Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Anti-monopoly Fervor Distorts Interagency DNS Working
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:51:31 -0500
It is time for an editorial comment. This note is being sent to com-priv in the next hour, so it will be very public. I am sure I will be blasted by several people who will say I am giving a stage for Gordon to perform and should not do so. I feel very strongly that well reasoned and researched notes bear exposure to this list which I consider not a public list. It is the only way to see the spectrum of opinions and events that are molding the information age. Whether you agree with Gordon is your prerogative.=20 I will , as I have always said, distribute well written responses to any IP note.=20 I also insist on repeating that I do not necessarily agree, endorse or support things I distribute to the IP list. All I do is try in my humble way to keep you informed so you can decide yourselves. Dave ps PERSONAL opinion added. I see nothing sinister in Crockers note, just Dave's sometime use of emotionally loaded words. Again you call it as you see fit. Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:26:59 -0500 (EST) From: Gordon Cook <cook () netaxs com> To: farber () cis upenn edu Lack of response to a FOIA request outlined below, Dave Crocker's continued blustering, and a continuing stream of complaints from inside the beltway sources, has convinced us to go public with material that we have not talked about before. We have become convinced that those who are leading the Interagency Working Group on Domain Names (IWG) have, above everything else, become determined to kill the NSI "monopoly." This desire to rid the Internet of the "monopoly" has predisposed the Working Group to an outcome that would have the US Government endorse the ISOC/IPOC/CORE "process." After all, this is the only "other" game in town. Thus, having reached this decision, they are using every means at their disposal to assist ISOC/IPOC/CORE in their efforts.=A0 We are also convinced that such means include clothing ISOC/IPOC/CORE in some new attire that will allow them to announce that they have achieved the "significant changes to the proposal and process" that Larry Irving promised Congress would happen before any such ISOC/IPOC/CORE endorsement. What follows is an account of recent events showing the speed and stealth with which the players have been moving.=A0 We made the FOIA request outlined below five weeks ago and, not wanting to act precipitously, have kept quiet about the matters it discusses since then.=A0 However, the continued hints from the IWG that it will announce its new policy - any day now - have convinced us that it is time to go public with everything that we have been able to ascertain. An Unusual Response from OSTP to a FOIA=20 Having, in early October, received credible allegations that Brian Kahin and others, on behalf of the Interagency Working Group, had been meeting privately with people from IBM, AT&T and Oracle to discuss how these players could put together database software to meet the needs of a shared registry for IPOC/CORE, we submitted the following Freedom of Information Act request to OSTP on October 7th. Ms. Barbara Ferguson, =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 FOIA Officer, OSTP Executive Office of the President Washington DC 20500 Dear Ms. Ferguson: This is a Freedom of Information Act Request for communications between Mr. Brian Kahin, Ms. Becky Burr of NTIA,=A0 Dr. Mike Nelson (former OSTP analyst and currently at FCC) and any other relevant government official. The communications that I seek are all material that discusses in any way meetings with AT&T, IBM, Oracle on any or all of the following: the domain name problem or potential resolutions thereof in general and/or any discussions of the development of a distributed domain name database system in particular.=A0 Further covered are all discussions between Commerce, NTIA, White House and any other agency about the position these people should take on the creation of the IAHC shared database.=A0=A0= Covered in addition are all meeting notes and any correspondence between Kahin, Becky Burr, Mike Nelson and the Department of Commerce, NTIA, the White House and any other government agency regarding the role of ATT, IBM , and Oracle in any technical, political or economic solution of the DNS problem and/or any discussions of the development of a distributed domain name database system in particular.=A0 Further covered are all correspondence and communications, electronic or otherwise on these subjects between Kahin and anyone at IBM, AT&T or Oracle. I wish copies of all electronic mail, letters, memos or other documents. And please note that the term "documents" is intended to have the broadest possible meaning and encompass, without limitation, anything included within the definition of "writings" or "recordings" set forth in Rule 1001(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The dates covered by this FOIA request run from the date of Brian Kahin's arrival at OSTP to the present. ------ end of our FOIA letter------- On October 27th Ms. Ferguson sent us the following reply which we received on November 1. RE:=A0 OSTP FOIA No. 98-02 Dear Mr. Cook: This is in response to your request, received in this office on October 14, 1997 under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. S 552.=A0 Your October 7, 1997 request to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) sought material that discusses in any way meetings with AT&T, IBM, Oracle on any or all of the following:=A0 the domain name problem or potential resolutions there of in general and/or discussions of the development of a distributed domain name database system in particular, etc. Because of unusual circumstances, and extension of up to 10 working days will be needed to process your request. This additional time is required due to the substantial interest in the determination of your request. The authority for this extension can be found in section 552 (a) (6) (B) (iii) of Title 5 of the United States Code. ------ end of Barbara ferguson's response----- What Are We Bothered About?=20 When as of Friday November 14 we had heard nothing more from Ms. Ferguson, we called.=A0 During the past two weeks we have privately discussed her October 27 statement that "this additional time is required due to the **substantial interest** in the determination of your request" with a number of people.