About the Public Interest and the Future of the Essential
                Functions of the Internet
                          Ronda Hauben
                          ronda@panix.com


With regard to this problem I am surprised to have seen no apparent
consideration by the Executive or other branches of the U.S.
Government of the NSF Inspector General's Report on the Administration of
Internet Addresses. (Office of the Inspector General OIG for the National
Science Foundation 7 February, 1997)

Though the report doesn't solve the problem, and is far less thorough
in examining it than a similar report issued about the NSFNET by the
OIG in 1993, the current 1997 report does do something that makes
a significant contribution to 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 Government
with regard to ensuring the protection of the public interest
in the resource represented by 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
NSI.

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 (which I have to think about) clarifies
that those who administer the Internet also have an obligation to
support the kind of research needed to help the Internet to scale.

And the Report identifies the potential of charging for IP numbers
and the great amount of revenue that this could potentially
yield. (And 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 how it might be possible to move
administrative functions out of government hands, but that it
must be clear these are not policy functions.

The proposed privatization of the DNS and other essential
Internet functions would be 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 been 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 2 billion IP numbers
have already been allocated and that there are 2.3 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
as an annual maintenance fee 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.

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.

That person didn't recognize the public and social obligation
that is at stake in all this, but he 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 I spoke with, I submitted the question of 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 about the Internet
"It 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 network 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, is
something that represents a strategic problem for all sectors
of society in both the U.S. and around the world.

If U.S. government officials can at least understand the problem
that this represents, perhaps they can find a way to do something
to be helpful toward the public purpose that government makes it
possible to serve.

When I was at the Congressional hearing held October 8, 1998 before
the subcommittee on basic research and the subcommittee on technology,
the head of the IFWP steering committee spoke 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 (I have
to check how they word this).

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." (pg 12)

They also mention that when the NSFNET was privatized the
NSF went through a public process. But we have three
chapters of our book "Netizens" describing how that public
process broke down. (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/ )

But perhaps this problem now shows that the public processes
are not functioning, which is some of what my proposal
is geared toward working on both as research and as the
effort to create a working prototype to facilitate public
processes both via the Internet and via open processes
and procedures.

I welcome any thoughts on all this. I recognize that these
issues are not easy for those in government, but the momentous
importance they have to our society requires the most skillful
and considered measures.

When I met Fernando Corbato at MIT and asked him about
Project MAC, he told me to read the book "Management and
the Future of the Computer" edited by Martin Greenberger.

It 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. But that 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.

My proposal attempts to find a way to involve the online
community in the work of the prototype international
collaborative research group to be set up.

This prototype is an actual working cooperative group and also
is creating the collaboration that will make possible the
future international cooperative research group to administer
and support the DNS and other related functions and also
the further development of the Internet.

Ronda Hauben
ronda@panix.com

                  Netizens: On the History and Impact
                    of Usenet and the Internet
                http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
                also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6