Special Report on Internet Governance Published

[Dave Crocker]

	In response to the latest Cook Report missive...

At 01:55 AM 8/1/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>Part I:  Internet Governance Has Not Matured at Same Pace as 
>Infrastructure 
>
>through January of this year when IAHC finalized its plans and a coalition
>of various interests emerged determined to derail IAHC by whatever means

	The term coalition suggests organization.  Other than finding occasional
sharing of papers, or the like, the opposition is mostly noted for its
IN-ability to organize.  Otherwise, we would see a serious, sustained,
focused, detailed effort at developing an alternative proposal.  Yes, there
is a broad range of opponents, but no, there is no coalition.

	If anyone has seen such concrete, alternative proposal please send the
URL, because it's a well-kept secret.  Remember that general ideas are
easy; but details remain devilish.

>IANA. The situation is messy because, while the IANA was the implementor
>of the IAHC process that threatens the livelihood of Network SolutionÕs

	It's easy to view the current situation as threatening their livelihood,
but let's not foster that image automatically.  

1) No one is trying to put them out of business nor does the gTLD MoU
structure dictate such an outcome.  A competitive market means that there
will be multiple players, but it presumes that those players survive.  If
NSI attends to its market position, it will understand that it can well
afford to have the competition since it is starting with a very substantial
competitive advantage, namely operational history and public awareness.

2) A company which claims to be getting only 30% of the revenues it is owed
probably has deeper survival problems than moving from monopoly to
competition.

>through the IAHC process, is firmly allied with ISOC and some believe with
>ITU - an alliance that is generally unpopular within the commercial

	"Some believe".  We need to be careful about citing beliefs.  There is
always someone, somewhere, who objects to something.  So far, strong
objections to the ITU involvement have primarily been coming only from
people who have not bothered to study the ITU's real and limited role in
the gTLD MoU structure.  

	ITU gets to hold the documents, to publicize them, and to acquire
signatories.  For this it gets a vote on the POC.  

	The ITU's acting as a depository means that the ITU staff did a review of
the MoU and found it worthy.  That's a quality assurance stamp of
considerable benefit.  While many of us from the Internet community have
very strong and good cause for unhappiness about the ITU, we need to
remember that the larger world has many who find the ITU involvement to ADD
credibility.

>Internet community and one of the major reasons why the majority of that
>community is believed to favor the US government intervention. Although

	There is no strong constituency for government intervention.  There are
occasional voices calling for it, but no serious proposals in that
direction and no serious efforts in that direction.  If such serious
positions are held, it would be good to document them, since they are so
far quite elusive.

	In point of fact, the US government wants to get out of this business as
quickly as it can.  It has stated this repeatedly and forcefully.

>The Rickety Foundation of Internet Governance
>
>The continuing DNS disputes would seem to be intractable.  Certainly NSI
>and IANA/IAHC have few common interests.  

	To date, this would seem true.  NSI has worked for maintaining exclusive
control over .com and the gTLD MoU dictates sharing.  

	However, NSI last week made public statements that it will support
sharing, as long as the operational reliability of the activity is assured.
 Reliability is of course a matter to which NSI has become quite
sensitized, especially recently.

>figured out a course of action.  Whatever the "feds" do, it will likely be
>opposed to the interests of both IANA/IAHC and NSI. Some people believe
>the U.S. government will simply try to buy time by extending the life of
>the cooperative agreement so that it can at least continue to control NSI.

	The US government has stated very forcefully that it wants to get out of
this business. 

	Further, their "control" of NSI is difficult to discern.  Evidence to the
contrary would be interesting to see.  In any event a more likely reason
for trying to extend things, even if only for a bit, would be to facilitate
a transition.

>The problem is that such a course of action may not have any affect on
>whether Jon Postel moves root to Europe.  It is very difficult for us to

	This phrase "moves root to Europe" is a favorite with some folks and seems
resistant to further education.  The "root" is a collection of machines
around the globe.  Many are in the US, but not all.  Efforts have been
underway to add machines elsewhere around the world.  That is a matter of
operational reliability and efficiency, not politics.  The master copy of
the data now is maintained on a machine at NSI, with the contents specified
by IANA.  There have been plans for a long time to move it elsewhere.  I've
yet to hear of final plans; it there is evidence that the plans are to make
a machine in Europe hold the master copy, it's news to me.

