Re: Farber on self-governance

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

All,

  We see yet again another rendition or repeat of "Daves Fables".  As is
well known to many in the Internet DNS community, Dave AKA "Doctor Spin"
is up to his seemingly unending fables of the virtues of the MoU.  God save us
all!

  Let us take a closer look at these fabrications and half truths yet again just
to
make sure that the record is straight, shall we.

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 10:05 AM 6/16/98 -0400, Will Rodger wrote:
> >Below is a statement from Dave Farber, EFF board member, distinguished
>
> Please forgive the strident tone of what follows, but the idea of looking
> forward to starting over after 4 years of intense work, continuing to have
> the network community give NSI an extra US$ 1M for every week that
> meaningful competition is delayed, is just a bit frustrating.

  Well as many others have already noted long ago and again recently, Dave, we
realize that the IAHC/MoU process was and still is a dismal failure and a gross
mistake, as was noted rather extensively in the USG's White Paper.

To Wit;

"Although the IAHC proposal gained support in many quarters of the Internet
community, the IAHC process was criticized for its aggressive technology
development and implementation schedule, for being dominated by the
Internet engineering community, and for lacking participation by and input
from business interests and others in the Internet community.(13)  Others
criticized the plan for failing to solve the competitive problems that were
such a source of dissatisfaction among Internet users and for imposing
unnecessary burdens on trademark holders. Although the POC responded by
revising the original plan, demonstrating a commendable degree of
flexibility, the proposal was not able to overcome initial criticism of
both the plan and the process by which the plan was developed.(14)
Important segments of the Internet community remained outside the IAHC
process, criticizing it as insufficiently representative."

  So we can see that to the extent that the IAHC/MoU process had support It did
not
and still does not provide for an open process for the Internet community to
actively participate in determining the principals and standards to which the
DNS
system should be managed.




>
>
> Here is the response I sent Dave:
>
> At 05:44 AM 6/16/98 +0900, Dave Farber wrote:
> >I find this very unfortunate -- no very dangerous. In back of the whole
> USG process was, I believe, the hope that the network community was mature
> enough to take on self governance. If we blow it the result will be
> governance by Governments with all the negatives that holds for the future
> evolution of the net.
>
> Dave,
>
> You continue to mis-understand the basic causes for the current situation,
> and therefore misunderstand the way to fix it.

  This indeed may be true.  It is also accurate to state that the IAHC/MoU
effort did
not and does not provide for a solution that is inclusive of the stakeholder on
their own
variation.

>
>
> The Internet community WAS quite mature enough to handle the situation and
> it was proceeding quite nicely to deal with it. Not smoothly or pleasantly,
> but then it rarely is smooth or pleasant about a controversial topic. But
> it copes and it was coping.

  If this was really true, than there should have been a huge ground swell of
support
for the IAHC/MoU process.  There was not and there is still not.

>
>
> The triggering topic, gTLDs, had been controversial for quite awhile and as
> is usual for such things, a group was formed by IANA to solve the task. It
> went about doing its job in the usual Internet style. A proposal was
> formulated, feedback received, changes made, support garnered: 220
> organizations so far, from around the world. That's not a trivial amount of
> support.

  Yes the IANA did set out to put together a group to make changes in the
DNS system an seek to expand the number of gTLD's to be added to the
Root structure.  It did most of this behind closed doors, without soliciting the

Internet community's input, and still does not, and made precious few changes
to the December 19th draft that were of s significant enough nature to secure
anymore than one Government, Albania, support.  The so called 220 organizations
are really a misnomer as well as many of them are different chapters of the
ISOC.
None the less, 220 organizations is tiny fragment of the the stakeholder and
internet community, less than .01%.  That isn't even a reasonable representative

sample of the Internet community or the stake holders.  Also many of the ISOC's
members DO NOT support the IAHC/MoU proposal in which their chapters
singed the MoU, not to mention several of CORE's stakeholders either.

>
>
> What changed was that too many people -- some well-intention and some not
> -- decided to attack the work rather than try to help improve it. Rather
> than make specific proposals for specific changes, people decided to just
> declare the process problematic or the composition of the group
> inappropriate, or to find some other reason for rejecting the whole effort.

  Some of this has a very small amount of truth to it.  But for the most part
many of the discussion lists pertaining to this IAHC/MoU process were
specifically excluded or attempts to brand their concerns as trivial or without
merit by the leadership of the IAHC/MoU was far more prevalent.  Many
good ideas and some excellent questions were posed to the IAHC/MoU
drafters and leadership that were either totally ignored, ridiculed, or those
that
put them forth were personally attacked by the likes of the following list
of MOUvment leadership/supporters.
Don Heath - ISOC
Dave Crocker - IMC
Robert Shaw - ITU
Michael Dillon - Priori
Perry Metzger - NY
Kent Crispin - LBL

  For those of you that are relatively new to this discussion/debate, please
feel
free to review the archives of the IAHC-Discuss list (Those that still remain),
the gTLD-MoU-discuss list, and the Domain-Policy list for confirmation of
what I have just said here.

> It didn't matter that the work was broad-based, that the support was
> broad-based and that incremental change to the work was being pursued in
> the usual, open fashion. It didn't matter that there were no other focused,
> broad-based, concrete efforts. No, it was -- and continues to be -- more
> fun to attack.

