------------------------------------------------------------------- The following 4 articles by Ronda Hauben appeared as "Privatizing the Internet? A Call to Arms" in COUNTERPOISE Vol 2 No 4 Oct 1998, published by the Alternatives in Print Task Force of the Social Responsibilities Round Table of the American Library Association, which actually appeared in March 1999. The final article is a response by Becky Burr, of the US Dept of Commerce to the proposal submitted to the U.S. Dept of Commerce before ICANN was formed by the U.S. government. The Internet: Public or Private? [Editor's Note: The following four articles were part of the ongoing battle to challenge the plan of the U.S. government to privatize the essential functions of the Internet. Instead of the U.S. government determining the proper role to play, it is creating a tangle of illegitimate activities. These articles indicate some of the nature of the problems that are being created.] Something important is happening. The cooperative and open processes and culture that make the Internet a public treasure have their enemies. A contest is going on now where the stakes are high. Will the Internet be able to continue as an open, global, internetwork of networks where diversity is encouraged and communication among people of all ages and from a multitude of backgrounds is made possible? Or will the Internet be transformed into the corporate vision of a large arena for buying and selling and other commercial transactions? The Internet vision allows all to coexist, but the commercial vision will exclude anything but the commercial aims and will require fundamental changes in the nature of the Internet itself. The contest now being waged is over the issue of the privatizing of the Domain Name System and other central and controlling functions of the Internet. Several documents follow. They document the recent struggle to maintain an Internet, and to resist the commercial pressure that certain corporate interests are exerting on the U.S. government to turn these essential functions over to the private sector for its benefit. The Internet is a place where there is a diversity of networks, a diversity of computers and a diversity of users. It is an internetwork of networks which fosters the communication among many and they benefit from this diversity. Also the Internet is based on open code and open and cooperative processes. The processes, however, that have been used by the U.S. government to create a new privatized corporation to own, control and administer Internet domain names, numbers, the root server and the protocols for the Internet have been conducted in secret and via exclusive and closed activities. There has been widespread criticism of the way that the bylaws and articles of incorporation have been created by a nonpublic, and secret process, for this new private corporation, and also there has been criticism about how the selection of those who were chosen for the Interim Board of Directors was carried out. In response to such complaints, the U.S. Department of Commerce required that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) hold an open meeting in Boston, on November 14, 1998. About 200 people from the international Internet community attended as did some members of the press. At the meeting there was a wide-ranging set of complaints about how and why ICANN had been created and what they were doing. Several people pointed out that what was needed was an international public utility, rather than a private sector corporation. The newspaper coverage of the meeting was more extensive than had hitherto happened, and many of the press accounts indicated the large amount of dissatisfaction with ICANN's secret origins and nondemocratic practices. Headlines that appeared in the press following the meeting included the following. (I have indicated the URL where possible.) "New Internet Board Hears Plenty of Skepticism", New York Times, Nov. 14, 1998, http://www.nyt.com/ "Internet Governance Board Confronts a Hostile Public" in the New York Times, on November 16, 1998. http://www.nyt.com/ "A Kind of Constitutional Convention for the Internet", Cyberlaw Journal, October 23, 1998, New York Times on the Web. "Top Candidate for Internet Governance Entity Expects Federal Govt. Approval Within Week," BNA, http://www.bna.com/e-law/ "Debate Flares Over Group That Hopes to Over see the Internet", The Chronicle of Higher Education November 27, 1998, p. A21. http://www.chronicle.com/weekly/v45/i14/14a02101.htm Another interesting press account was that in Forbesdigital on November 30 "Who is Running this Joint?" http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/98/nov/1130/feat.htm A transcript of the November 14, 1998 ICANN meeting is online at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archive. Also comments presented before and after the meeting are online at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/archive/#comments. On November 25, 1998, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN to design and test mechanisms, methods, and procedures to carry out the DNS functions. This MoU is online at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm. There have been some interests pressuring the U.S. government to carry out a transition immediately to the private sector. Others have proposed reasoned consideration to determine a new management structure. Also there are voices urging the need for a continued U.S. government role in the ownership, management, and control of these important and controlling functions of the Internet. The NTIA-ICANN MoU presents a plan for designing a new structure, while maintaining government participation in the process. Thus the battle over what is happening continues. For now the U.S. government is supposed to be maintaining a role in the design and test of a private sector corporate entity to take over these essential functions of the Internet. However, it is unclear what the current U.S. government role is or who to contact in the U.S. government to present complaints to. The U.S. Congress has held hearings about the transfer of these essential Internet functions to the private sector. There is a set of testimony presented to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Technology and Subcommittee on Basic Research which concerns these issues and this testimony is helpful in identifying some of the different positions and issues taken in considering what the U.S. government should do. The house testimony is online at URL: http://www.house.gov/science/hearing.htm#Basic_Research The hearings were on September 25, 1997, March 31, 1998, and October 7, 1998. The testimony of Robert E. Kahn on March 31, 1998, for example, contains important history about the role played by the U.S. government in the creation and development of the Internet. Kahn played a pioneering role in both the designing and building of the ARPANET, and then in the creation of TCP/IP and in designing and building the Internet. The URL is: http://www.house.gov/science/kahn_03-31.htm The DNS battle has turned into a battle over the soul of the Internet. The Internet makes it possible to have networks communicating and therefore people communicating. It provides for a diversity of computers, a diversity of users, and a diversity of networks. And they are all able to cooperate and collaborate. The current actions of the U.S. government to transfer controlling functions of the Internet to the private sector has raised the issue of who should be making the decisions about what happens in the present and future of the Internet? The earliest networking pioneers welcomed all views and all to participate and discuss the issues. Decisions were made by relevant communities at a grassroots level. It was understood that pro and con ideas were needed to have broad ranging discussion to make reasoned and well founded decisions. The current situation is that the Internet is made up of many different networks. There are, however, certain centralized functions. And there is a need to administer them. To do this, great responsibility and skill are needed. Since the Internet is not anarchic, and there are central points of control, great care and responsibility must be exerted or there is the great possibility of abuse of users. Therefore the question of how to make decisions about the Internet has become an urgent issue to be solved. It requires the consideration of all who value the Internet. There are various models one can use to figure out how to make decisions. However, as the Internet is a unique new medium of worldwide communication, it is important to consider what means have grown up with or as part of the Internet that can be helpful in solving this problem.(1) Commercial pressure to allow some small sector of the corporate world to take control of these essential Internet functions makes it difficult for those who care about the future of the Internet to take the needed care to solve the problem. Recognizing that this kind of problem would develop, farsighted computer pioneers in the 1970s like J.C.R. Licklider and Harold Sackman proposed that the development of a internetwork of networks would catch the public by surprise and that providing for the public interest would provide an important challenge.(2) They proposed there would be the need for determining the kind of regulation needed so that the public interest would be protected. Just as they predicted, the social institutions have lagged behind the current developments. