Anti-monopoly Fervor Distorts Interagency DNS Working Group Process*

[Jay@Iperdome.com]

FYI:

>Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:45:18 -0500
>From: Gordon Cook <cook@netaxs.com>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv@lists.psi.com>
>Subject: Anti-monopoly Fervor Distorts Interagency DNS Working  Group Process*
>
>Lack of response to a FOIA request outlined below, Dave Crocker's
>continued blustering, and a continuing stream of complaints from inside
>the beltway sources, has convinced us to go public with material that we
>have not talked about before. We have become convinced that those who are
>leading the Interagency Working Group on Domain Names (IWG) have, above
>everything else, become determined to kill the NSI "monopoly." This desire
>to rid the Internet of the "monopoly" has predisposed the Working Group to
>an outcome that would have the US Government endorse the ISOC/IPOC/CORE
>"process." After all, this is the only "other" game in town.
>
>Thus, having reached this decision, they are using every means at their
>disposal to assist ISOC/IPOC/CORE in their efforts.  We are also convinced
>that such means include clothing ISOC/IPOC/CORE in some new attire that
>will allow them to announce that they have achieved the "significant
>changes to the proposal and process" that Larry Irving promised Congress
>would happen before any such ISOC/IPOC/CORE endorsement. What follows is
>an account of recent events showing the speed and stealth with which the
>players have been moving.  We made the FOIA request outlined below five
>weeks ago and, not wanting to act precipitously, have kept quiet about the
>matters it discusses since then.  However, the continued hints from the
>IWG that it will announce its new policy - any day now - have convinced us
>that it is time to go public with everything that we have been able to
>ascertain.
>
>An Unusual Response from OSTP to a FOIA 
>
>Having, in early October, received credible allegations that Brian Kahin
>and others, on behalf of the Interagency Working Group, had been meeting
>privately with people from IBM, AT&T and Oracle to discuss how these
>players could put together database software to meet the needs of a shared
>registry for IPOC/CORE, we submitted the following Freedom of Information
>Act request to OSTP on October 7th.
>
>Ms. Barbara Ferguson, 						
>FOIA Officer, OSTP
>Executive Office of the President
>Washington DC 20500
>
>Dear Ms. Ferguson:
>
>This is a Freedom of Information Act Request for communications between
>Mr. Brian Kahin, Ms. Becky Burr of NTIA,  Dr. Mike Nelson (former OSTP
>analyst and currently at FCC) and any other relevant government official.
>
>The communications that I seek are all material that discusses in any way
>meetings with AT&T, IBM, Oracle on any or all of the following: the domain
>name problem or potential resolutions thereof in general and/or any
>discussions of the development of a distributed domain name database
>system in particular.  Further covered are all discussions between
>Commerce, NTIA, White House and any other agency about the position these
>people should take on the creation of the IAHC shared database.   Covered
>in addition are all meeting notes and any correspondence between Kahin,
>Becky Burr, Mike Nelson and the Department of Commerce, NTIA, the White
>House and any other government agency regarding the role of ATT, IBM , and
>Oracle in any technical, political or economic solution of the DNS problem
>and/or any discussions of the development of a distributed domain name
>database system in particular.  Further covered are all correspondence and
>communications, electronic or otherwise on these subjects between Kahin
>and anyone at IBM, AT&T or Oracle.
>
>I wish copies of all electronic mail, letters, memos or other documents.
>And please note that the term "documents" is intended to have the broadest
>possible meaning and encompass, without limitation, anything included
>within the definition of "writings" or "recordings" set forth in Rule
>1001(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
>
>The dates covered by this FOIA request run from the date of Brian Kahin's
>arrival at OSTP to the present.
>
>------ end of our FOIA letter-------
>
>On October 27th Ms. Ferguson sent us the following reply which we received
>on November 1.
>
>RE:  OSTP FOIA No. 98-02
>
>Dear Mr. Cook:
>
>This is in response to your request, received in this office on October
>14, 1997 under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. S 552.  Your
>October 7, 1997 request to the Office of Science and Technology Policy
>(OSTP) sought material that discusses in any way meetings with AT&T, IBM,
>Oracle on any or all of the following:  the domain name problem or
>potential resolutions there of in general and/or discussions of the
>development of a distributed domain name database system in particular,
>etc.
>
>Because of unusual circumstances, and extension of up to 10 working days
>will be needed to process your request. This additional time is required
>due to the substantial interest in the determination of your request. The
>authority for this extension can be found in section 552 (a) (6) (B) (iii)
>of Title 5 of the United States Code.
>
>------ end of Barbara ferguson's response-----
>
>What Are We Bothered About? 
>
>When as of Friday November 14 we had heard nothing more from Ms. Ferguson,
>we called.  During the past two weeks we have privately discussed her
>October 27 statement that "this additional time is required due to the
>**substantial interest** in the determination of your request" with a
>number of people.  They told us that this language seemed highly unusual.
>They added that the response meant that material relevant to our request
>did exist because, if it did not, we would have been told so and that
>would be the end of the matter.
