Re: Internet Governance

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Robert,

Robert Shaw wrote:
> 
> michael_roetto wrote:
> >
> > An interesting thought struck me   when reading about the brew-ha-ha over
> > the gTLD-MoU.  Clearly, the Internet is becoming a political matter. That
> > means not only are politicians now aware of the net, but the discussion
> > within the technical community itself is now largely taking place in
> > political terms.  Witness the fight over the domain-name space as an
> > example of this.
> >
> 
> Michael,
> 
> First I should say I'm loath to cc: the IETF list who are probably
> totally fed up with hearing about this topic. Out of respect for those who
> certainly have more important things to do, I'll make this only one post to
> the main IETF mailing list on this topic.

  I am not sure why you loath the cc: to the IETF list, but that is of
little matter in the grander scope of things I feel.
> 
> Anyway, your take that the DNS administration issues are totally politicized
> is right on the mark. The IAHC/iPOC has traveled incessantly during the
> last 10 months speaking with dozens of regulatory bodies, major companies,
> government bodies, etc - technology is almost never a topic (although this
> has changed recently since the gTLD registrar selection process has started
> and folks have realized that this is actually going to happen). For those
> interested, see www.gtld-mou.org.

  I believe that it will happen as well, but not under the current draft
of the gTLD-MoU.  All be it a good start.  Much work is yet to be done.
Getting a working root up and running is just one very important one.

  Without inclusion of ALL stake holders, that current MoU will not
prevail.  
> 
> Unfortunately, the desire for commercial control over parts of the Internet
> name space has driven much of the debate. As any 2-year old can tell you, sharing
> is not part of human nature. But the IAHC strongly believed that this was
> fundamentally the right approach drawing its conclusions from other parallels
> such as 800 numbers in the US and the example of national registries such as
> in the UK where there are over *375 registrars* for .uk.

  I agree that sharing is necessary for their to be continuity within
the
root structure, I don't agree that all TLD's must be shared in the
manner
that the gTLD-MoU suggests or requires.  Some can be managed
independantly
but shared within the root server structure.
> 
> Sharing avoids the problems of private ownership, and arguably private abuse
> of the Internet TLD name space. It offers domain name portability for users
> so registrars must compete on price and service and not because they have a
> lock on a valuable TLD. We have tried to put into place a set of checks and
> balances that seek to promote the principle of open and fair competition while
> preserving stability. We have tried to develop an equitable system for the
> protection of intellectual property rights but also respecting the rights of
> domain name holders. Since *both* domain name holders and trademark holders
> don't like it, I'll take that to mean that we are finding the middle road.

  Private ownership of some specilized TLD's like .US. and .gov, can be
managed withing a shared root structure.  The managment of those type,
and
other possible TLD's within a shared structure is definatly possible.  I
don't
fine the argument oaf a totaly shared root structure valid for that
reason.
Yet I applaud the efforts of many towards a shared root structure.

> 
> > If this 'politicization' continues can anything but DNS fragmentation result?
> >
> 
> The DNS will not fragment. The major governmental and industry forces now
> involved will assure (through regulatory intervention) that this will *not
> happen*. You might as well argue that the global telephone numbering system
> could fragment. The Net is so strategic for electronic commerce and DNS
> identifiers are such an integral part of commerce, this will simply not be
> tolerated. And here we find an irony - those who can only see their own commercial
> self-interest think that governmental intervention will somehow weigh in on
> their side - with all due respect, keep dreaming. In every conversation with
> governmental, industry and regulatory agency, I have seen 0% support for
> private ownership of the TLD name space.
> 
> > Does the new POC really represent all the stakeholders in the DNS and the
> > larger governance debate? (I don't buy the argument that the gTLD-MoU is
> > purely an operational concern) Would some combination of technical and
> 
> We don't buy the argument either. The gTLD-MoU includes both policy and
> operational issues but puts the operational issues squarely in the realm of
> CORE where it belongs. We have attempted to provide representation of many
> stakeholders through the gTLD-Mou Policy Advisory Body and after CORE is
> firmly established, I expect the PAB to evolve more fully in its role.
> 
> Concerning your comments on the makeup of the POC - you are absolutely right.
> Of course, it does not represent all stakeholders in the DNS. We know it.
> Everybody knows it. But the challenge for you or any critic is to move from
> the general desire to a specific proposal. How do you define a real working
> committee with quote/unquote "all stakeholders represented" without having
> the mother of all committees? Heck, every week, we flush out a new
> "stakeholder body". We admit we haven't solve this problem -- and we admit
> we've punted on the issue. We have spent hundreds of hours debating this topic
> with no resolution. In any case, we're going to go through a public request for
> comments on this issue and maybe there are some greater minds than ours who
> can suggest a solution.

  Yes POC doesn't represent all the stakeholders but it easly can.  I
have
outlined several times several diffrent methods that could be explored
to achieve this.  But with the current political structure, it has been 
made much more difficult to do so.  Hence the orgnizational structure
must change, along with the responsibilities of PAB/POC/CORE in your 
vision for ALL stakeholders to participate on an equal footing.
> 
> > non-technical oversight better provide for the future of the network? Maybe
> > if governance and operational issues were de-linked  and delegated to the
> > proper organizations, the Internet could progress in a more controlled
> > fashion.
> 
> On the surface, sounds wonderful but the problem is, from our experience, nobody
> agrees on what are the *proper organizations*.

  How true!
> 
> Bob

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com