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that those users who are interested in the Internet as a internetwork of networks to be available to all, and to include all the possible diversity of people and computers and networks, take on to learn about this issue and to help spread an understanding of why it is so important. Also the greatest possible participation of the most diverse set of users is needed to determine how to solve the current problems.(3) There is a great need for a broad ranging public discussion on the issues involved in these changes. This is the challenge. The many wonderful experiences and uses of various users around the world who are able to participate online is the gift to be won or lost as a result of the success of this contest. The current battle has made some progress, but battalions of reinforcements are needed to win the war. -------- Notes: (1) See for example the online means of decision making that are described in Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997. A draft is online at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ (2) See The Information Utility and Social Change, edited by H. Sackman and Norman Nie, AFIPS Press, Montvale, N.J., 1970, pg. 71. See also The Internet: A New Communications Paradigm, by Ronda Hauben, http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/internet.txt (3) See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/talk_governance.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------- Report from the Front: Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server Systems by Ronda Hauben ronda@panix.com There is a battle being waged today, one that is of great importance to the future of society, but most people have no idea it is taking place. On July 29, I returned from Geneva, Switzerland where a meeting was held Friday July 24 and Saturday July 25 to create the organization that Ira Magaziner, advisor to the U.S. President, has called for. It is an organization to privatize key aspects of the Internet, the Domain Name System (DNS) and the control of the root server of the Internet. The meeting was the second in a series that are part of the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP)(1). The U.S. government, with very little discussion by the U.S. Congress, the press or the public, and contrary to the direction of the U.S. Federal District Court (in the case ACLU vs. Reno) is throwing a bone to the private sector and offering them the possibility of making their millions off of the Internet. And while in Geneva, I saw folks from several different countries grabbing at the bone, in hopes of getting themselves some of the same kind of exorbitant profits from selling gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains) that the National Science Foundation (NSF) bestowed on Network Services Inc (NSI) several years ago by giving them the contract enabling them to charge for domain name registration. There is money to be made, or so these folks seem to think, and so any concern for the well being of the Internet or its continued development as "a new medium of international communication" (ACLU vs. Reno) has been thrown to the wind by Mr. Magaziner, IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) under the direction of Mr. Postel, which has the U.S. government contract to administer the Internet Addresses and Names and to administer the root server, and the others who, without any ethical considerations or social obligations are rushing through this process and squelching discussion and dissent. It is called "consensus" we are told. I went to the session setting up the Names Registry Council provisions for the bylaws of what we are told is to be the new private organization controlling these key aspects of the Internet. At the beginning of the meeting, I made the mistake of objecting when all were asked to register their consensus with the provision for a Names Council. I wanted to hear some discussion so I would know what I was voting on. I was scolded by one participant for asking for a discussion. He claimed that they were *not* here for people who had not read the bylaws proposal that appeared online only a few days before. I had read the bylaws proposal but was naive enough to think that one would hear discussion and clarification before being asked to declare one's adherence. In that way I thought one would know what one was agreeing to. Instead, however, I soon learned that that was *not* how business (or really religion) was being developed in the session I attended. After harassing me for asking for clarification and discussion, the meeting continued. The Chairman asked people to brainstorm and list the functions for the council. When I asked that the activities of the council be reported online and that there be online discussion with anyone interested being allowed to comment on all issues concerning the council, the scribe miswrote what I had proposed. When I asked it be corrected, I was told by the Chair that there was no "wordsmithing" allowed, i.e. that it would not be corrected. After a number of people had listed functions for the council, it was announced that the meeting would vote on the functions to determine if there was "consensus". Then a vote was rammed through on the items. However, instead of counting the numbers for or against each function, there was a declaration of "consensus" if, we were told, it seemed as if there were 60% of those voting who had voted for the listed function. For the first few functions those opposed were allowed to voice their objection. The meeting was being tape recorded, we were told, and there would be a record kept of it. But that soon ended as someone in the room objected to hearing any objections. The Chair said that this was how this was done at the telecom meetings he knew of, as there the players were large corporations with large bank accounts that could afford big law suits. Here, however, it seemed those in control of the meeting judged this was not the case. A short break was called. After the break it was announced that those with objections could no longer voice them on the record during the meeting but were told to come up after the meeting was over. So the vote continued on. Consensus continued to be declared for most of the items voted on, despite the fact there were those indicating their opposition to all of these items. But the record would no longer contain any note of the objections. The Chair and others marveled at the roll they were on. Even though it was time for the meeting to end, one of the Chairs of the Plenary Meeting allowed this meeting to continue as it was on such a roll. Then to the Plenary meeting. Here there was joy and praise for this democratic process from the Chair and spokespersons from the different sessions. When I tried to go to the microphone and say that the consensus in the session I had been in to determine functions for the Names Council represented "no discussion allowed and no noting of those who objected," the Chair of the Plenary Meeting told me I was not allowed to speak there. This all followed the invitation that had been extended in the press lunch on Tuesday, July 21 at INET, where all members of the press were invited to come to the Friday and Saturday sessions of the IFWP and were invited to participate. However, by Friday and Saturday the invitation clearly had changed, especially if one had a question or objection to raise about what was happening. And this is how the supposed new private organization that is to administer and make policy for the Domain Names System that is the nerve system of the Internet and the Root Server System, is being created. No one with any but a private commercial interest (in normal language, a conflict of interest) is to be allowed to participate in the process, no discussion to clarify what people are being asked to vote on is allowed to take place, and no objections could be voiced in the session creating the Names Council, which is one of the crucial aspects of the organizational form, as it is groups with a commercial interest in the sale of gTLDs who have decreed to themselves the right to set policy and recommend actions regarding the gTLDs. What is the significance of this process as a way to create an organization to take over control and administration of the nerve center of the global Internet? The Internet was developed and has grown and flourished through the opposite procedures, through democratic processes where all are welcomed to speak, where those who disagree are invited to participate, and to voice their concerns along with those who agree, where those who can make a single contribution are as welcome as those with the time to continually contribute. (See poster, "Lessons from the early MsgGroup Mailing List as a Foundation for Identifying the Principles for Future Internet Governance" by Ronda Hauben, INET'98.)