>
>She told us today that the reason for the words "substantial interest" was
>that our request involved a former employee (Mike Nelson) of OSTP who was
>at another agency (FCC) and that they were coordinating with that agency
>to make sure they had all relevant material from there before responding
>to us.  We said that was fine but that we wanted to know why they hadn't
>gotten together material from Brian Kahin that was responsive and sent
>THAT to us.  She said she'd find out and get back to me.
>
>She did so and, having talked with Brian Kahin, the story changed once
>again.   Brian had told her that the request was so broad and encompassed
>so many documents that they had not managed to put them all together yet.
>No further words about Mike Nelson. Perhaps we'd like to narrow our
>request?  We declined and asked them to start sending what they had.
>
>Stepping back to view the entire matter in a broader context, we are
>bothered that reports reaching us indicate that Kahin and Burr - the FCC
>position with Maxwell and Nelson is not as clear - have thrown in their
>lots and with them the interests of the United States government with
>IPOC/ISOC/CORE.  They are running an evaluation process that is supposed
>to be OPEN and well-informed  and ensure that all sides are heard from.
>Instead it seems that they are allowing interests of some large
>corporations to overwhelm the impact of public comment solicited from the
>Notice of Inquiry process. 
>
>They have had 5 weeks to deal with a FOIA.  If our concerns were
>erroneous, they could have demonstrated that by now. Their response, up to
>the time of our calls this morning was merely to inform us that they need
>more time "due to the substantial interest in the determination of this
>request."  They chose to leave it at that and have produced zero material. 
>
>Meanwhile our sources tell us that they continue to operate in a highly
>biased way.  We are told also that in late October when Oracle got
>(through Emergent) the design work on the CORE database, it dropped out of
>the private discussions with Kahin and OSTP.  However we have been advised
>by highly reliable sources that these discussions have continued now with
>IBM, AT&T and DEC behind closed doors. And that they now have a focus on
>what these companies can do to help the US Gov't to ensure the stability
>of the root servers as well as continuing to look at the development of
>shared database software.  Reports reaching us claim that they (Burr and
>Kahin) have largely ignored submissions to the NOI process because they
>are leading the Interagency Working Group (IWG) to their preordained
>outcome of putting DNS control into the hands of ISOC/IPOC/CORE.
>
>The Process Looks to us to Be Out of Control
>
>We believe that Ira Magaziner is an honorable and dedicated public servant
>Who is working long hours to be sure that precipitous federal action does
>not create a disaster.  In his phone call to us yesterday, he gave us
>assurance that policy on DNS and Internet governance is **not** settled
>and that information from all sources is still being collected and
>evaluated.  He seems to realize that he does not yet understand the
>enormous complexities of this situation well enough to set policy.  
>
>We only wish that those working for him in the IWG review had the same
>understanding.  Unfortunately it seems that they have made up their minds
>and have policy ready to announce.  One trade journal announced earlier
>that a IWG decision was expected today.   Another is about to announce
>that IWG says it expects to come out with its findings next week.  We aaw
>word from a third this afternoon that an announcment it expected had been
>canceled. 
>
>We would suggest that spokespeople for IWG should be giving their boss a
>complete and balanced account of his options rather than narrowing the
>information to support their own ends.  The process we have operating is
>neither free nor sufficiently open and democratic.  This is not the
>outcome that Ira Magaziner desires.  He wants openness and he quite
>clearly told us yesterday on record that it would be several weeks and
>perhaps even several months before the administration sets its direction
>on these issues.
>
>Finally we include here material leaked to us yesterday:  
>
>This message to the private CORE mail list, was leaked to third parties -
>one of which then sent it to us. We have the permission of that party to
>publish.  Crocker will likely be outraged.  But given the high Stakes game
>he is playing, he should not be surprised. In this message Crocker lays
>bare the ISOC/IPOC/ITU strategy which, if the US government doesn't move
>effectively to counter it, can further muddy the international picture.
>He also betrays something of the financial desperation of the CORE
>position.
>
>-------[begin Dave Crocker comments]
>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:46:19 -0800
>From: Dave Crocker / IMC <dcrocker@imc.org>
>Subject: core Implementation schedule and governmental support
>
>>From some second-hand conversations, there are two items which have not
>yet been made clear to the US government crew (Magaziner, Kahin, et al):
>
>1.  The requirement for adding the seven new TLDs is imminent
>
>2.  Governments other than the United States have an interest in this
>topic and are not overly sanguine about the US claiming control.
>
>The US government folks have now been informed that the request for the
>new TLDs will occur approximately mid-December, so they have finally heard
>a date. I'm told that until yesterday they thought it was some months off.
>
>What they do NOT have is the basis for that date.  I've suggested to a few
>folks that a highly detailed project schedule be developed and published.
>It should show all the near-term activity but it should also be worked out
>far enough to show the incorporation of .com/net/org, next fall.  The
>purpose of this latter portion is to make sure that people can see the
>basis for the near-term pressure.
