Re: War of Internet Governance: 1995 - ????

[Jay@Iperdome.com]

At 03:26 PM 11/11/97 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> A fundamental question is why the IANA, a U.S. Government 
>> funded contractor, should be allowed to "give" seven new gTLDs 
>> to its self-selected representatives.
>
>That was its function.  Anway, you can't have it both ways -- you
>can't claim out of one side of your mouth that the IANA is
>illegitimate, and insist out of the other side that it recognize your
>TLDs. 

I have never said the IANA was illegitimate.  If you check the
archives, you'll find I have said some nice things about the IANA.  

What I *am* saying is that if the IANA's role is to look out 
for the best interests of the Internet, then there is clearly a 
conflict of interests here.  Name even one other public servant 
who has taken their position, and turned it into a lifetime role 
over the very resource they are managing for the public good.  

Name even one other public servant who is accountable to no-one,
not even the stakeholders they are supposed to serve.  

>> Consider for a moment if Reed Hundt, as head of the FCC, had
>> decided to allocate a portion of the radio spectrum to a group 
>> that he formed, supported, appointed members to, and had an 
>> ongoing and permanent role in.  Imagine if this group met behind 
>> closed doors, came up with an impressive sounding plan, and got 
>> all of his friends and associates to sign.  Imagine if this new 
>> plan took radio spectrum away from already operational entities, 
>> and excluded all other applications for radio spectrum.  Imagine 
>> if this new organization was set up as a Swiss-based cartel. 
>> 
>> Well, this is similar to Jon Postel's arrangement with the IAHC.  
>
>No, it isn't.  Jon Postel's "authority" stems entirely from his
>acceptance by the network community.  It is a FACT that his authority
>is based on community acceptance and consensus, not legalities.  

So, Jon considered the $500,000 per year he received from the 
U.S. Government for doing his job to be some kind of gratiuty?

>> It was wrong when it was announced, and it is still wrong now.
>
>Jon's authority really boils down to what the people who run the root
>servers do.  The bottom line is, they pay attention to Jon Postel, and
>they don't pay attention to you.  

More than half of the root servers are funded and/or owned by the
U.S. Government.  The only root that matters is run by NSI, under
contract from the U.S. Government.  While I agree that they don't 
pay attention to me, and I agree that they have listened to Jon 
in the past, the majority of the existing root servers will do
what the U.S. Government tells them to do.

>Jon has credibility and a reputation
>for integrity that has been built up over many years.  You don't have 
>either.

Everyone makes mistakes, including me.  In this instance, 
however, I believe that Jon has made the mistake.

>And all indications are that Jon's repution for integrity is 
>well-justified.  So spare me the "it was wrong" propaganda.

It's inappropriate at best.


Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com