(2) Also historically, the processes for discussion on key issues regarding the development of the Net are carried out online, as a medium of online communication is what is being built. This is all the opposite of what is happening with the privatizing of the DNS and throwing it to the corporate interests who are the so called "market forces". Here only those who can afford thousands of dollars for plane fare can go to the meetings, and once at the meetings, one is only allowed to participate in a way that registers agreement. At the sessions I attended there was no discussion permitted so no one knows if what they think they are voting on is indeed what it appears to be and there is no opportunity to clarify one's views on an issue as there is no chance to discuss the pros and cons. And for those for whom English is not the first language, or for someone who disagrees with what is happening, there is mockery and the attempt to make them feel unwelcome. This is *not* the way to create a new and pioneering organization to administer and control the nerve center of an international public communications infrastructure that has been built with the tax money and effort of people around the world. When those who have questions or think what is happening is a problem are not allowed to speak, it means that there is no way to know what the problems are to be solved, or what can be proposed that can offer any solution. The U.S. government has initiated and is directing this process with no regard for the concerns and interests of the people online or not yet online. Instead only those with profit making blinders over their eyes are able to stand the glare this rotten process is reflecting. During his speech at the opening session of the IFWP in Geneva, Mr. Ira Magaziner said that the U.S. government no longer has any obligation to protect the well being of the people in the U.S. and he left the room, claiming that the U.S. government would not be involved in the process to create the new organization. But the bylaws of the new organization, made available only a few days before the meeting, and thus not long enough for those traveling to the meeting to have had a chance to study or discuss, were presented by IANA and its lawyer. IANA is the U.S. government contractor proposing the structure of this new "private" organization. Thus the U.S. government is deeply involved in this process but not in any way that fulfills its obligation to provide for the well being of the American people. Meanwhile there is a lawsuit against the NSF brought by a company which sees itself as the MCI of the Internet. The lawsuit claims that anyone who wishes should be able to go into business creating gTLDs. The fact that the DNS is a hierarchical architecture to keep the number of root level lookups for the Internet at a minimum is irrelevant to those bringing the lawsuit and to the U.S. government which is offering out to private sector corporations competition in selling root level gTLDs. And the primary functions rammed through at the July 25 meeting was that the Names Council is being created to make policy and recommendations for how to increase the number of gTLDs, despite the fact that those proposing this structure had a commercial self interest in the issues and thus a conflict of interest in being involved in proposing or setting public policy regarding the future of the Internet. This is the degeneration that the U.S. government's pro commercial policy on the future development of the Internet has led to. There is no concern by Magaziner for the fact that millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money (and taxpayer money of people around the world) and effort has gone to create and develop the Internet. The policy of the U.S. government is to try to stop the use of the Internet as a medium of international communication for ordinary people and to deny its technical needs and processes. This is contrary to the directive of the U.S. court that the U.S. government "should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates." (ACLU vs. Reno) The next meeting of the IFWP is set for Singapore in August 1998. Magaziner has given this ad hoc self appointed group a deadline to have an interim organization in place by September 30. So the Internet is to be auctioned off as officials in the U.S. government oversee the grabfest. But there are people who care about the Net and its continued growth and development as a medium of international communication. And it is in the hands of these Netizens that any future health of this crucial communications infrastructure that makes possible an unprecedented level and degree of international communication must rest. The public needs to know what is going on and it is important that Netizens find a way to both intervene in this give away of public property and let the rest of the world know what is happening. ----- Notes: (1) The White paper was issued by the U.S. government. It begins: "On July 1, 1997, as part of the Clinton Administration's 'Framework for Global Electronic Commerce' the President directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the domain name system (DNS) in a manner that increases competition." (2) Write to ronda@panix.com for copy of the poster. Also see "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet", http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ or in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6. ----------- The above report appeared as an appendix in the online version of the Amateur Computerist, July 1998 Supplement "Controversy Over the Internet" available at: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/dns-supplement.txt or via e-mail from jrh@ais.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Internet an International Public Treasure: A Proposal by Ronda Hauben ronda@panix.com Preface In testimony before the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives on March 31, 1998, Robert Kahn, co-inventor of TCP/IP, indicated the great responsibility that must be taken into account before the U.S. government changes the administrative oversight, ownership and control of essential aspects of the Internet that are part of what is known as the Domain Name System (DNS). Kahn indicated that "the governance issue must take into account the needs and desires of others outside the United States to participate." His testimony also indicated a need to maintain "integrity in the Internet architecture including the management of IP addresses and the need for oversight of critical functions." He described how the Internet grew and flourished under U.S. government stewardship (before the privatization -- I wish to add) because of two important components: 1) The U.S. government funded the necessary research. 2) It made sure the networking community had the responsibility for its operation, and insulated it to a very great extent from bureaucratic obstacles and commercial matters so it could evolve dynamically. He also said that "The relevant U.S. government agencies should remain involved until a workable solution is found and, thereafter retain oversight of the process until and unless an appropriate international oversight mechanism can supplant it." And Kahn recommended insulating the DNS functions which are critical to the continued operation of the Internet so they could be operated "in such a way as to insulate them as much as possible from bureaucratic, commercial and political wrangling." When I attended the meeting of the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) in Geneva in July, which was a meeting set up by the U.S. government to create the private organization to take over these essential DNS functions September 30, 1998, none of the concerns that Kahn raised at this Congressional hearing were indicated as concerns by those rushing to privatize these critical functions of the global Internet. I wrote a report which I circulated about the political and commercial pressures that were operating in the meeting to create the Names Council that I attended. [See in this issue "Report from the Front, Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server Systems".] But what is happening now with the privatization plan of the U.S. government involves privatization of the functions that coordinate the international aspects of the Internet and thus the U.S. government has a very special obligation to the technical and scientific community and to the U.S. public and the people of the world to be responsible in what it does. I don't see that happening at present. A few years ago I met one of the important pioneers of the development of time-sharing, which set the basis for the research creating the Internet. This pioneer, Fernando Corbato, suggested I real a book Management and the Future of the Computer which was edited by Martin Greenberger, another time-sharing pioneer. The book was the proceedings of a conference about the Future of the Computer held at MIT in 1961 to celebrate the centennial anniversary of MIT. The British author, Charles Percy Snow made the opening address at the meeting and he described the importance of how government decisions would be made about the future of the computer. Snow cautioned that such decisions must involve people who understood the problems and the technology. And he also expressed the concern that if too small a number of people were involved in making important government decisions, the more likely it would be that serious errors of judgment would be made. Too small a number of people are being involved in this important decision regarding the future of these strategic aspects of the Internet and too many of those who know what is happening and are participating either have conflicts of interest or other reasons why they are not able to consider the real problems and technological issues involved. (About the 1961 conference, see chapter 6 of Netizens at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120 ) What is happening with the process of the U.S. government privatization of the Domain Name System is exactly the kind of danger that C.P. Snow warned against. I have been in contact with Ira Magaziner, senior advisor to the U.S. President on policy with these concerns and he asked me to write a proposal or find a way to put my concerns into some "operational form." The following draft proposal for comment is my beginning effort to respond to his request. Proposal Toward an International Public Administration of Essential Functions of the Internet The Domain Name System Ronda Hauben ronda@panix.com Recently, there has been a rush to find a way to change significant aspects of the Internet. The claim is that there is a controversy that must be resolved about what should be the future of the Domain Name System. It is important to examine this claim and to try to figure out if there is any real problem with regard to the Domain Name System (DNS) that has to be solved. The Internet is a scientific and technical achievement of great magnitude. Fundamental to its development was the discovery of a new way of looking at computer science.