>
>Let me reiterate the suggestion:  Please widely publish the project
>schedule that is being used, showing testing phases and all the rest of
>the gory detail which demonstrates that the folks doing the work really do
>understand how to implement a reliable service.  Yes, this is a public
>relations action to educate the political and non-technical folks and I'm
>sure it will engender yet more silliness in the public discussion, but it
>will also show competent and serious skeptics that you know what you are
>doing.
>
>On the matter of interest from other governments, it appears that the
>folks at the US government continue to miss the point that the rest of the
>world and its governments think that the Internet is a global resource,
>rather than strictly being an entity belonging to the U.S.  Other
>governments need to communicate their interests in this effort to open up
>control of Internet infrastructure.  It would be very helpful for
>contingents from non-U.S. countries to band together and lobby their own
>governments to communicate to the U.S. folks.
>
>d/ 
>--------------------  [end of Crocker's post]
>
>COOK Report: Were the consequences not so potentially serious, the
>continued arrogance on Dave Crocker's part regarding the IPOC/ISOC
>dominion over root - as well as his views that folk, who don't see it
>CORE's way, are some how silly and not worth bothering with would be
>amusing.  
>
>In view of his spin in the statement above, it seems to us that the US
>government SHOULD begin to enunciate some carefully crafted principles
>behind *its* actions. For example that it is our goal that all people who
>want to use the Internet may do so with the SEVEN new domain names crafted
>by ISOC/IPOC/ITU if they wish, but that we also intend to see to it that
>WIPO and Swiss law are *not* the ONLY authority available to people.  That
>we shall strive not for global domination of the Internet by the United
>States but for LOCAL self-determination.   Such self determination means
>the ability of every citizen to register a domain name from a national
>authority or, from **any other private group,** that is ajudicable under
>the laws, either of the government where that citzen is domiciled and does
>business, or under the laws of some other government where the registry
>that the citizen choses to do business with is located. Therefore while
>ISOC/IPOC/CORE is free to market *Its* seven names, we shall not allow
>them to become the final point of arbitration for a single world wide DNS
>system.  The US government, to the contrary, is not an arrogant Internet
>imperialist but is trying its damnedest to preserve the freedom of all
>users of the Internet worldwide from regulatory interference and the
>control of any single entity such as WIPO and the ITU. Ira Magaziner's
>work on electronic commerce has made this local self-determination a
>cornerstone of US policy.  We believe that the IWG should not be permitted
>to subvert his accomplishments.
>
>The Spin Continues
>
>Meanwhile the position that comes to us today from inside one of the IWG
>agencies is:   Doesn't Cook understand that we have made it clear that we
>will not support the IPOC proposal unless significant changes are made to
>the proposal and the process?  
>
>Cook Report: Ahhh.  No kidding.  The operative phrase in this denial is
>***significant changes***.  We'd like to know what those might be? Who
>enunciates them?  Who discusses them?  In what kind of forum?  Via what
>process?  The same one involving IBM, AT&T and now DEC? (Formerly Oracle?)
>We have this process triangulated several times over and its time that
>Kahin and Burr and Irving bring it out into the open because reports
>reaching us this afternoon indicate that it continues.
>
>While Jon Postel may ask NSI to include the IPOC/CORE domains in root, we
>are told that the current tack within the Kahin-Burr camp is that it will
>not ask the NSF to order NSI to comply with Postel's request.  Could it be
>that it finally dawned on these people the implications that such action
>would have on the PGP Media lawsuit?  What is also absolutely clear is
>that NSI has presented to the IWG a plan for a shared DNS registry system.
>NSI has tried to explain to the Working Group that such a plan cannot be
>implemented overnight because of very serious concerns about security, the
>testing and stability of the shared software, the soundness of the
>communications links uniting the shared registries, and the various flow
>charts of business processes that must be worked out.  
>
>NSI has a responsibility to more than 1,000,000 registrants in the .com
>database that their addresses and their connectivity will not become
>screwed as a result of its actions.  The optimistic time line for
>achieving this is 18 months.  A range of experts tell us that these
>concerns are legitimate and reasonable.   But such is the gut level
>emotional dislike for NSI that permeates the Working Group that the
>working group's response so far has been to refuse to accept NSI's
>proposal.  "Eighteen months is not adequate," it says.  "It must be done
>much sooner! " Well, operationally sound infrastructure cannot possibly be
>installed any sooner and therefore someone needs to explain to Mr. Kahin
>and Ms. Burr that, without endangering the operational stability of the
>Internet, the US government cannot set policy for reasons that look to us
>to be rooted an unthinking acceptance of the anti "monopoly"  point of
>view that has been a continual drumbeat on the internet for the past two
>years.
>
>
>
>***********************************************************************
>The COOK Report on Internet               For subsc. pricing & more than
>431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     ten megabytes of free material
>(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              visit   http://cookreport.com/
>Internet: cook@cookreport.com             New Special Report: Internet
>Governance at the Crossroads ($175)  http://cookreport.com/inetgov.shtml
>***********************************************************************