  Dave Crocker (Doctor Spin as he has become well known), is both guilty
of exactly what he is claiming what others that didn't agree with the MoU
did, and a precious few did, but he is also not telling you the truth here as
well.
The IAHC/MoU process did never garner a huge amount of support, not does
it enjoy a large amount of support either today.  If it did, than there would
not
have been such a huge ground swelling of detractors that forced the USG to
enter into this situation and issue the GP and than later the White Paper.

>
>
> We might all have recovered from that, had it not been for the United
> States Government.

  Than god in this case for Uncle Sam.  I myself am not a big supporter of
the USG intervening in most situations, but in this case it was both the right
thing
to do but also the BEAT thing that could have happened for the stakeholder
and the Internet Community all over the globe.

>
>
> Remember that the USG created the original and compelling problem, by
> giving NSI an instant US$50M/year revenue stream and thereby causing many
> others to see potential for large amounts of easy money. Add to that the
> legitimate difficulties because domain names can relate to trademarks and
> we have a major pull for political maneuvering on a large scale. And that
> is what we got.

  Yes in the early stages of the Internet growth, the USG made some huge
mistakes
with respect to the single contract it gave or awarded to NSI.  This can also be

said of the amount of allowance that the USG gave to the IANA without adequate
oversight.  NSF failed its responsibility in part by not overseeing this
evolving
process and tremendous growth of the Internet DNS and IP address space
systems.  It should have.

  The IANA also took huge liberties that it should not have taken, that fueled
the
problem even more so, as it knew that the NSF or the NTIA was not going to
really notice.  They didn't until it was nearly too late.  Hence we are where we
are.

>
>
> So, having created the problem, the US Government then proceeded to fully
> destabilize things by throwing into doubt IANA's authority and the
> processes that IANA had established. The government has given credibility
> to a set of rogue activities that were attempting to take over control of
> the root of the DNS. These efforts failed on their own but are now formally
> recognized as legitimate by the Government report.

  They are recognized as being somewhat legitimate as they are part of the
many that helped to build the internet and also pay for it.

>
>
> Worse, the US government has taken credit and taken over work that IANA
> already had under way to move itself under a private corporation. And let
> us not forget that the US government, rather than honor a process that was
> open and garnered support from 220 organizations around the world, has
> tended to give extraordinary weight to highly political efforts by a tiny
> group of folks, who have no Internet technical or operations experience,
> but do have questionable motives.

  Most of this comment is both false and without merit.  The IANA did not have
the support of the Commerce Department nor the singed support of the
NTIA when the IANA initiated the IAHC process.  It still does not have that
support.

  As to David Crocker The "Doctor of Spin" that extraordinary support has been
given to folks that have no "Internet technical or operations experience,
but do have questionable motives", is totally false.

>
>
> So, Dave, if we want to consider seriously how to improve things, we need
> to stop giving credence and assistance to people who have no constructive
> intent and we need to get back to Internet basics.

  Here again we see yet another attempt to make snide bogus attempts by
David Crocker, to smear many whom have been working in the Internet industry
for a very long time and truly wish to see the DNS system to expand and grow
to meet the needs and desires of the Internet community, that being adding new
gTLD's to the Root structure and possible expanding the Root structure itself.
If the IANA had taken steps that it claim it had the power to do and add new
gTLD's to the DNS Root system, then it should have done so long ago.  It did not

do so because it could not decide how that could best be accomplished and not
alienate or put itself in a "Restraint of Trade" position with the existing
Internet
community and the stakeholders.

>
>
> That means getting back to supporting IANA's efforts to evolve, the efforts
> that it had underway for quite awhile, until they were derailed by the US
> government and a quantity of political hangers on.

  Well the IANA had it's chance and did nothing and only created an organization

to devise a plan to expand the DNS root system that was closed and doomed to
failure because it was non-inclusive of the Internet community and the
stakeholders.
This is a poor showing of management ability for the IANA.

>
>
> After more than a year of distraction, the government has come out
> supporting essentially all of the principles and details of what was
> already being done. Except that they have convinced people that we must
> "start over" rather than "continue". After 4 years of effort, we must start
> over?

  This reading of the White Paper is indeed rather bizarre to say the least.
Unique
possibly even.  We are not starting over, rather we are passing the ball to a
non-profit corporation that will be made up of a board, that will represent
a true broad spectrum of the internet community, rather than a very narrow
spectrum that did not include stakeholders or Internet Users, that being
the MoU.

>
>
> To all who have found it so easy or necessary to contribute to these delays
> and to the destablilization, we thank you. But it is time to stop
> "inventing" and "starting".

  And Dave, it is time for you and the MoUvment to take your licks, learn,
and start being honest, or go into oblivion.

>
>
> It is time to return to the processes we already had, and "continue" to
> evolve them.

  That is exactly what is happening.  Thank god we learned form the mistake of
the
IAHC/MoUvment and saw the shortcomings that it embodies.

>
>
> d/
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker                Brandenburg Consulting        +1 408 246 8253
> dcrocker@brandenburg.com      675 Spruce Drive        (f) +1 408 273 6464
> www.brandenburg.com        Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA

 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