(1) The early developers of the ARPANET, the progenitor of the Internet, viewed the computer as a communication device rather than only as an arithmetic engine. This new view, which came from research conducted by those in academic computer science, made the building of the ARPANET possible.(2) Any changes in the administration of key aspects of the Internet need to be guided by a scientific perspective and principles, not by political or commercial pressures. It is most important to keep in mind that scientific methods are open and cooperative. Examining the development of the Internet, an essential problem that becomes evident is that the Internet has become international, but the systems that allow there to be an Internet are under the administration and control of one nation. These include control over the allocation of domain names, over the allocation of IP addresses, over the assignment of protocol numbers and services, as well as control over the root server system and the protocols and standards development process related to the Internet. These are currently under the control and administration of the U.S. government or contractors to it. Instead of the U.S. government offering a proposal to solve the problem of how to share the administration of the DNS, which includes central points of control of the Internet, it is supporting and encouraging the creation of a new private entity that will take over and control the Domain Name System. This private entity will magnify many thousands fold the commercial and political pressures and prevent solving the genuine problem of having an internationally shared protection and administration of the DNS, including the root server system, IP number allocations, Internet protocols, etc. Giving these functions over to a private entity will make it possible for these functions to be changed and for the Internet to be broken up into competing root servers, etc. It is the DNS whose key characteristic is to make the internetwork of networks one Internet rather than competing networks with competing root server systems, etc. What is needed is a way to protect the technology of the Internet from commercial and political pressures, so as to create a means of sharing administration of the key DNS functions and the root server system. The private organization that the U.S. government is asking to be formed is the opposite of protecting the Internet. It is encouraging the take over by a private, non-accountable corporate entity of the key Internet functions and of this international public resource. In light of this situation, the following proposal is designed to establish a set of principles and recommendations on how to create an international cooperative collaboration to administer and protect these key functions of the Internet from commercial and political pressures. This proposal is to create a prototype for international cooperation and collaboration to control and support the administration of these key Internet functions. I. The U.S. government is to create a research project or institute (which can be in conjunction with universities, appropriate research institutes, etc.). The goal of this project or institute is to sponsor and carry out the research to solve the problem of what should be the future of the DNS and its component parts including the root server system. II. The U.S. is to invite the collaboration (including funding, setting up similar research projects, etc.) of any country or region interested in participating in this research. The researchers from the different nations or regions will work collaboratively. III. The researchers will, as much as possible, utilize the Internet to carry out their work. Also they will develop and maintain a well publicized and reachable online means to support reporting and getting input into their work. They should explore Usenet newsgroups, mailing list and web site utilization, and where appropriate RFC's etc. IV. With clearly set dates for completion, the collaborative international research group will undertake the following: 1) To identify and describe the functions of the DNS system that need to be maintained. (The RFC's or other documents, that will help in this, need to be gathered and references to them made available to those interested.) 2) To examine how the Internet and then how the DNS system and root server system are serving the diverse communities and users of the Internet, which include among others the scientific community, the education community, the librarians, the technical community, governments (National as well as local), the university community, the art and cultural communities, nonprofit organizations, the medical community, the business community, and most importantly the users whoever they be, of the Internet. 3) To produce a proposal at the end of a specified finite period of time. The proposal should include: a) an accurate history of how the Internet developed and how the Domain Name System developed and why. b) a discussion of the vision for the future of the Internet that their proposal is part of. This should be based on input gathered from the users of the Internet, and from research of the history and development of the Internet. c) a description of the role the Domain Name System plays in the administration and control of the Internet, how it is functioning, what problems have developed with it. d) a proposal for its further administration, describing how the proposal will provide for the continuation of the functions and control hitherto provided by U.S. government agencies like NSF and DARPA. Also, problems for the further administrations should be clearly identified and proposals made for how to begin an open process for examining the problems and solving them. e) a description of the problems and pressures that they see that can be a danger for the DNS administration. Also recommendations on how to protect the DNS administration from succumbing to those pressures. (For example from pressures that are political or commercial.) In the early days of Internet development in the U.S. there was an acceptable use policy (AUP) that protected the Internet and the scientific and technical community from the pressures from political and commercial entities. Also in the U.S., government funding of a sizeable number of people who were the computer science community also protected those people from commercial and political pressures. f) a way for the proposal to be distributed widely online, and the public not online should also have a way to have access to it. It should be made available to people around the world who are part of or interested in the future development of the Internet. Perhaps help with such distribution can come from international organizations like the ITU, from the Internet Society, the IETF, etc. g) comment on what has been learned from the process of doing collaborative work to create the proposal. It should identify as much as possible the problems that developed in their collaborative efforts. Identifying the problems will help clarify what work has to be done to solve them. h) It will be necessary to agree to some way to keep this group of researchers free from commercial and political pressures government funding of the researchers is one possible way and maybe they can be working under an agreed upon Acceptable Use Policy for their work and funding. This proposal is an effort to figure out what is a real way to solve the problem that is the essential problem in the future administration of the Internet. If the principles and prototype can be found to solve this problem, they will help to solve other problems of Internet administration and functioning as well. -------- Notes: (1) See Michael Hauben, "Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the ARPANET and Computer Science", in Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, IEEE CS Press, 1997, p. 109. See also "Internet, nouvelle utopie humaniste?" by Bernard Lang, Pierre Weis and Veronique Viguie Donzeau-Gouge, Le Monde, September 26, 1997, as it describes how computer science is a new kind of science and not well understood by many. The authors write: "L'informatique est tout a la fois une science, une technologie et un ensemble d'outils. Dans sa pratique actuelle, l'introduction de l'informatique a l'ecole, et malheureusement souvent a l'universite, est critiquable parce qu'elle entretient la confusion entre ces trois composantes." (2) Ibid. -------------------- [To discuss the draft DNS proposal "The Internet an International Public Treasure" and other related issues such as the future of the Internet as a new medium of worldwide communication and how to alert others about the current U.S. government privatization plans, you can join the Netizens mailing list. To join the list, send e-mail to: netizens-request@columbia.edu in the body of the message write: subscribe The draft proposal "The Internet an International Public Treasure" is online in English and French at: http://www.columbia.edu/~ronda/other/ -------------------------------- Submitted