Re: Applications and Public Trust (was Re: Expansion of the IAHC)

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> Vince Wolodkin allegedly said:
> >
> > I hesitate to to this,and I hope I don't lose an arm in the process, but
> > here goes anyways.
> 
> Always a risk in this business :-)
> 
> > It seems the basic dispute here is Perry says "Historically it was
> > handled like this" while Simon says "RFC 1591 says it is supposed to be
> > handled differently".  Well, here comes the hard part ---  I don't think
> > you are disagreeing.  RFC 1591 needs rewritten coming out of the IAHC
> > process.
> 
> I carefully reread RFC1591.  It needs to be replaced, there is no
> doubt about it.  However, Simons thesis that somehow RFC1591 supports
> the idea that the applications that were shoved at the IANA should be
> "honored" is wrong, IMO.  It's just not there in the document.  And,
> while I haven't been around for all of the newdom debate, I did
> witness a fair amount, and it is clear the the applications were being
> used by the applicants as a lever to force the IANA to do something it
> wasn't prepared to do.
> 
> Simon insists it is a trust issue.  Yes, it is, but not in the way
> that he thinks.  My reading is that the IANA was put in an awkward
> position by a group of opportunists who saw a chance to grab something
> while no one was looking, if only they could get Jon and the IANA to
> agree with them.  However, the IANA were essentially holding the name
> space in trust for the internet community at large, and rightfully
> resisted the pressure brought to bear.  The pressure (in the form of
> legal threats) was extreme.
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to say the exactly correct thing when you are
> under a lot of pressure, and the folks at IANA may have on occassion
> misspoke.  However, my feeling is that by withstanding that pressure
> they in fact were *upholding* the trust of the internet community,
> and should be commended for it.
> 
> Thus, I think all the previous applications are clearly tainted, and
> should be thrown out.  If it comes to a "land-rush" I favor something
> like the lottery mechanism proposed draft-iahc-sullivan-tld-admin-00.txt,
> where the registry does not get to pick the name.
> 
I would tend to agree with the above statements.  Clearly IANA didn't
want to do anything but felt obliged to accept applications since the
RFCs left that avenue open.  Now that a process has been created to
handle this whole situation, IANA should officially announce that they
will no longer accept applications for iTLDs.  The problem is that I see
no clear way for IANA to return these applications until the IAHC comes
to some conclusions.  Since I believe in shared iTLDs only, and think
that iTLD ownership is a violation of public trust, I would return them
on those grounds, but the IAHC hasn't decided these things yet.

> > If these RFCs are to be rules/regulations of the game then they cannot
> > be open to interpretation.  Their must be a deciding body who rules on
> > interpretations and then rewrites as necessary.  This is a totally
> > non-existent function in the internet power structure.
> 
> Your premise is completely flawed.  All laws, anywhere, are subject
> to intrepretation.  And your observation is false, as well -- there is a
> deciding body who rewrites RFCs as necessary, the IETF.
> 
Of course, I was talking about rules and regulations, not laws. 
Regulations are often re-written to avoid ambiguity of interpretation. 
Laws, which are much more difficult to change, are still modified via
case law/precedence to remove ambiguity of interpretation.  The IETF
does not deal with Informational RFC's.  And it is the Informational
RFCs which have been used as a policy vehicle by the I*.  A new type of
RFC needs created -- Policy --, and a group to deal with Policy RFCs in
just the manner I have spoken of.  Right now policy creation at the top
of the internet food chain is way to informal, and this is exactly why
there is such argument today.  There is no definitive body to settle
disputes in interpretation.

> > ISOC et al are so miserably unprepared and ill-qualified to handle the
> > global policy issues on the horizon that I find myself stuttering with
> > disbelief.  I am not questioning any technical capabilities.
> >
> > ISOC, with its puny budget, sub-fractional support of the internet
> > community(how many internet users(%-wise) are ISOC members?), and
> > non-existent support from any recognized government has absolutely no
> > authority.  Oh, you can bandy about the "consensus" word all you want,
> > but its a load of *&^%.  How can you reach consensus with support from
> > less than 1%(far less) of your claimed constituents.
> >
> > You obviously can do what you will, the root-server operators bow to
> > IANA and all the good old boys recognize only each other, so for awhile
> > you can decide.  The first time anyone with real authority takes issue
> > with ISOC, you are history, because you have no authority.
> >
> > It has been stated that no-one wants a treaty organization to handle
> > international internet issues.  Well, I do.  None of the good ole boys
> > want one, they lose a lot of power that way.
> >
> > The only difference between ISOC and AlterNIC is that ISOC was started
> > by good ole boys, and therefore was accepted.
> 
> I agree that sometimes the IETF/ISOC do sometimes give the appearance
> of an "old boy network", and I have complained about it.  However, in
> their defense, I defy you to name *any* government agency that is not
> susceptible to the same claim.
> 
In government agencies, since their authority is always derived from a
higher authority, their is all types of oversight in place.  In the US,
agencies all hace Inspector General's Offices.  There are government
wide oversight agencies such as the GAO(General Accounting Office) and
their is the Congress itself.  Any citizen can start a chain reaction
that brings the highest government official to his knees for cause.  

In the I* hierarchy(if you can call it a hierarchy, noone admits to
having any power or authority whatsoever), bad decisions can be made,
and the claim is that it was a consensus decision.  If someone is
excluded from a discussion, which happens frequently, they have no
discourse.  In fact, the biggest problems with the whole I* structure is
based in its informality.  Some of you view this as its greatest
strength.  And while I would agree that in days of old, when the chief
concern was technical feasibility, that these structures were
appropriate.  Its a brave new world on the internet today, for better or
worse, and the current structure of the I* is woefully inadequate to
handle these new issues.  The informality of structure has come full
circle and has become the achille's heal of the I*.

Structure and procedures are instituted in government not because they
are efficient, but because they offer the best chance to be fair by not
allowing concerns to slip through cracks and by attempting to ensure
that decisions are not made hastily.  There is always a recourse.

There is a very definite good ole boys network in place here.  Sure I
can participate, and I may even be able to influence some, but when it
comes down to it, my comments can be totally ignored with no recourse.  
Even who can become voting members of these groups is controlled from
the top.  Their are several ISOC trustee seats coming open.  Anyone who
wishes nomination must submit AND BE CLEARED FOR NOMINATION BY THE
NOMINATION BOARD or something very much like that.  The Nomination
Committe will announce acceptable nominations on December 9.

> And, more importantly, an international treaty organization would be
> incredibly *less* accountable and far more remote than the current
> situation.  Right now the essential requirement to get involved in the
> IETF/ISOC is an interest in the internet.  Period.  If the internet
> were controlled by an international treaty organization that openness
> would completely disappear.  Now, you, personally, *are* actively
> participating.  Under an international treaty organization that simply
> won't happen.  Your claim that <1% of internet users participate is
> completely specious -- these organizations are completely open to
> anyone who cares to contribute.
> 
Anyone can join, for a price.  My government doesn't require any payment
to get a voice.  I can vote regardless of whether I pay any taxes or
not(there are legal ways to pay no taxes).  I can also submit comments
and have them addressed by people who do speak with authority for the
government.  The I* is going to have to start making statements without
hiding behind the "I speak for myself" banner.  I don't see any
willingness to come around to a formal structure.

In reality every person on the net should have a voice in the central
authority which could get funding through surcharges on internet access
accounts paid to the authority by access providers on behalf of their
users.  Of course, then the I*, if they still existed, might have to be
accountable.  Right now they don't have to be accountable to anyone, and
that is the problem.

> --
> Kent Crispin                            "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov           the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

Vince Wolodkin