### From: Ronda Hauben To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns) Date: 3/23/98 5:09pm Subject: Submitted comments for Proposed DNS Change Rule Following is a comment I am submitting: The Internet as a Communication Medium and how that is not reflected in the proposal to restructure the DNS It is interesting to look at the proposal called "Framework for Global Electronic Commerce" (hereafter referred to as "Framework") that the U.S. government has created to look at at the future of the Internet. This paper, we are told, is supposed to be the foundation for the DNS (Domain Same System) rule change proposal, titled "The Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Address: Proposed Rule"(1) The document "Framework" fails to mention or consider that the Internet is an important new *communication* media. Instead the word *commerce* is substituted for the word *communication* and the document sets out a framework for making the Internet into an important new means of commerce to replace the Internet as an important new means of *communication*. In two sentences at the beginning of this document, it says that "the Internet empowers citizens and democratizes societies" and then it goes on and spends the next 24 pages describing changes that have to come about to make the Internet into an electronic marketplace for business. Nowheres in the "Framework" does the U.S. government discuss the fact that Netizens are those who come on line to contribute to the growth and the development of the Net. Instead the document portrays the Internet as "being driven ... by the private sector." If the "Framework" document has *no* understanding of the ways that the Internet and Usenet contribute to and make possible new forms of *communication* between people, then there is no way that the proposed rule change for a new structure to replace the DNS (domain name system) that assigns address and maintains the lookup tables can help to facilitate the *communication* that is so important as the essence of the Internet. Instead of examining how this *communication* has been developed and why it is so important, the U.S. government is rushing to replace the current system (which was also developed without adequate analysis of the importance of the communication aspects of the Internet) with a "privatized" new form. In this "privatized" new form, the document proposes creating a "membership association" that will represent Internet users. So Internet users are not to represent themselves, but the U.S. government is proposing to create a rubber stamp organization to promote its attempt to change the Internet from a media for human-to-human communication into something that only conceives of users as "customers" of unregulated advertisers and other forms of unregulated commerce. This is hostile to the whole nature and development of the Internet. The proposed rule claims that the "marketplace, not governments should determine technical standards." This is contrary to the lessons of the standards processes that made it possible to develop the Internet. Tcp/ip was developed after a lot of exploration and experience by government funded academic researchers who had developed NCP. Tcp/ip was also developed as the result of funding by the U.S. government and under government auspices. The proposed rule to create a new structure for the DNS however, seems to deny that government support for a standards process so it won't be dominated by the most powerful corporations, is some of how helpful standards have been developed. Instead the U.S.government. in this document is trying to recast the standards development process to mirror the unhealthy situation that develops when the supposed "marketplace" is allowed to set standards. The DNS rule proposes creating a supposed "not for profit" corporation to take over the domain name system functions currently being administered by IANA (the root system and the appropriate databases). This new corporation is to have a board of directors which will be made up of 5 members who are commercial users. There are proposed two directors from "a membership association of regional number registries", two members designated by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and two members from an association to be created representing domain name registeries and registrars, and 7 members from the membership organization it is proposing creating. (Of which the rule proposal says at least one of those board seats could be designated for an individual or entity engaged in non-commercial, not-for-profit use of the Internet, and one for individual end users. The remaining (5) seats could be filled by commercial users, including trademark holders. Thus this proposed rule is based on a to-be-created associations that will not be based on the Internet, but created to provide for commercial control of the domain naming system. The proposal is an effort to change the nature and character of the Internet from a means of communication to a means of "commerce." It is almost like claiming that the advertisers in a newspaper should have an organization that will assure their control of the newspaper, and ignoring the fact that the newspaper exists to present the news, editorials, etc. The Internet has been developed and continues to be for most of its users, a place where one can communicate with others, whether by email, posting to Usenet newsgroups, putting up a www site, etc. As such it is the nature of this communication that has to be *understood* and *protected* in any proposals to change key aspects of how the Internet is administered. Also the Internet makes possible communication with people around the world. Creating an association with a board of directors where commercial