to the NTIA of the U.S. Department of Commerce by Ronda Hauben, co-author of Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet published by the IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997, ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Testimony before the Subcommittee on Basic Research and Subcommittee on Technology of the Committee on Science on the subject of Internet Domain Names Rayburn House Office Building U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 by Ronda Hauben researcher, writer, co-author Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet October 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION I am pleased to be invited to submit testimony to the House Science Subcommittee on Basic Research and Subcommittee on Technology on the subject of whether the Domain Names System and related essential functions of the Internet should be transferred from U.S. government oversight into a private sector corporate entity. My name is Ronda Hauben. I am co-author of the book Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet published in May 1997 by the IEEE Computer Society Press. I am also an editor and writer for the Amateur Computerist newsletter which has covered the history and importance of the Internet since 1988. I have studied and taught computer programming and have participated online since 1988 and on Usenet since 1992. Also I submitted the proposal "The Internet an International Public Treasure" to Ira Magaziner and the U.S. Department of Commerce at the request of Mr. Magaziner based on the concerns I presented to him about the narrow phrasing of the question of the transfer of the Domain Name System to the private sector. I also responded to the Green Paper and submitted comments expressing concern that the general nature of the Internet and its history and traditions, and its nature as a communication medium were being lost sight of in the Framework for Electronic Commerce issued by Mr. Magaziner and his staff and in the Green Paper and subsequent White paper. And I attended the Geneva IFWP meeting in July 1998 and wrote up an account of what happened in an article "Report from the Front: Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server System".(1) The proposal that I wrote and submitted to Mr. Magaziner on September 4, 1998, is now one of the three proposals that has been posted at the U.S. Department of Commerce web site by the NTIA with a request for comments. As you can see from my proposal I have found your hearing process valuable and have referred to testimony given by one of the witnesses in this matter in the Preface to my proposal. I want to commend the committee for both holding these hearings and for putting the testimony received on the committee's web site. I want to make a further recommendation, however. I want to recommend that you explore having an online discussion group. There the public could comment on the issues before the Committee and on the testimony received or offer additional information or viewpoints into the public record so that you will have a broader set of information and viewpoints to influence your deliberations, especially when those deliberations concern the operation and future of the Internet. I hope that after you hear the rest of my comments you will understand better why this is so important. HISTORY OF INTERNET First, I would like to offer a bit of history of how the Internet came to be and I will endeavor to show how knowing this history will be helpful in determining how to evaluate the proposals before the NTIA. Then I will provide some recommendations toward the policy decision that this Committee and the NTIA are proposing to make. The Internet is a product of several significant and successful research projects that were conducted under funding from the Advance Projects Research Agency (APRA) in the 1960s and 1970s. One of the earliest of these projects is perhaps one of the most important in its relevance to the problem before this committee today. That project was the creation and support for interactive computing and time-sharing. In 1962-3, a computer scientist and engineering researcher, J.C.R. Licklider was invited to join ARPA and to begin the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO). At that time the common form of computing available was known as batch processing using large mainframe computers. Someone who wanted to run a program would bring a stack of punch cards to a computer center and return several hours later or the next day to retrieve the printout that the program generated to see if the program achieved the desired aim. Needless to say this was a cumbersome and frustrating means of using a computer. J.C.R. Licklider and the time-sharing projects that ARPA subsequently funded set out to change the form of computing and to make it possible for an individual to be able to type his or her own program into a computer and to achieve the results of the program immediately. This new type of computing that they created was called time-sharing. Relying on the speed of the computer, these computer pioneers were able to set up a series of different terminals for use by users who were all able to utilize the computer at the same time. As a result of time-sharing systems, multiple users were able to interact directly with a computer simultaneously. One of the projects funded by J.C.R. Licklider was called the Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS). It was part of the project funded at MIT by ARPA which was known as Project MAC. There were several important surprises that the pioneers of Project MAC reported from their research into time-sharing: 1) They didn't have to rely on professional programmers to do much of the needed programming for their time-sharing system. What they found was that the participants in the project would create programs and tools for their own use and then make them available to others using CTSS. 2) A community of users developed as a result of the ways that people contributed their work to be helpful to each other. 3) CTSS made it possible for users to customize the computing system to their own needs. Thus the general capabilities available provided a way for the individual user to create the diversity of computing applications or programs that this diverse community of users needed. As a result of this project, the researchers realized that once you could connect a remote terminal to a time-sharing system, you could develop a network with people spread out over large geographical distances. The networks that developed as a result of the research in time-sharing provided working prototypes and also a vision that would help to guide the next stage in the development of networking technology. The effort to improve the throughput of data across telephone lines led to ARPA-supported research in packet switching and the funding of the ARPANET research to use packet switching to link up the computers that were part of ARPA's research program.(2) The next piece of history that is important to consider is the period during which the early Internet was formed. In 1981/1982 a mailing list was begun on the ARPANET. This mailing list was called the TCP/IP Digest and the moderator was Mike Muuss, a research computer scientist at the U.S. Army Ballistics Research Laboratory (BRL). The BRL during this period was one of the ARPA sites making the transition from an early ARPANET protocol, NCP ,to TCP/IP, which was to be the protocol suite that would make an Internet possible. By 1983 the cutover from NCP to TCP/IP had occurred and this made possible a particularly relevant event for the matters under consideration by this committee. That event was the separation of MILNET and the ARPANET into two independent networks to create an Internet. This split would allow MILNET to be devoted to the operational activities of the Department of Defense(DOD). And those on the ARPANET would be able to continue to pursue network research activities. Gateways between the two networks would provide internetworking communication.(3) This gets us to a definition utilized in 1974 by Louis Pouzin, who had worked on CTSS at MIT and then returned to France to work on creating a packet switching network that was called Cyclades. Computer science researcher, Louis Pouzin, defined an Internet as a network of independent networks. (He called "an aggregate of networks [which would] behave like a single logical network" a CATENET. ARPA adopted his concept as the goal of the research project it was supporting).