Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1998/RRE.domain.name.debacle.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
[RRE]domain name debacle
``` ---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html or send a message to requests@lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre
---
"What I would say if I were testifying today in DC" Before the House Committee on Basic Research October 7, 1998
Dr. Milton Mueller
Mr. Chairman: The White Paper process has not been a total failure, but it has suffered from a serious conceptual error.
When it issued the White Paper, the Clinton administration announced that "self-regulation" by industry rather than direct government intervention would solve the problem of moving the Internet into the private sector. Whatever one thinks of the philosophy of "industry self-regulation," it is apparent now that it is counterproductive to frame the Internet transition in this way.
What is really going on--or what is supposed to be going on--is a process of privatization, not "industry self-regulation." That is, the government is supposed to be transferring processes and resources that it created and funded to the private sector. There is, in fact, no pre-existing "private sector" in Internet address allocation or domain name root server operation to regulate itself; these processes have been created and monopolized by the US government, and developed in other countries informally by governmental and educational institutions. It seems odd that at this late stage of the game one would find it necessary to re-assert this fact.
The inapplicability of the "industry self-regulation" model is apparent at a glance. The two biggest players in the White Paper process have been Jon Postel's IANA, the DARPA contractor that controls address assignments, and Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), the National Science Foundation contractor that controls the name space and root servers. By abdicating responsibility for the transition to a mythical "private sector," the White Paper in effect asked these two organizations to define the terms of their own privatization. The participation of private sector interests eventually degenerated into a process by which various commercial interests lined up behind one of these two government contractors. The parameters of the debate were set by what was or was not acceptable to IANA or NSI.
IANA in particular insisted upon defining the terms of the transition in a way that maintained its own control. From day one, it developed its own draft articles that located the organization in southern California and was plainly meant to make the existing IANA staff the core of the new organization. IANA did not put this draft before the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) as a submission to be considered and negotiated alongside others before the IFWP. Instead, it set up its own, one-way process through which people could comment on its proposals and it could, at its own discretion, decide whether to use or ignore the suggestions. In order to develop support for its own proposals, IANA leveraged its longstanding connections to the IETF and to Internet administrators around the world, and drew upon the political alliances that developed out of the ill-fated and notorious gTLD-MoU. In the final stages of the IFWP process, IANA effectively destroyed any opportunity for a consensual compromise by refusing to participate in a final negotiating session. One can only ask: by what right does a government contractor set itself up as a quasi-governmental authority with the power to hold proceedings on how to privatize its own functions?
NSI, for its part, did participate fully and openly in the IFWP proceedings and did not adopt the unilateralist model of IANA. But in the final analysis, the IFWP process was inherently incapable of resolving any of the outstanding issues involving NSI. This was true simply because every serious issue about NSI revolved around the terms of contracts between NSI and the US government. In the negotiation of those contracts, IFWP simply had no standing. For this reason alone, the "industry self-regulation" model made no sense.
On the positive side, the IFWP did an excellent job of mobilizing hundreds of idealistic and independent participants from every continent. These activists, who came from the Internet Service Provider (ISP) industry, public interest groups, academia, law firms, and electronic commerce interests from all over the world, did manage to come up with various proposals and consensus points that can guide the US Government in its final determination. Most notable in this regard are the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the Boston Working Group. (See http://www.mama-tech.com/boston/) Also worthy of note are the proposals of the EuroISPA Association (See http://www.euroispa.org/papers/icann.articles.03.html) Both of these proposals were produced by independent actors with no economic or political relationship to either IANA or NSI, and while their models differ in certain respects it may be possible to reconcile them.
In concluding this process, the US Government must abandon the fiction of "industry self-regulation." Before it turns over critical Internet administrative functions to a new corporation, it must take responsibility to modify the articles and by-laws of that organization to ensure that they satisfy both its own conception of the public interest and the consensus points that emerged from the independent IFWP process. Of course, the decisions it makes can and must be supported by private industry and the legitimate claims of foreign countries for representation and access.
Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies
---
Hans K. Klein Assistant Professor Phone: 404-894-2258 School of Public Policy, MC:0345 Fax: 404-894-0535 D.M. Smith Building, 313 Email: hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu Georgia Tech Atlanta, GA 30332-0345
--- ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.