[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No Subject
>> It's sad that you make important architectural and policy decisions
>> based on the petty bickering of a few and not on the reasoned debate of
>> the many.
>
>Good point and I will try to remember it. Perhaps if more people on the
>list who agree with that last sentence where to come forward and state
>their opinions we could move forward.
>
Allow me to speak as the NASA representative to the Federal
Networking Council. I am sure that many of the other members
of the FNC would agree with my views.
Certainly, the FNC and its agencies historically were
responsible for establishing a large part of the Internet
governance. However, that was then, this is now.
Today the Internet has grown far beyond the intents or even
the imaginings of its original US government sponsors to
become an international community. As every US schoolchild
learns, communities (we the people) pursue our goals by
instituting governments which derive their authority from the
consent of the governed. In the case of the Internet, as an
international community, its governance must be determined --
and derive its authority -- from the consent of the
international Internet community. The US Government in
general, and the FNC in particular, is no longer governing
the Internet. That has been recognized by US government
agencies for some time now.
Over the years, the US government and the FNC have gradually
distributed our original responsibilities out to the Internet
community at large, in all its I* manifestations: IETF, IAB,
IESG, IANA, ISOC, .... Today, it is the international
Internet community that institutes its own governance.
This distribution of responsibilities out to the community
has been ongoing for years, and for the most part is
completed. The practical aspects that linger, such as the
cooperative agreement between NSF and NSI, will terminate at
the appropriate time which is not very far in the future.
Instead of debating history, the Internet community needs to
move on and decide the process by which we the people will
govern the TLDs and deal with the other related naming and
addressing management issues.
The FNC very definitely believes that the Internet community
(we the people) owns the Internet natural resources,
including the naming and addressing space. No one individual
or organization inside or outside the Internet community
should be allowed to hijack that process or steal those
resources. It is up to the Internet community to decide how
to govern those resources. The governance of the TLD space
is most definitely a community matter, and those people who
talk about going off and setting up TLDs outside the
community should be ostracized (For the non-English speakers:
ostracize = To exclude from a group by common consent) and
simply ignored. In particular they should not be allowed to
blackmail the process by setting arbitrary deadlines.
The FNC is very supportive of the internationalization of the
Internet community. The FNC Chairman, George Strawn of NSF,
as well as other individuals in other agencies, are actively
engaged in helping evolve this latest TLD aspect of the
Internet community self-governance. We consider that the
IAHC process is de facto the legitimate deliberative
process that the community has established, and we will do
our best to help the process succeed. The IAHC may need some
time to come up with recommendations on all the issues before
it. The IAHC may need to come up with near-term interim
guidance on the TLD issue, while recommending a longer term
process involving all elements of the community to work on
all the issues in the future. The IAHC should be given the
time it needs to do its job. We can help it move faster by
coming up with constructive proposals, and helping the
community move toward consensus through this discussion list
and related discussion lists.
The IANA itself may need to be evolved into more of a
community organization, although the FNC believes -- and I
would bet that the overwhelming majority of the Internet
community would concur -- that Jon Postel and the IANA
organization have done an excellent job and deserve community
thanks for maintaining stability of the community resources
entrusted to their care, while having to cope with enormous,
unforeseen growth pressures.
The current cooperative agreement with NSI may be evolved by
the community to a nonprofit organization or trade
association, or opened up for competition. The money which
is building up in the trust fund may simply be given back to
the people who sent it in (what a nightmare that would be! it
would probably cost $15 a name to send it back, leaving
nothing!) Or the community may use the trust fund for its
originally intended purpose of advancing the good of the
community. These are for the IAHC to deliberate and
recommend, with the full involvement of the entire community.
With regard to the profits made by NSI, they bid
competitively for the agreement, and won it fair and square.
No one is saying that Cisco or NorTel should give their
profits back because the Internet or international telecoms
is growing faster than expected! We need to move on to the
task at hand, and stop the peripheral flaming.
To help the IAHC deliberations, the FNC may submit proposals
of our own, or we may endorse other proposals, or we may
simply participate with George Strawn serving on the IAHC and
with others of us out in the agencies participating via this
discussion list. At the present time, the FNC has not put
forward or endorsed any particular proposal, but we do
endorse the IAHC process.
Endlessly reviewing or rewriting history, or bashing the US
Government or the US Internet folks in general or individual
members of our community in particular --
these actions are way off the mark of providing
constructive support for the community process. Let's just
move on, and submit or discuss constructive proposals that
actually help the IAHC with its deliberations.
Dick desJardins
speaking as NASA representative to the FNC
PS: Anyone figure out how to do an IETF hum via a discussion
list? That would help provide responsible feedback from the
community to various IAHC proposals. In the IETF, the hum
process empowers the silent majority in the community,
whereas flaming on discussion lists gives undue exposure to
the views of minority fringe elements of our community.
Dick desJardins
EOS Network Manager
GSFC Code 505, Greenbelt MD 20771
Phone 301-614-5329 FAX -5267