(4) Each network could determine for itself what it would do internally, but each recognized the need to accept a minimum agreement so that it would be possible to connect with others who were part of the diverse networks that made up the Internet. RECOMMENDATIONS I have taken the time to review these two important developments in internetworking history because these two developments are at the foundation of the design of the current Internet as we know it today. These two developments highlight what is so special and particular about the Internet. The Internet that has grown up and developed is a continuation of the time-sharing interactive communities of users and computers where users contribute to and are in effect the architects of the network that they are part of. Also this understanding leads to another significant aspect. That is that this system of human-computer networking partnerships has a regenerative quality. New connections and programs, and data bases or mailing lists are contributed by the users themselves. And thus the Internet grows and spreads and connects an increasingly larger number of computers and users around the world. The second important aspect is that the Internet architecture and design accommodates different needs and capabilities of a diverse set of users and user communities. For example, someone in Ghana with an Intel 386 or 486 based computer and a modem can be connected to and send e-mail to someone in a research laboratory in Switzerland which has the most modern computer workstations. That is because the architecture of the Internet requires the least possible equipment and capability to be able to make Internet communication possible. Thus people and computers around the world who are using an extremely diverse set of equipment and computing capability are able to interact and communicate. I have taken the time to describe these general features of the Internet for a few reasons. The first reason is that this is what is so precious about the Internet and this is what I believe needs to be understood and protected when considering any change that may be contemplated in how the Internet is controlled, managed or operated. Any change in the minimal requirement that makes communication possible across the independent networks that make up the Internet can obsolete thousands of computers and many more users around the world and thereby jeopardize the connectivity and global communication that the Internet has achieved. Any change in the ability of users to represent themselves and to utilize the Internet for their diverse purposes and to contribute to what is available to others on the Internet, (as long as this does not put demands on others on the Internet), any such change can deprive millions of users of the Internet of the general form that makes it possible for the Internet to serve the communication needs of so many diverse communities of users. This diversity includes the computer scientists at MIT or the high school student in Sydney, Australia. If there are particular needs of any one group, such as the security needs of DOD, or the ability to write with Japanese characters of users in Tokyo, the architectural design provides that within an individual network or several networks such needs can be accommodated, without imposing such requirements on the users of other networks. These two principles are important to study and understand because they represent what is being violated by the Framework for Electronic Commerce prepared by Ira Magaziner and his staff. This framework does not treat the Internet as a network of independent networks, but instead as a single network that must be changed to meet the needs of a particular set of users. Thus instead of recommending that an independent commercial network or a few commercial networks be created as part of the Internet to meet the special needs of commercial Internet users, Ira Magaziner's framework document requires that the entire Internet be changed to meet the particular needs of a particular set of users. This is a violation of the concept of an Internet. My recommendation is that the Framework that Mr. Magaziner has created needs to be recast to be a Framework for the Internet as a New Means of International Communication. Within that framework Mr. Magaziner can describe the particular needs of particular communities of users, but these particular needs cannot be allowed to replace the generality of the Internet design so that other users of other independent networks are being imposed on to satisfy the needs of any particular group of users. The second important precaution is that users must be protected to continue to represent themselves and their needs. This is what provides for the diversity of what is available on the Internet and is the continuation of the culture and regenerative quality of the early time-sharing communities. This is what makes it possible for a user in Benin, for example, to spread the Internet to other users there, and for a student in Finland to start the Linux project that has been developed by thousands of others into an operating system that gives Microsoft competition. Those who might want a different type of network, as I have heard some large corporate entities in the United States explain, as they want to be able to more carefully choose who will do what functions for them, can do so in their corporate network as part of the larger Internet, but they must not be allowed to impose their special demands on the larger Internet community. The reason for this is that then users in MILNET, for example, will be required to do things in their network that do not serve their needs, and the concept of an Internet will be violated, leading not to the further growth and extension of the Internet, but back to a single network, to one that serves only a few commercial entities at the great loss to the many other users on the Internet. The other precaution that follows from understanding these essential characteristics of the Internet is that commercial entities want to carry on certain experiments in how to subject various aspects of the Internet to so called "competition". They must not be allowed to do this in a way that affects the whole Internet, but must be restricted to the particular network that they develop for their commercial purposes. Thus the commercial corporation that is being planned by the U.S. government to sell off parts of the Internet's essential functions must not be allowed to control anything but its own commercenet. Those who are interested in such experimentation should be advised that they will have to form their own network which can be connected to the Internet, but that such experiments can only go on inside their own network, and cannot be imposed on the rest of the users of the Internet. To do otherwise is to jeopardize the fact that only a minimal requirement is necessary for all to connect to the Internet and this is only that which makes the communication across the many independent networks that make up the Internet possible. To do otherwise will mean the obsoleting of many machines and cutting their users off from communication with the rest of those on the Internet. Thus the corporation that IANA and NSI have designed, or that the Boston Group has proposed must not be allowed to take over the essential functions of the entire Internet. Instead such corporate activity needs to be restricted to an independent commercial network that can be part of the Internet but cannot be allowed to impose its special requirements on the others who use the Internet. This might mean that the .com machines will become part of a .com network, and would be able to communicate with others on the Internet, but not impose their "for sale" and speculative practices on the users in the educational or scientific communities who make up much of the Internet. Before there are any plans to change the form or structure or management of the Internet, it is crucial that there be an assessment of the special characteristics and functionality that must be preserved and a plan created for how to be certain that this is done. Since both the IANA/NSI proposal and the Boston Group proposal are for structures that should be limited to a commercial network, and not imposed on the Internet itself, how then can the essential functions of the Internet be administered in a way that represents the cooperative and international nature of the Internet itself? My proposal provides for a prototype cooperative research program involving researchers in any country or region that agree to participate. These researchers who will be part of this program are to be responsible for carrying out the investigation and inquiry among online users to determine the general characteristics and functions so that they can propose a plan to safeguard these crucial characteristics and functions. There is one final lesson from the history and development of the Internet that it is important to consider when trying to determine how to form a more international system for protecting and administering the essential functions of the Internet represented by the Domain Name System, IP numbers etc. Usenet was begun in the 1979-80 period by graduate students who were part of the Unix community. The invitation to join Usenet which was handed out at the January 1980 USENIX conference explained why it was crucial to develop an online network, not to form committees. They describe why it was crucial for those who were interested in developing Usenet to actually use the network, so that they "will know what the real problems are." It is with this goal in mind that I created the design in my proposal for a prototype where researchers from a diverse set of nations or regions will utilize the Internet to figure out how to create the necessary cooperative, protective forms and processes to administer and support the essential functions of the Internet. Just as adhering to the principle of relying on "using Usenet" made it possible to grow Usenet, so the principle of "using the Internet" will make it possible to scale the Internet and create a means for a shared international oversight of the essential functions and to solve the problems that arise along the way. The Internet is the symbol and manifestation of hope for people around the world. As more and more people communicate on a worldwide basis, the foundation is increasingly set to find peaceful and productive ways to solve the many serious problems that exist in the world today. This vision has its enemies. But the U.S. government has the proud distinction of being the midwife of the achievement of achievements of the 20th Century represented by the development of the Internet. If there are those in the U.S. government who recognize the importance and respect that comes from giving birth to the communications system that has spread around the world with such amazing tenacity and determination, they must find the means to treat the decisions and changes needed to further develop the Internet with the proper care and concern. --------- Notes: (1) http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ifwp_july25.txt (2) See chapter 6 "Cybernetics, Time-Sharing, Human-Computer Symbiosis and Online Communities" in Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, IEEE Computer Science Press, 1997. A draft is available at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook (3) Describing this transition, Vint Cerf wrote: "The basic objective of this project is to establish a model and a set of rules which will allow data networks of varying internal operation to be interconnected, permitting users to access remote resources and to permit inter-computer communication across the connected networks." (4) Robert Kahn at about the same time introduced the "open architecture" principle. For Pouzin's work see e.g., Louis Pouzin, "A Proposal for interconnecting packet switching networks," EUROCOMP Conference, Brunel Univ, May 1974, p. 1023. (The article was reprinted in "The Auerbach Annual 1975 Best Computer Papers", Isaac Auerbach Ed, pp. 105-117.