Re: Proposed Replacement Re: Johnson, Farber, Maher and Cochetti

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>]

Hello Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> --

I view your response as so completely opposed to almost everything I
said as to suggest that we should just agree that we disagree.  Else
we will just devolve into yet another set of alternating monologues.

So, consider that I have restated everything, and I will leave it to
the other readers to decide what they think of it all.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Tue, 26 May 1998 14:50:14 +0100:
}
}Einar and all,
}
}Einar Stefferud wrote:
}
}> My reading of the Johnson, Farber, Maher and Cochett text is that they
}> are grasping at straws trying to find some way to establish legitimate
}> constituency definitions and boundaries so they can mount a voting
}> system that is guaranteed to be fair to all, and which draws some of
}> its structure from the US Constitutional Voting Scheme.
}
}  You are of course intiteled to your opinion.  To us, this sounds like a
}gross mischaracterization.
}
}>
}>
}> However, when you look at domain names as being surrogate citizens,
}> you discover that they do not represent much of anything that needs to
}> be allocated 50% of the votes on an unwieldy 18 member Names Council.
}
}  How so?
}
}>
}>
}> In my view, this is simply no way to assure that all the voices that
}> need to be given a fair hearing will get one, because the
}> constituencies are not well defined, as they are with the concept of
}> "One Person, One Vote" scheme of the US Constitution, or of any other
}> parliamentary voting system.
}
}  We don't agree at all here.  The constituencies are fairly well defined within
}
}the Internet community.  Even the MoU folks realize this as they put out an
}RFC to this extent and defined some or most of those constituencies.
}
}>
}>
}> In this mailing list discussion, we have clearly seen how "One SLD,
}> One Vote" is subject to distorting manipulations of many kinds, and
}> immediately shows signs of unbalanced favor given to various SLD
}> registrants.
}
}  By definition the registrant cannot be a distorting factor in representation
}of the stakeholders.  This is clearly stated within the Green Paper, as it
}should be.  Any characterization otherwise is a vague and misguided attempt
}to rest Self determination and a voice in that registrants Internet Commerce
}or presence on the DNS.  That would indeed be non-benificial to the
}Internet community at large and to the growth of this industry in general.
}
}>
}>
}> Further, the primary concept of the whole scheme is to go directly to
}> the end users, and then find a way to represent them at the top of a
}> new authority structure, which will then dispense authority downward,
}> along with policy to regulate and manage the operations of the DNS
}> ROOT, the TLD Registrars, the newly budding Registrar Industry, and
}> even the SLD registrants, through requirements for standard contracts
}> that must be used in all SLD registration contracts.
}
}  Agreed.  And this is precisely where those regulation should be determined
}and decided, at the grass roots.
}
}>
}>
}> I respectfully suggest that there is a much better paradigm for
}> aggregating power from the edges of the Internet for the purposes of
}> coordinating the operations of the DNS ROOT, the TLD Registries, the
}> TLD Registrar Industry, the TLD owners and operators, and the SLD
}> registrants/users.
}
}  True there certainly is, and in doing so you take the control and put it
}in the hands of a few with little or no pratiacial recourse.  That is not
}expectable.
}
}>
}>
}> This paradigm is called a "Producers' Cooperative", wherein, the
}> collective producers of DNS Services become the electors of the
}> members of the Names Council, and thus the Names Council will be
}> answerable to the producers of the desired services, and to the their
}> customers.
}
}  This is an idea that could have some degree of success, but again does not
}provide for direct grass roots voice in this process.  It is management by
}committee, which has been proven time and time again to have only a limited
}degree of sucess historically.
}
}>
}>
}> Also, no single sector of the DNS Industry should be allowed to
}> control more than 25% of the vote on the Names Council.  25% of the
}> vote is already 50% of control.  33% of the vote is already 75% of
}> control.  And 50% of the vote is 100% of control.
}
}  This is juts to bizarre to even comment on.
}
}>
}>
}> As noted in the mailing list discussion, with non-profit corporations,
}> where the "stockholders" have little or nothing personally at stake,
}> most people do not bother to vote, so that a mere 10% or so can
}> control elections.
}
}  Stockholders are only ONE part of the process.  STAKEHOLDERS are
}yet another.  Please try to remember that.
}
}> It is my view that the people who are going to be
}> most sensitive to User interests will be the TLD or SLD registrars who
}> will offer direct services to registrants, so it seems very reasonable
}> to be to enable the Registrars, TLD Registry Owner/Operators, and ROOT
}> Service Operators to each have a significant voice in the operation of
}> their cooperative collection of enterprises.
}
}  And Registrars, TLD Registry Owner/Operators, and ROOT Service Operators
}should have a voice in this process, but not a controlling voice.  The customer,
}
}or STAKEHOLDER, must have at least an equal voice.