businesses are the main controlling interests is hostile to facilitating this communication. It is putting power into the hands of commercial entities rather than protecting the users who contribute to and are so important a part of the communication that goes on on the Internet. While this proposed rule to restructure the DNS has been made available online, it gives no indication of where it came from, and why it fails to be based on the most essential aspects of the Internet. Why didn't the advisor/s making up such a proposal ask for discussion on line and participate in online discussion so as to be able to create a proposal that will reflect the needs and interests of those who are online rather than a narrow group of commercial interests. The Judges in the U.S. Federal District Court in Philadelphia hearing the CDA case (the Communications Decency Act) and the Supreme Court Judges affirming the Federal District Court decision recognized that the Internet is an important new means of mass communication. The Judges in the Federal District Court case wrote: "The Internet is...a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide communication." U.S. Federal District Court Judge Dalzell, in his opinion, wrote explaining how "The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails....We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates....There is also a compelling need for public education about the benefits and dangers of this new medium and Government can fill that role as well." However, there is no indication in either the longer "Framework" proposal, or the specific proposal to restructure the DNS, that the U.S. government is interested in or has considered the benefits of the Internet for the public of the U.S. or elsewhere around the world. Instead the proposed rule to restructure the DNS is only putting forward the wishes of certain commercial entities who want to grab hold of the Internet for their own narrow purposes. By restructuring the domain naming system in a way that can put it up for control by a few commercial interests, the U.S. government proposal is failing to protect the autonomy that the medium confers to ordinary people, as the court decision in the CDA case directed U.S. government officials to do. The ARPANET and Internet (up till 1995) developed because of an Acceptible Use Policy encouraging and supporting communication and limiting and restricting what commercial interests were allowed to do. As such it developed as an important means of people being able to utilize the regenerative power of communication to create something very new and important for our times. Pioneers with a vision of the future of the Internet called for it to be made available to all as a powerful education medium, not for it to be turned into something that would mimic the worst features of a so called "democratic nation" which reduces the rights and abilities of its citizens to those of so called "customers" of unregulated and unaccountable commercial entities. The Internet and the Netizens who populate the Internet have created something much more important than the so called commercial online "marketplace" that the Framework and proposed DNS rule are trying to create. Netizens have created an online international marketplace of ideas and discussion which is needed to solve the complex problems of our times. The process of "privatizing" what is a public trust will only result in more problems and fights among the commercial entities that are vying for their own self interest, rather than having any regard for the important communications that the Internet makes possible. Both the government processes and purposes in proposing the DNS restructuring do not ground themselves on the important and unique nature of the Internet. Proposals and practices to serve the future of the Internet and the Netizens who contribute to that future, can only be crafted through a much more democratic process than that which led to the current proposal. There is a need to examine the processes that have actually given birth to and helped the Net to grow and flourish, and to build on those processes in creating the ways to solve the problems of the further development of the Net. Sadly the proposed rule has ignored that process, and thus we are left with a proposal that doesn't reflect the democratic and communicative nature of the Internet and so can only do harm to its further development and cause ever more problems. Ronda Hauben ronda@panix.com Comments and Discussion especially online needed! The book "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" documents some of the important technical and social processes and achievements that the hard work of many Netizens has resulted in. A draft of the book is available online at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ And it is available in a print edition ISBN # 0-8186-7706-6 Also the paper "ARPANET Mailing Lists and Usenet Newsgroups: Creating an Open and Scientific Process for Technology Development and Diffusion" documents how utilizing mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups leads to a more participatory process to solve the problems of how to develop new forms for the future of the Internet to strengthen its communication potential. The paper is online at http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/msg.hist (1)This is a response to the Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Address: Proposed Rule by the U.S. government to fundamental change to change the way that Internet domain (site) names are given out, and administered and thus to affect in an important way the future of the Internet. The proposal I am responding to is at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm ###