Re: The King is Dead! No More Kings Thanks Very Much...

["andi payn" <payn@null.net>]

> That Postel has a personality cult going
> here shouldn't be a shock. That Postel's
> flunkies - I can't think of a better way
> to describe them - will support anything
> the guy says no matter how dumb should not
> also be a shock.

First of all, I'd like to point out that one of the criticisms constantly
levelled against the IAHC proposal is that it directly went against the
original plans of Jon Postel. He (through IANA) commissioned the ad-hoc
committee to write a study on the best way to implement his original draft,
presumably making whatever changes were necessary. Instead, they created an
entirely new draft that was almost the opposite of what he had initially
proposed (in some ways better, in other ways worse), and took it upon
themselves to begin implementing their own proposal.

As I understand it, there is some question about how Mr. Postel feels about
the current situation, and he's basically chosen to wait and see how it
turns out, giving only the weakest of support. This doesn't sound like a
cult of personality revolving around him. Although Sasha Ignjatovic's post
may have sounded like that of a cult follower, I don't think you could
accuse, say, Perry Metzger of being a "minion of Jon."

You also have to consider that the people who run the various organizations
and "functions" which maintain the Internet--IANA, the root server
administrators, earlier manifestations of InterNIC, etc.--have mostly been
working on a volunteer basis (or paid small amounts from US government
grants) to do work which nobody thought would be profitable. I don't think
any of them are in it for money, power, or even prestige. At this point,
with the growing commercialization of the Internet, and especially with
NSI's actions over the past few years, many of the volunteers, government
organizations, and government grant recipients seem more interested in
getting out (if they can do so without ruining the Internet) than in finding
a way to consolidate power, or turn a profit.

> Once upon a time in a place
> I read about fifteen years ago called what
> was once the Internet this was how things
> were done. By personal means.

No, things weren't generally done by personal means. Things were done by
committees made up of pretty much anyone who wanted to be involved. Because
there were so few people involved; because there was so little money, power,
or prestige; and because the vast majority of the participants in the early
Internet were engineers and the like, they were able to come to consensus
relatively easily. What's created this problem is the commercialization of
the Internet, not the growth itself. If the issues were still primarily
technical, there wouldn't be much of a dispute going on about domain names.
Such issues as how to prevent monopolies or oligopolies, how to resolve
legal disputes, and so forth simply weren't issues a few years ago.

> The web of allegances Postel has developed
> over the years among what are still Internet
> insiders must be rent from Korea to Virginia,
> from Toronto to Tokyo. And it must be replaced
> with a fair, impartial, impersonal and global
> Intenet governace every citizan can vote in,
> speak out upon and make their views know in.

I agree with your conclusion, but not your motivations, or your
insinuations. The problem is not a "web of allegiances" to Postel, or
domination by Internet insiders, it's the commercial character of the
emerging new Internet. Without any sort of management, we'll likely end up
with either an AT&T-style monopoly (as proposed, in essence, by NSI) or the
sort of unregulated cut-throat competition  that characterized much of
American industry a century ago (as would likely result from the eDNS
proposal--although the analogy isn't perfect, sincewe obviously won't have
workers losing their hands, epidemics caused by tainted meat, and the other
most serious problems of that day).

IAHC in itself isn't the problem, it's a flawed solution. You can liken
their solution to that of nations that tried to deal with the problems of
emerging capitalism by strengthening the monarchy and nobility (much as you
imply), or to that of Stalinist Russia (as others do), but more important
than deciding what kind of names to call the iPOC members is deciding how to
fix--or replace--their solution.