}
}>
}>
}> Then, if you want to add some more user input, why not form an
}> Association of DNS Server Administrators, with membership eligibility
}> given to anyone that actually administers a DNS zone server at any
}> level of the DNS tree.  This association should charge a nominal
}> annual membership fee, and should then in turn represent its members
}> to the Names Council.
}
}  Not good enough.  Too much power in the hands of too few.  Schemes such
}as this rob the user of what they are paying for and lead to paying more for
}less.
}
}> This last association of name server
}> administrators sorts out the difficulties with some SLDs being used to
}> as the top of corporate name trees, while others go for putting all
}> there 3LD names at the SLD level.  The correct representation identity
}> is DNS Zone Administrators at All Levels, not just the SLD level.
}>
}> Indeed, all the confederated associations mentioned here (of Zone
}> Admins, Registrars, Registries and Root Servers) should have
}> membership fees, and should contribute funding to support the Names
}> Council.  In an important sense then, all this boils down to the
}> formation of a confederation of trade or other associations for the
}> purpose of providing the administration of the required coordination
}> of the Internet DNS Name Service.
}
}  Confederation of groups that represent a segment of the DNS system should
}and do already exist to some extant, and should have a voice in the management
}of
}the DNS structure.  However, each Stakeholder should have the vote individually
}or as a group through some sort of confederation if they should so choose to
}participate in that manner.  There should be no requirement for those
}stakeholders
}to do so in that manner.
}
}>
}>
}> Now we have 4 well defined constituencies, and straight forward
}> methods of giving them significant representation, at 25% each, all
}> the way down to the lowest level of DNS service, right next to the
}> users who buy services from competing service providers, and to the
}> DNS zone admins that enter host names into the DNS system.  It is my
}> opinion that the market can take care of sorting things out below this
}> bottom level.
}
}  As I have pointed out specifically, this scheme is not workable without the
}Stakeholder getting less of a voice.  That is not expectable.
}
}>
}>
}> Now then, does anyone see a way for anyone to juggle this game to rig
}> the voting and take over sole control?  Is there any easy way to
}> thwart the interests of any party with an interest in the use and
}> operation of the Internet?  It there any way to divert the incentives
}> to defeat coordination of running things in the best interests of all
}> concerned?
}
}  Yes, and I just pointed some of those methods out.
}
}> After all, the Internet thrives on cooperation and dies
}> from fighting.
}
}  Than don't.  Just agree that the Stakeholder is the consumer along with the
}user.  And he/she has the ability to change what he/she will consider should
}be done.
}
}>
}>
}> Now, with four well defined constituancies, lets also take care of the
}> little problem of having too many members (18) on the Names Council.
}> In my opinion, and the opinion of many other people, it is not
}> possible to get anything done with more then 10 members, or less than
}> 100 members.
}
}  First of all as I have said before, there are far more than constituencies.
}So,
}you are by definition disadvantaging the majority of the Stakeholders and users.
}
}> So, since an odd number is better than an even number,
}> lets choose nine, with two members from each of our four
}> constituencies, plus a chairman selected from outside all
}> constituencies.  The Chair only needs to vote in case of ties.  It
}> will of course be wise to select a Chair that has a lot of high level
}> Internet Savvy and high level governing board experience in
}> environments (Ala Internet) that do not have an inherent central core.
}>
}> Now, lets look at the problems of Trademark Industry Fair Hearing and
}> some other left over fair hearing problems from the last two years of
}> the DNS Wars.  We need to release some prisoners and right a few
}> wrongs before we can all relax and claim we did a good job here.
}>
}> First there is the backlog of candidates for ROOT registration of new
}> TLD Names.  How should they be treated?
}
}  See Jim Flemmings response to this post.
}
}>
}>
}> 1.  Ignore them as fools who do not deserve any kind of fair hearing?
}>     Maybe we can just tell them to go away?  Who are they anyway?
}>     Does the list include the MoUvement?  And who else?
}
}  The MoUvement?  They may represent a tiny fragment of the stakeholder
}and user internet community and as such have as much influence as they
}can adequately provide or convince others to go along with.  So far they
}have not done a very good job of that.  But time and effort will tell.
}
}>
}>
}> 2.  Find a way to buy them off to compensate them for their efforts,
}>     and for any Intellectual Property that may be confiscated.  It
}>     will be rather difficult to just take away what is perceived to be
}>     owned property without a hearing of some kind, perhaps in court if
}>     no where else?
}
}  Perhaps, and than again perhaps not.