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Letter To Representative Tom Bliley Representative Tom Bliley Chairman The House Committee on Commerce The U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. commerce@mail.house.gov Dear Chairman Bliley, It was good to see your letters of October 15, 1998 to Ira Magaziner, Senior Advisor to the President for Policy Development and William M. Daley, Secretary of Commerce, asking for information regarding the proposed transfer of vital public resources necessary for the functioning of the Internet from the oversight and control of the U.S. government to a newly to-be-created private entity. It is important that there be a serious examination and investigation of this plan by the government. As I will explain in more detail below, these public resources that the U.S. government is offering to give to a private entity will put great wealth and power in the hands of that private entity and will seriously jeopardize the public character and cooperative nature of the Internet. It is this public character and cooperative nature that are essential for the continued functioning of the Internet, as I explained in my testimony to Congress, submitted to the Committee on Science, subcommittees on basic research and technology for their hearing held on October 7, 1998. The testimony is a part of the public record and is also available at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/testimony_107.txt There are some concerns I feel it is important to indicate to you and I would appreciate an opportunity to talk with you further about them. In February 1997, a report was issued by the National Science Foundation Office of the Inspector General. (See "Office of Inspector General Report: The Administration of Internet Addresses," 7 February 1997) This report contained a number of interesting observations and recommendations that it presented to the National Science Foundation to examine with regard to the important question of the future oversight, control and management (i.e. policy determinations) of the domain name system and the IP numbers, root server system etc. Instead of the NSF examining the report and the recommendations made, the agency went ahead with actions to privatize the DNS and related systems, transferring the oversight over key functions of the Internet to the U.S. Department of Commerce. And despite the fact that there have been congressional hearings conducted by the House Committee on Science, subcommittees on basic research and on technology and the House Commerce Committee into the privatizing of the DNS and related systems of the Internet, none of these hearings has mentioned the Office of Inspector General's Report or the recommendations and precautions discussed in the report. Also in its semi-annual report to Congress, the Office of Inspector General of the NSF made further comments and recommendations. And it said it was referring the problems it had identified of concentration of power that such privatization would represent to the U.S. Department of Justice for examination. (See "Semiannual Report to Congress, Number 16, October 1, 1996 through March 31, 1997, pg. 10-14.) The Report explains: "NSF responded to our report by stating that 'long term issues raised by [our] recommendations may indeed require additional government oversight.' Nonetheless, NSF decided it would not be appropriate for NSF to continue its oversight of Internet address registration, and it referred our report for consideration by an informal interagency task force chaired by OMB. NSF explained that '[i]n the meantime, next-step solutions are being implemented,' citing the proposals discussed above that would create new, top-level domain name and number address registries. We believe these proposals could result in a concentration of market power and possible anti- competitive behavior. As a result, we are referring these matters to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice for analysis and suggested disposition." (p. 15) I wondered why there hasn't been any apparent consideration by the Executive Branch or the U.S. Congress of the NSF "Inspector General's Report on the Administration of Internet Addresses" which was issued in February, 1997. Though the report doesn't solve the problem, it does make a significant contribution toward understanding the problem. It identifies the fact that continued research to meet the needs of the Internet is a responsibility for government. And it describes that there is a public obligation of the U.S. government with regard to ensuring the protection of the public interest in the public resource and public treasure that is the Internet. The report says this in different ways at different places throughout but at the end it says: "The current federal oversight of name and number Internet addresses is the natural consequence of federal financial support of Internet development. Continued federal oversight of this unique public resource is required by the nation's increasing dependence on the Internet, which is being fostered by additional federal investments in this technology. NSF's history of involvement with the Internet, its technical expertise, and its continuing investments in related research programs uniquely qualify it to perform that oversight role. NSF's oversight would ensure the protection of the public interest in the resource, the availability of funds to support future network- related basic research, service, and development, fairness to the Internet community, and fairness to the taxpayers." (from page 16 of "Office of Inspector General Report: The Administration of Internet Addresses," 7 Feb. 1997) The Report also identifies the significant amount of money that the $50 a year maintenance fee in domain names has given to the U.S. government contractor Network Solutions, Inc. The Report suggests using part of the fee to support continued needed networking research. (I feel there would have to be serious questions raised about whether this is appropriate, but it is important to examine this recommendation.) In any case this suggestion clarifies that those who administer the Internet also have an obligation to support the kind of research needed to help the Internet to scale. Also the Report identifies the potential of charging for IP numbers and the great amount of revenue that this could potentially yield. (This raises for me the question of the enormous power that will be put in the hands of any private entity that is given control over the allocation of IP numbers and domain names.) The Report also notes that policy issues which are issues of control need to be kept in government hands, not given over to private hands. The OIG report discusses that though it might be possible to move administrative functions out of government hands, it must be clear these are not policy functions. The proposed privatization of the DNS and other essential Internet functions are moving policy functions out of the control of government and putting them into unaccountable hands. The whole result of this is a very dangerous one both for the public around the world and for the Internet. The reason is that the private entity has no public obligation or the tools or functions to enable it to sift through the opposing interests with regard to policy. The private entity (and I have seen this in all the efforts I have made to be part of the International Forum on the White Paper activity) has no concern for the public interest. The issue is never raised and can't be. There is a reason government has been created and that governments exist around the world. There is a broad interest that is more long range than what an individual corporation is able to consider or act in favor of. After reading the Inspector General's Report, I thought for a few minutes about the fact that over two billion IP numbers have already been allocated and that there are over two billion more. I thought about the tremendous power and wealth that this could represent as well as the harm that would come to the Internet if this power and control falls into the wrong hands. If the new private entity decides to charge just $50 a year for each IP number, then that gives it a yearly income of 100 billion dollars. If it makes a decision on who can