>Not fully certain of the range of tools at the command of the White House,
>we concluded that one outcome might be that pressures would rapidly grow
>on the feds to try to regulate the Internet.  Of course the idea that any

	The White House just issued a clear and firm statement that this is
exactly what they do NOT want to see done to the Internet.  Why is this,
therefore, a likely outcome?

>Regulation?
>
>any kind. He says that the role of government is to provide the parties
>with an appellate route in case things go very wrong and with antitrust
>protection - two very important considerations. [Editor: We are not sure
>that we are comfortable with these ideas.]

	Well, I suggest that we all try to find a way to get comfortable.  

	Given our history, folks might find it remarkable that the above
assessment from Tony is one with which I personally concur.  Private-sector
initiative is continuing to look quite reasonable.  Intervention is likely
to be necessary only when a player with excessive leverage does not play fair.

>Part II:  Can Anyone Besides IANA Control the Totality of the Internet's
>DNS Machinery?
>
>information for the new root zone and ask all DNS operators to update the
>root.cache files on their machines immediately. We are talking well over a
>million DNS machines for the Internet. Therefore this is not a small task.

	Remember that sites update the list of root server addresses periodically,
so this is not nearly an onerous as it might sound.  On the other hand, the
transition certainly does take time, as you note.

>over night, for 90% of the net within 48 hours and for the remaining 10%
>in the next two weeks.

	In terms of a global transition, 2 days to 2 weeks is a rather nice -- and
extremely small -- window, don't you think?  

	On the other hand, characterizing it as being a result of herd mentality
is a bit of an insult to the analytic skills and degree of independence of
the ISPs making this change.  On the average, they are more typically
assessed as being highly independent.  If they travel the same path, on a
matter such as this, it is because they think it is the right path.

>..., the consequences of its failing to
>cooperate would impact NSI so negatively that it is hard to imagine that
>NSI would resist.

	One assumes and hopes that you are right.  I've heard that various NSI and
SAIC senior executives have stated strongly that they do not want to be
responsible for fragmenting the net.

>June 97 order from NSF to NSI not to add new gTLDs, could become the
>primary cause for a shift by IANA of root zone administration away from
>NSI.)

	Such an assessment presumes an antagonistic relationship between IANA and
the US government.  Given the long history of IANA/USG cooperative efforts,
such a schism seems extremely unlikely.  In fact, it seems sufficiently
unlikely so as to make its consideration a matter of concern, since it just
adds to the pot of FUD, for no good reason.

>Now it has also been suggested that the US government could forbid US root

	Let's stop this line of analysis at its (pardon the pun) core, because it
is useful only for sowing yet more seeds of fear, uncertainty and doubt.  

	Actions which fundamentally fragment the DNS are not going to be taken
because none of the principal parties in this drama are that irresponsible,
no matter how vigorously one or another may pursue a position.  I do not
claim to know what specific actions will be taken to avoid such a
fragmentation but it is very clear that a number of parties have
significant leverage and they will use it to ensure continued and
integrated operation.

>Part III: A Scenario for a Political Resolution of the DNS Crisis
>new ways of looking at the DNS problem. The DNS wars can be seen not so
>much as wars over Domain Names but as wars over the power that comes from

	Yes, it is clear that many people are viewing this as a fight for power.
In the process of viewing things that way, they ignore the operational
concerns which prompted the original efforts.  Name space congestion under
.com is a matter of operational difficulty, not power.  On the other hand,
moving from monopoly to competition is quite clearly a matter of power.  

	The two major forces that originally prompted the creation of the IAHC
were 2.5 years of unresolved discussion and debate over name space
congestion (not being able to get a name that was "natural" to your
purposes) and monopoly control over existing gTLDs.  The trademark issues
were quite separately developing.  They were added to the IAHC work just as
the time of its formation, rather than earlier.  

>.... Now if you ask what reason the IAHC has for
>bringing these international regulatory bodies into play in the field of
>Internet governance, it is the because existence of top level domain names
>that transcend national boundaries. Get rid of top level domains including
>.com by placing .com under.us and you take away the international aspect
>of the crisis that allows ISOC, inadvertently or not, to bring the noses
>of the ITU, INTA, and WIPO camels under the Internet tent.

	The real irony to the above interpretation of ITU/INTA/WIPO involvement is
that during the IAHC discussions, the representatives from those
organizations suggested eliminating gTLDs.  They were quite comfortable
with displacing 1 million+ users who already have established practise
using a gTLD.  Those of us from the Internet side observed that such
displacement was 1) rather unfriendly, and 2) quite procrustean.