=A0 They told us that this language seemed highly unusual. They added that the response meant that material relevant to our request did exist because, if it did not, we would have been told so and that would be the end of the matter. She told us today that the reason for the words "substantial interest" was that our request involved a former employee (Mike Nelson) of OSTP who was at another agency (FCC) and that they were coordinating with that agency to make sure they had all relevant material from there before responding to us.=A0 We said that was fine but that we wanted to know why they hadn't gotten together material from Brian Kahin that was responsive and sent THAT to us.=A0 She said she'd find out and get back to me. She did so and, having talked with Brian Kahin, the story changed once again.=A0=A0 Brian had told her that the request was so broad and= encompassed so many documents that they had not managed to put them all together yet. No further words about Mike Nelson. Perhaps we'd like to narrow our request?=A0 We declined and asked them to start sending what they had. Stepping back to view the entire matter in a broader context, we are bothered that reports reaching us indicate that Kahin and Burr - the FCC position with Maxwell and Nelson is not as clear - have thrown in their lots and with them the interests of the United States government with IPOC/ISOC/CORE.=A0 They are running an evaluation process that is supposed to be OPEN and well-informed=A0 and ensure that all sides are heard from. Instead it seems that they are allowing interests of some large corporations to overwhelm the impact of public comment solicited from the Notice of Inquiry process.=20 They have had 5 weeks to deal with a FOIA.=A0 If our concerns were erroneous, they could have demonstrated that by now. Their response, up to the time of our calls this morning was merely to inform us that they need more time "due to the substantial interest in the determination of this request."=A0 They chose to leave it at that and have produced zero material.= =20 Meanwhile our sources tell us that they continue to operate in a highly biased way.=A0 We are told also that in late October when Oracle got (through Emergent) the design work on the CORE database, it dropped out of the private discussions with Kahin and OSTP.=A0 However we have been advised by highly reliable sources that these discussions have continued now with IBM, AT&T and DEC behind closed doors. And that they now have a focus on what these companies can do to help the US Gov't to ensure the stability of the root servers as well as continuing to look at the development of shared database software.=A0 Reports reaching us claim that they (Burr and Kahin) have largely ignored submissions to the NOI process because they are leading the Interagency Working Group (IWG) to their preordained outcome of putting DNS control into the hands of ISOC/IPOC/CORE. The Process Looks to us to Be Out of Control We believe that Ira Magaziner is an honorable and dedicated public servant Who is working long hours to be sure that precipitous federal action does not create a disaster.=A0 In his phone call to us yesterday, he gave us assurance that policy on DNS and Internet governance is **not** settled and that information from all sources is still being collected and evaluated.=A0 He seems to realize that he does not yet understand the enormous complexities of this situation well enough to set policy.=A0=20 We only wish that those working for him in the IWG review had the same understanding.=A0 Unfortunately it seems that they have made up their minds and have policy ready to announce.=A0 One trade journal announced earlier that a IWG decision was expected today.=A0=A0 Another is about to announce that IWG says it expects to come out with its findings next week.=A0 We aaw word from a third this afternoon that an announcment it expected had been canceled.=20 We would suggest that spokespeople for IWG should be giving their boss a complete and balanced account of his options rather than narrowing the information to support their own ends.=A0 The process we have operating is neither free nor sufficiently open and democratic.=A0 This is not the outcome that Ira Magaziner desires.=A0 He wants openness and he quite clearly told us yesterday on record that it would be several weeks and perhaps even several months before the administration sets its direction on these issues. Finally we include here material leaked to us yesterday:=A0=20 This message to the private CORE mail list, was leaked to third parties - one of which then sent it to us. We have the permission of that party to publish.=A0 Crocker will likely be outraged.=A0 But given the high Stakes= game he is playing, he should not be surprised. In this message Crocker lays bare the ISOC/IPOC/ITU strategy which, if the US government doesn't move effectively to counter it, can further muddy the international picture. He also betrays something of the financial desperation of the CORE position. -------[begin Dave Crocker comments] Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:46:19 -0800 From: Dave Crocker / IMC <dcrocker () imc org> Subject: core Implementation schedule and governmental support
From some second-hand conversations, there are two items which have not
yet been made clear to the US government crew (Magaziner, Kahin, et al): 1.=A0 The requirement for adding the seven new TLDs is imminent 2.=A0 Governments other than the United States have an interest in this topic and are not overly sanguine about the US claiming control. The US government folks have now been informed that the request for the new TLDs will occur approximately mid-December, so they have finally heard a date. I'm told that until yesterday they thought it was some months off. What they do NOT have is the basis for that date.=A0 I've suggested to a few folks that a highly detailed project schedule be developed and published. It should show all the near-term activity but it should also be worked out far enough to show the incorporation of .com/net/org, next fall.=A0 The purpose of this latter portion is to make sure that people can see the basis for the near-term pressure. Let me reiterate the suggestion:=A0 Please widely publish the project schedule that is being used, showing testing phases and all the rest of the gory detail which demonstrates that the folks doing the work really do understand how to implement a reliable service.