}
}>
}>
}> 3.  Give them a fair hearing before a Special Fair Hearing Panel
}>     appointed by the Names Council, which after hearing all their
}>     cases, will evaluate their findings and make recommendations to
}>     the Names Council for actions to be taken to afford them fair
}>     treatment.
}
}  Yes, as long as the regulation or standards that govern that hearing are
}decided
}and determined by all.  Not just 4 constituante groups.
}
}> Is there any reason not to allow them a fair hearing
}>     and fair treatment.  The resulting recommendations of these fair
}>     hearings should also supply the Names Council with an ordered list
}>     of candidates for TLD insertion into the "authoritative" ROOT in
}>     support of an orderly process of new TLD insertions.
}
}  This is of course that there is a Names Council such as you propose and
}constructed in the manner you propose.  As I have pointed out now there
}are too many flaws in you rendition.
}
}>
}>
}>     Please note: If any of these "candidates really are (as has been
}>     widely claimed by various people over the last two years) rogues,
}>     pirates, thieves, or other unsavory undeserving fellows, then
}>     these things should show up in their fair hearing, should they
}>     not?  A fair hearing seems only fair, so that is what I propose.
}
}  I agree.  And a majority vote from all of the stakeholders should be the
}determining
}factor in the judgment.
}
}>
}>
}> Next, Lets talk about Trademarks.  Here too a Special Fair Hearing
}> panel should be set up by the Names Council to take testimony from
}> interested parties of all kinds on the issue of the relationships
}> between Trademarks of all kinds, and DNS Names of all kinds.
}
}  Trademarks are not a issue with respect to Domain Names.
}
}>
}>
}> - snip Trademark nonsense -
}
}
}
}> And one last item -- All Fair Hearing Panels and the Names Council
}> itself should operate as Open Deliberation Bodies, and all hearings
}> must be open to the public, with a public record to be published on
}> the Internet for all proceedings.
}
}  This is good.  As long as the vote from the stakeholders from all represented
}groups or individual stakeholders can participate by their vote on that site.
}
}>
}>
}> SUMMARY:
}>
}> It is my intention to offer what I have written here as a replacement
}> plan that does not suffer from the fascinating problems resulting from
}> attempts to map the US Constitution onto the Internet, where there is
}> no equivalence for "citizens" who can be identified and can be
}> allocated one vote each.  Without a very clear and simply precise
}> definition and identification of specific individual voting rights,
}> there is no way to map the US Constitution, or any National State
}> Voting Scheme (parliamentary or not) onto the Internet.
}
}   We disagree.  It can and has been done already for a different venue.
}
}>
}>
}> Instead, the Internet needs to use some other method to find or
}> develop consensus for coordinated group actions.  Individual actions
}> should of course remain freely choosable by individuals, so we are
}> only concerned with coordination of group actions, such as provision
}> of a Comprehensive Coherent Conflict-free Open TLD ROOT Zone and
}> Service, on behalf of all who are dependent on such a thing existing
}> in a robust globally operational form.  In short, DNS should enable
}> everyone to on the Internet to resolve the publically advertised DNS
}> name of everyone else who wants to be seen, though there can be no
}> guarantee of any ability to resolve any private DNS name that is not
}> advertised to the public.  INTRAnets can and must be allowed to
}> operate with such private, unpublished, DNS names, as a matter of free
}> speech and privacy rights.
}>
}> This leads me to ask a very simple question:
}>
}>         What is wrong with the concept of a confederation of
}>         interested parties forming up a self governing structure along
}>         the lines that I have outlined above.
}
}  See my above comments.  Many many things.
}
}>
}>
}> PROPOSAL:
}>
}> Assuming that the US Govt White Paper will not resolve all these
}> issues for us, or if it does make such an attempt, I propose that we
}> substitute the kind of solution that I have outlined here.
}
}  Please do.  I have already suggested something much along the lines of
}Jim Flemmings suggestion.  Yours here is too top heavy.
}
}>
}>
}> In short, the so-called New-IANA Board of Directors should be charged
}> with fostering establishment of a Names Council (by whatever name)
}> along the lines of my outline above, and it should establish an
}> appropriate set of Fair Hearing Panels to assure that all voices with
}> an interest in the workings and deliverables of the DNS Service will
}> be fairly heard, as input to the Open Deliberations of the Names
}> Council or its Fair Hearing Panels.
}>
}> Further, I strongly suggest that the New-IANA Board should also be
}> structured along the same lines, with 9 members including its Chair,
}> and with its members selected by the Names Council, the IP registry
}> Community, and the IETF Nomination Committee.  This leaves room for 2
}> more members to be drawn from some other communities of interest, plus
}> a Chair.
}>
}> Best Regards;-)...\Stef
}
} Regards,
}
}--
}Jeffrey A. Williams
}DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
}Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
}E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
}
}