	The fact that gTLDs create some complexities is no reason to do away with
them, since they happen also to provide interesting opportunities.  For
example,they level a referential playing field quite nicely.  

	There are many actions which could make life simpler, but they do not
necessarily make life better.  Let's be careful about choosing between
scalpels and bludgeons.

>Now what if we make another assumption that it takes time for communities
>to coalesce and to understand their common interests? If you are going to
...
>thing that is allowing the buggy whip makers to continue to exert their

	The curious part about the above is that it honors the benefit of
continuity -- permitting learning over a period of time -- and then
relegates such learning into the category of archaic practise.  Either one
believes that there is some benefit in careful growth or there isn't.  And
of course, the real answer is that it depends.  Evolving the existing
structure and service is appropriate when it is basically working well and
only needs tuning.  Wholesale replacement is necessary when things are
massively broken.

	In truth, the current situation with the DNS is not a transition from
horses to cars.  It is a) adding more names, as has been done many times
before, b) moving from monopoly to competition, and c) exploring the space
of dispute resolution with adjunct procedures to those of local
jurisdictions.  The system needs changes, but then the system has
periodically needed changes and hence the system has evolved.  It needs
evolution, now, not replacement.  (For that matter, I don't see a real
replacement proposal on the table.)

	For that matter the Draconian measure of eliminating gTLDs, in favor of
national TLDs exclusively, is hardly a move from buggies to automobiles.
It eliminates individual choice and power, rather than increasing them.

>Now we will note that the role of the ITU as the holder of MoU signatories
>seems to us not to indicate an immediate threat of an ITU take over of the
>Internet. However, some may say it will be the first step in a process

	Some will say.  Somebody, somewhere said something bad.

	Let's try to focus on real and concrete issues rather than this continuing
campaign of FUD opponents like to pursue.  Look at the history of the ITU
in this space.  It has not done a very good job of garnering power, now has
it?  Has the ITU suddenly become vastly more clever?

	Is the ITU looking for a role?  Of course it is.  That's not an evil desire.

	Is the ITU making a power play?  Of course it isn't.  The MoU doesn't give
it the basis for such a play.

>that will be hard to stop. On the other hand, WIPO and INTA's roles seem
>more immediately insidious.   More top level domains will multiply and not

	WIPO administers a process.  They do not set the policy for resolving
disputes.  They get a seat on the oversight committee. INTA gets a seat on
he oversight committee.

	It is appealing to wish-away the importance and impact of trademark
concerns but that won't help the real and pressing problems involving them.
 Playing the FUD factor by saying how evil and dangerous one or another
player is does not help either.  Look at performance and look at leverage.
So far, both of these participants have played well and constructively.
And neither of them has particularly strong leverage.

>alleviate the intellectual property and trademark issues that already
>threaten and indeed prevent the legitimate use of some business domains
>under .com. The result will be more work for the lawyers not less and more

	The trademark community wants no new TLDs.  Viewing the addition of TLDs
as part of conspiracy for additional power by the trademark community flies
in the face of the facts.

	Besides that, the claim that new TLDs will make trademark policing more
difficult is true only if an NSI-like policy is in place and access to
information is difficult.

>What happens then if we simply say that DNS is something to be worked out
>by each country according to the laws of that country and quit pretending

	Effective today, you are allowed only one email address and it will be
chosen by your provider.  Web pages must conform to a specific format, to
be specified by your government.

	Choice makes life more complicated, but it doesn't necessarily make life
worse.

	What happens if we say that the DNS is something to be worked out by the
community, according to the desires of the user and provider community, and
quit pretending that everything must fit into old boundaries all the time?

	(I must note an interest aspect to the timing of this proposal.  It is
late.  It is very late.  Why is that?  Could it possibly be that those
opposing the MoU have been cycling through one argument after another and
keep failing to prevent it, so now they cycle to the next choice?  No, I'm
sure this is an entirely well-meant suggestion and couldn't possibly be one
more, in a long line, of such destructive efforts.)

>Perhaps we should not try to solve the problems of global Internet
>governance in the short run. Perhaps we should localize them until there

	Let's put this genie back into the bottle?  You bet!  Sounds like fun.

	let's see.  i know i saw that cork around here somewhere...

d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker
Internet Mail Consortium                               +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr.                                    fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA              info at imc.org , http://www.imc.org