=A0 Yes, this is a public relations action to educate the political and non-technical folks and I'm sure it will engender yet more silliness in the public discussion, but it will also show competent and serious skeptics that you know what you are doing. On the matter of interest from other governments, it appears that the folks at the US government continue to miss the point that the rest of the world and its governments think that the Internet is a global resource, rather than strictly being an entity belonging to the U.S.=A0 Other governments need to communicate their interests in this effort to open up control of Internet infrastructure.=A0 It would be very helpful for contingents from non-U.S. countries to band together and lobby their own governments to communicate to the U.S. folks. d/=20 --------------------=A0 [end of Crocker's post] COOK Report: Were the consequences not so potentially serious, the continued arrogance on Dave Crocker's part regarding the IPOC/ISOC dominion over root - as well as his views that folk, who don't see it CORE's way, are some how silly and not worth bothering with would be amusing.=A0=20 In view of his spin in the statement above, it seems to us that the US government SHOULD begin to enunciate some carefully crafted principles behind *its* actions. For example that it is our goal that all people who want to use the Internet may do so with the SEVEN new domain names crafted by ISOC/IPOC/ITU if they wish, but that we also intend to see to it that WIPO and Swiss law are *not* the ONLY authority available to people.=A0 That we shall strive not for global domination of the Internet by the United States but for LOCAL self-determination.=A0=A0 Such self determination means the ability of every citizen to register a domain name from a national authority or, from **any other private group,** that is ajudicable under the laws, either of the government where that citzen is domiciled and does business, or under the laws of some other government where the registry that the citizen choses to do business with is located. Therefore while ISOC/IPOC/CORE is free to market *Its* seven names, we shall not allow them to become the final point of arbitration for a single world wide DNS system.=A0 The US government, to the contrary, is not an arrogant Internet imperialist but is trying its damnedest to preserve the freedom of all users of the Internet worldwide from regulatory interference and the control of any single entity such as WIPO and the ITU. Ira Magaziner's work on electronic commerce has made this local self-determination a cornerstone of US policy.=A0 We believe that the IWG should not be permitted to subvert his accomplishments. The Spin Continues Meanwhile the position that comes to us today from inside one of the IWG agencies is:=A0=A0 Doesn't Cook understand that we have made it clear that= we will not support the IPOC proposal unless significant changes are made to the proposal and the process?=A0=20 Cook Report: Ahhh.=A0 No kidding.=A0 The operative phrase in this denial is ***significant changes***.=A0 We'd like to know what those might be? Who enunciates them?=A0 Who discusses them?=A0 In what kind of forum?=A0 Via= what process?=A0 The same one involving IBM, AT&T and now DEC? (Formerly Oracle?) We have this process triangulated several times over and its time that Kahin and Burr and Irving bring it out into the open because reports reaching us this afternoon indicate that it continues. While Jon Postel may ask NSI to include the IPOC/CORE domains in root, we are told that the current tack within the Kahin-Burr camp is that it will not ask the NSF to order NSI to comply with Postel's request.=A0 Could it be that it finally dawned on these people the implications that such action would have on the PGP Media lawsuit?=A0 What is also absolutely clear is that NSI has presented to the IWG a plan for a shared DNS registry system. NSI has tried to explain to the Working Group that such a plan cannot be implemented overnight because of very serious concerns about security, the testing and stability of the shared software, the soundness of the communications links uniting the shared registries, and the various flow charts of business processes that must be worked out.=A0=20 NSI has a responsibility to more than 1,000,000 registrants in the .com database that their addresses and their connectivity will not become screwed as a result of its actions.=A0 The optimistic time line for achieving this is 18 months.=A0 A range of experts tell us that these concerns are legitimate and reasonable.=A0=A0 But such is the gut level emotional dislike for NSI that permeates the Working Group that the working group's response so far has been to refuse to accept NSI's proposal.=A0 "Eighteen months is not adequate," it says.=A0 "It must be done much sooner! " Well, operationally sound infrastructure cannot possibly be installed any sooner and therefore someone needs to explain to Mr. Kahin and Ms. Burr that, without endangering the operational stability of the Internet, the US government cannot set policy for reasons that look to us to be rooted an unthinking acceptance of the anti "monopoly"=A0 point of view that has been a continual drumbeat on the internet for the past two years. *I wrote this today for use in my december 1997 newsletter, therefore the Editorial "we" ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 For= subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA=A0=A0=A0=A0 ten megabytes of free= material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 visit=A0= =A0 http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook () cookreport com=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 New= Special Report: Internet Governance at the Crossroads ($175)=A0 http://cookreport.com/inetgov.shtml ************************************************************************ ************************************************** "Photons have neither morals nor visas" -- Dave Farber 1994 **************************************************
Current thread:
- IP: Anti-monopoly Fervor Distorts Interagency DNS Working Dave Farber (Nov 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- IP: Anti-monopoly Fervor Distorts Interagency DNS Working Dave Farber (Nov 15)