'owns' the Internet?  It doesn't
  matter and only a few people really care. What is
  required is an orderly transition. Let the US govt. state
  who they are transferring interim control to, and let
  the Internet get on with self-governance. A broad-
  based conference should be convened, inviting
  backbone providers, ISPs, content providers, code
  providers like Microsoft and Netscape, standards
  organizations, etc. [snip]
  A few working groups (to get rough consensus and
  running code to propose) may be needed in the
  beginning. The key is that the working groups are
  formed from broad-based consensus, not on an ad-hoc
  basis. When you get people in a room, it is easier to get
  agreement. When everything is done via e-mail,
  personality defects get in the way.
  - - - - - - - - -
  Dan Steinberg
  Law & Technology
  Chelsea, Quebec
  phone: (613) 794-5356
  fax:  (819) 827-4398
  [Donald Telege is Senior Vice President and Director of
  Network Solutions Inc. His remarks were submitted for
  you by Susan Clark at NSI.]
  Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) manages the essential
  infrastructure of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS)
  in an agreement with the National Science Foundation
  (NSF). NSI's duties include: 1) management of Root Server
  System (RSS) and the "A" root server, 2) the addition of
  all new top level domains (TLDs) on the Internet
  worldwide, 3) the registration and management of all
  second level domains (SLDs) in five TLDs ( .COM, .NET,
  .ORG and .EDU), 4) the allocation and management of all
  Internet Protocol (IP) numbers in North and South
  America and parts of Africa, and 5) provides a rich
  information and education program for both novice and
  experienced Internet users. All of these activities are
  funded by $35 from the NSF authorized $50 annual user
  registration fee. The remaining $15 is placed into a
  separate fund to be used by the NSF in improving the
  "intellectual infrastructure of the Internet." NSI has
  performed this role through various competitively
  awarded US government agreements since 1988.
  Exponential commercial growth began in early 1995
  where the number of SLD name registrations has grown
  from a few hundred per month to about 125,000 per
  month. Commercial users now dominate the Internet and
  their needs are tremendously different from the original
  Research and Education (R&E) users. The R&E community
  developed a method of "governance" based on "rough
  consensus." It did not have any legitimate legal authority
  for decision-making, but relied on the "fathers of the
  Internet" to interpret what is good for the users. With the
  tremendous financial investments made by the business
  community, and the natural conflicts that arise in such
  situations, there is reluctance by this new class of users
  to accept the historical method of governance. The
  Internet is in the process of evolving its infrastructure,
  its business models and its legal structures to forms that
  are more stable and can withstand the onslaught of
  litigation that has hit the net in the last 30 months.
  This litigation has ranged from disputes over trademark
  verses domain names to antitrust suits involving NSI and
  the NSF.
  The Internet is currently a wild-west environment,
  and there are numerous bitterly disputed proposals
  for change. Unfortunately, no proposal has the support
  of a consensus of the stakeholders. NSI believes that
  the best hope for consensus and success rests with a
  US Government (USG) sponsored process, working in
  conjunction with a large group of major commercial
  sector stakeholders. This approach calls for a transition
  period wherein a relatively small international public
  advisory group, legitimized by the USG, develops and
  implements proposals for a secure infrastructure,
  more competitive business models, and new legal
  solutions for the Internet. There is no easy way to
  avoid this maturing process. The Internet, like all
  living growing things, must experience and survive
  its own painful adolescence.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Donald N. Telage, Ph.D.
  Senior Vice President and Director
  Network Solutions, Inc.
  Herndon, Virginia
  c/o Clark, Susan
  [Adam Todd represents AURSC, a loose confederation
  of ISP's in Australia and elsewhere. With wife
  Suzanne, Adam owns and operates Ah.Net. He's
  developing a shared DNS registry allowing ISP's to
  register domain names ad hoc and as required. Ah.Net
  operates TLD and DNS servers for small annual fees.]
  I want to see DNS made available to the users of
  Internet for the purpose it was created. That purpose
  wasn't to charge money from people who often can not
  afford or don't truly value a Domain Name more than
  as a way of remembering an IP address.
  It is hoped as more people use these services the
  prices can be brought down. As more ISP's support the
  servers the cost will obviously reduce. Perhaps at a
  later stage AHNET will just subsidise the hardware
  upgrade costs, rather than the costs of location,
  bandwidth, management and administration.
  NSI and MelboureIT, to Registras close to my operation
  are both Outlaws in that they take moneys form the
  public and in effect spend them on their own
  infrastructure, rather than the global resource.
  Melbourne IT pay only their salaries and overheads
  and the moneys are channeled into consolidated
  revenue of the company, none is as yet, returned to
  the operators of the .AU Domain Servers.
  NSI is not far different. The moneys I have paid from
  Australia have not gone towards improving the DNS
  system, or NSI's policies or data integrity. Even right
  now I have been trying to update my own Domain
  Record for the last 6 weeks with no result.
  [On the arrest of Eugene Kashpureff:]
  Disgusting, unfounded, criminal, and the FBI and AG of
  NY should be prosecuted. It won't stand up in a court
  if I'm called as a professional witness.
  - - - - - - - -
  Adam Todd
  Ah.Net Inc.
  Sidney, Australia
  Phone +61 2 9729 0565
  Personal http://www.adamtodd.ah.net
  Network http://www.ah.net
  AU Root Server Confederation
  AU Internet News
  mailto:internet-request@ah.net with "subscribe"
  [Antony Van Couvering, President of NetNames USA, is
  Chair of the Policy Advisory Body (PAB) under the
  gTLD-MoU. Ivan Pope, Managing Director of NetNames
  Ltd. in London was recently "elected" to the Executive
  Committee of the Council of Registrars (CORE).]
  For two years, NetNames has doing nothing but domain
  name registrations; for a long time we were the only
  company to do so. Our specialty is international
  registrations in all country TLDs, but we are intimately
  concerned with getting new gTLDs off the ground.
  We know that millions of people around the world face
  are governed by restrictive regimes whose control of the
  national domain structure could seriously hamper the
  promise of the Internet as an empowering mechanism.
  NetNames is committed to open registration policies in
  all domains, and we are committed to making sure
  that everyone has access to domain names. The
  accompanying evils of cybersquatting and domain
  hoarding are not small, but we believe that attempts
  to police the domain space are fraught with far greater
  dangers. For these reasons we support the creation of
  new gTLDs under the gTLD-MoU.
  As far as Eugene Kashpureff goes, we don't think he
  should be locked up, or even tried. People have a right
  to the profit and enjoyment of their domain names,
  but Kashpureff did not seriously threaten this. Given
  our knowledge of the history of Eugene and his
  enunciated principles, we think his actions should be
  considered civil disobedience more than anything else.
  Network Solutions made its peace with him; why is the
  US government getting involved?
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Antony Van Couvering
  President, NetNames USA
  New York, New York
  Chair, Policy Advisory Body
  Phone Toll-free 888-NETNAMES
  Intl: +1 212 627-4599
  (Dr. Richard Zare is Chair of the National Science Board
  a section of the National Science Foundation. Below is
  his public statement released after the scheduled
  November 12-14 meeting of the NSB, where they
  adopted a position (attached) on the NSF role in the
  governance of the Internet: Little or none at all.]
  The Administration has stated that it supports the
  continued privatization and commercialization of the
  Internet and is committed to completing the transition to
  private sector governance. The National Science Board
  (NSB) agrees, and has issued a resolution that the NSF
  should no longer be involved in domain name registration.
  The National Science Foundation originally got involved
  in Internet registration processes when the agency
  managed the major Internet backbone -- the NSFNET --
  to support research and education, primarily in the
  nation's universities. The NSFNET backbone functions
  were quickly rendered redundant by commercial
  success and privatized. It is now time for NSF to focus
  on research and education, which will enable the Next
  Generation Internet.
  The NSF cooperative agreement with Network
  Solutions, Incorporated -- the current registrar
  for international (generic) top level domains --
  expires March 31, 1998.
  If the Federal government does elect to remain involved
  in the policy and commercial issues surrounding domain
  name management, it is the Board's position that the
  Foundation should not solicit proposals for a new
  cooperative agreement. NSF's mission is to promote
  research and education in science and engineering,
  and it can no longer commit resources to manage
  today's Internet.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Dr. Richard Zare, Chair
  National Science Board
  National Science Foundation.
  Contact: Bill Noxon
  (703) 306-1070
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Whereas the National Science Foundation, along with
  other agencies, supported the research for and
  development of what is now called the Internet or
  World Wide Web;
  Whereas the Internet has now gone from the
  development stage to the application stage and has
  become a major communications and commercial
  medium for the whole world;
  Whereas the Foundation's Acting Deputy Director, after
  consultation with the Board, announced on April 23
  that NSF has no plans to renew or re-compete the
  cooperative agreement with Network Solutions, Inc.
  for Internet registration;
  Whereas research opportunities and technological challenges
  whose exploitation and solution demand the Foundation's
  attention and financial assistance exist with the Next
  Generation Internet and not with the governance and
  maintenance of the current Internet; and
  Whereas the Foundation, while supporting the
  Administration policy of privatization and the efforts
  of the interagency policymaking group now examining
  ways to transition the Internet to the private sector,
  must focus its attention and resources on the Next
  Generation Internet
  Therefore, be it RESOLVED that the National Science Board
  believes the Foundation should not solicit proposals for or
  make a cooperative agreement for the purpose of funding
  or overseeing the domain names system.
  National Science Foundation is an independent federal agency
  responsible for fundamental research in all fields of science
  and engineering, with an annual budget of about $3.3 billion.
  (Contact: Bill Noxon, mailto:wnoxon@nsf.gov)
  			         (continued in part 3 of 3)