buy IP numbers and who can't, then this limits access to the Internet to those whom this private entity deems should have access. Thinking about this potential being put into the hands of a private entity with no expertise to deal with it and more importantly, no social obligation toward either the Internet or the public, left me recognizing in a new way how the development and spread of the Internet is due to the fact that the policies involving its development had a public purpose and responsibility, and were under government protection. To transfer this great potential public treasure into private hands who consider it a "gold mine" represents a very very great disregard of the public trust and public obligation. I have heard that there are those willing to pay to get these resources and that they are upset that they are being given away free. Those willing to pay didn't recognize this, but they did recognize that this is a case of the U.S. government giving away something that has very very great value (either private value if it falls into private hands) or social value if it is kept in public hands. So this is the issue that hasn't been discussed and yet this is a very significant public question. When I was asked to submit questions to Congress by the staffer with the House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Basic Research, one of the questions I submitted was "By what authority is the U.S. government giving away the cooperative development that is represented by the Internet." I have read RFC's like RFC 1917 which says the Internet "is the largest public data network in the world." And later on it defines the global Internet as "the mesh of interconnected public networks (autonomous systems) which has its origins in the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) backbone, other national networks, and commercial enterprises." So it defines the Internet as "public" *not* private. And yet the U.S. government is claiming it is considering giving to a private entity the essential functions that are at the heart of this global public internetwork of networks. The attempt to transfer vital public resources out of the protection of the public sector into an entity that allows their fundamental nature and purpose to be changed, presents a fundamental problem and challenge for those who understand the importance and advance for society represented by the worldwide Internet. Even the U.S. Federal District Court, in a case affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, recognized the unique and important treasure that the Internet represents for people around the world and directed the U.S. government to protect the autonomy that the Internet makes possible for ordinary people as well as media magnates.(ACLU vs. Reno) The privatizing of these essential functions makes such protection impossible. When I was at the hearing held by the House Committee on Science, subcommittees on basic research and technology on October 7, 1998, the head of the steering committee of the International Forum on the White Paper spoke to the subcommittee about her vision of having private corporate entities take over the power and control that government has had. This helped me to understand that the question of governance is being substituted for the question of what is the proper role of government in the administration of important and strategic public resources like the Internet. The OIG Report mentions two ways to protect the public interest with regard to public resources. The first is to keep them under public ownership and control. The second is to follow "procedures for facilitating public participation and open decision making." They recommend that with regard to this responsibility the "NSF should disseminate the draft policies and requests for comments broadly, on the Internet as well as via traditional means, and NSF should accept comments via the Internet." (p. 12) They also mention that when the NSFNET was privatized the NSF went through a public process. Unfortunately, they don't recognize how this public process broke down at that time. (See chapters 11, 12 and 14 of Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ ) Once again the public processes are not functioning, as demonstrated by my report of the IFWP phony consensus process. See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ifwp_july25.txt I welcome any thoughts on all this. I recognize that these issues are not easy for those in government, but the momentous importance of them requires the most skillful and considered measures. Several years ago I met one of the pioneers of time-sharing, Fernando Corbato. I asked him about his early experiences at MIT and Project MAC. He recommended that I read the book "Management and the Future of the Computer" edited by Martin Greenberger. [Later reissued as "Computers and the World of the Future] The book was about the 1961 conference at MIT on what should be the future of the computer. Many of the pioneers who had created the computer or were working on forefront computer research had gathered to celebrate the centennial of MIT. They invited C.P. Snow from England to speak. (He had recently spoken at Harvard). His topic was "Scientists and Decision Making". And he spoke about how strategic decisions, especially those concerning computer technology, would be made by government officials. His talk explained why it was crucial that those officials had the needed advice from people who understood the technology and the consequences to society of their decisions. Also he spoke about the need to involve the broadest possible number of people in these decisions. C.P. Snow gave the example of when strategic decisions involving too few people were made in England and how the decisions led to harmful social results. (He cited the decision to do the strategic bombing of German civilian populations and he told how that decision prolonged the war, rather than shortening it as intended.) And he spoke about how decisions involving a large number of people had more of a chance of being socially beneficial decisions. The plan of the U.S. government to privatize essential functions of the Internet is the kind of decision that C.P. Snow was warning against. It is good to see that you, as the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee have now begun an investigation into some aspects of the U.S. government plan to privatize these key and invaluable public resources. It is important that such an investigation examine the concerns of the Report of the Office of Inspector General of the NSF on the planned privatization and conduct a much broader investigation into the public and social consequences and dangers giving any private entity the power and wealth that such key functions of the Internet provide. In the spirit of citizenship and Netizenship, Ronda Hauben ronda@panix.com P.S. The proposal I have presented to the NTIA is also available at the U.S. Dept. of Commerce NTIA web site and you should be aware that that is *not* a proposal to privatize these key functions, but to create a prototype collaborative network to examine and solve the problems of scaling and continuing the successful operation of the Internet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- E-mail Message from Becky Burr to Ronda Hauben [Editor's Note: In response to the proposal that Ronda Hauben submitted to Ira Magaziner at his request and to the U.S. Department of Commerce, there was a phone call from Becky Burr. Her only real question about the proposal that had been submitted by Ronda Hauben was what could be inserted into the IANA proposal to take into account some of the concerns raised by Hauben's proposal. When Hauben answered that government had to stay involved and thus she couldn't propose inserting something into a proposal that excluded government involvement, the issue was not discussed any further. Following is the subsequent brief e-mail reply that Ronda Hauben received from Becky Burr as the only real statement of their consideration of her proposal.] Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 18:29:09 -0400 From: Becky Burr To: ronda@panix.com Cc: krose@ntia.doc.gov Subject: DNS management Dear Ms. Hauben: Thank you for making your submission in response to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Statement of Policy entitled Management of Internet Names and Addresses. The public comments received by the Department of Commerce, in response to your submission and others, generally support moving forward with the structure outlined by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The public submissions and comments received, however, also indicate that significant concerns remain about the substantive and operational aspects of the ICANN. In this light, we have indicated to ICANN the need to resolve a number of specific concerns including accountability (financial and representational), conflicts of interest, transparent decision-making, and country-code top level domains (ccTLDs). We are hopeful that a satisfactory resolution of these issues, leading to the creation of a broader consensus, can be achieved in the near term, in order that we may move forward with the transition process outlined in the White Paper. Although you do not agree with the privatization plan, we understand and share your concerns about preserving the Internet's potential to further scientific and research activities. We appreciate your thoughtful and constructive participation in this process. Sincerely, J. Beckwith Burr Associate Administrator (Acting) ----------------------------------------------------------------------