IP: Hyperbole Fervor Distorts Serious Reporting and Discussion

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Same disclaimer as I gave on Cooks original posting this is reacting to . =
 djf






Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 01:23:46 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () brandenburg com>


Folks,


Hyperbole can be very exciting and even addicting, but it isn't news.=A0=A0=
=20


The considerable agitation in various postings of the last few days are
quite thrilling, but they aren't very nutritious. Facts are not based on
opinions or emotional outburts; they provide detail. For the notes I've
been criticizing, I've tried to quote specific phrases and in offer
specific responses, countering claims with facts.=20


What I notice most is that is being ignored, in favor of rhetoric,
hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. Why is that?


With respect to one supposedly significant posting, let's look at its
content...


At 09:45 PM 11/14/97 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:


1.=A0 >We made the FOIA request outlined below five


A request was made.=A0 We get more than a page telling us that the response
hasn't been received yet. Wow.




2.=A0 >The Process Looks to us to Be Out of Control


Under this snappy heading we again get no substantive information.
Opinions, and recitation of statements in other reports, but nothing new
and certainly nothing documenting the strong claim in the heading.




3.=A0 >Finally we include here material leaked to us yesterday:=A0=20


Leaked! Well, at last there is going to be something meaty. Right? Of
course not.=20


As noted by others, I don't send mail to a list with 90 people on it and
expect it to be kept a secret. Perhaps more significant is that my note
contained nothing I haven't been saying publicly and for months. This
includes presentations in Paris and Tokyo and communications with a number
of reports.=A0 For that matter, we developed the original project schedule=
 at
an open meeting after the Munich IETF, 4 months ago. Alas, Gordon isn't
calling me these days, so he thinks his second-hand information is news.


What is truly perplexing is that once we get past the excited language
describing my note we don't see any discussion of the content.=A0 My note
said that we are approaching a crisis moment and that there are some things
to do to try to avoid it, such as making sure that a project schedule is
publicly known and that other countries with an interest in this topic
should make themselves known to the US government. Forgive me but I'm
having a hard time understanding what is newsworthy, much less outrageous,
about this.=20




4. >continued arrogance on Dave Crocker's part regarding the IPOC/ISOC


Now about the continued ad hominem attacks: First, claiming that I am
blustering and arrogant is seriously NOT news. It is what literary types
sometimes refer to as "the given", part of the terrain or, at least, my
terrain. There is some belief that these traits are prerequisites for
contributing to Internet technical work but I, for one, don't believe it's
true.=20


More importantly, all this personal stuff is irrelevant. For example, it
does not mean that any of my statements are wrong or distorted.


Rather than attack the person, how about attacking the statements. In
detail. Try dealing with meaningful content, not emotion and not trivia.


Please.




5. Gordon's missive then finally does attempt to deal with concrete
material... but mostly gets it factually wrong:


> 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


As has been so oft explained, WIPO administers the administrative challenge
process, it does not make the actual decisions over disputes. That is done
by mutually chosen "neutrals".=A0 And, by the way, "binding" arbitration can
be declined beforehand.=20


But I guess we must not let the facts get in the way of a good hyperbole.


Second, Swiss law is not the only authority available to people. In fact,
the actual relevance of Swiss law to all of this is quite constrained,
pertaining specifically to CORE as a legal entity, and it sure would help
if someone trying to criticize things got the details clear.=A0=20


But I guess we must not let the facts...


> 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


Homework task:=A0 For the Internet, define "local".


Be sure the definition covers the likely case of having a registrar, a
domain holder, a domain contestor, and CORE being based in different
countries.


> 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


As has been repeatedly explained, the facts are that the relevant documents
do not remove existing jurisdictions (because they can't, of course).


But I guess we must not let the facts...


> 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


Since the gTLD MoU is not trying to become such a thing, this is a
non-issue.=A0 On the other hand, I am must note that for 10 years we have,=
 in
fact, only had a single, world wide DNS, except for some recent, rogue
efforts which are attempting to take over (not run parallel to) root. As
always the cry for multiple DNS' is based on a form of computer science
that has not yet been invented, unless the goal is a balkanized net, much
like the early telephone systems, with multiple telephones on people's=
 desks.


> 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


Preserve freedom? We have a single registrar for non-country code TLDs.
That registrar charges considerably in excess of the necessary amount, is
not subject to meaningful oversight, and has a seriously questionable track
record, and this is preserving freedom?


The gTLD MoU is creating an environment which supports domain name
consumers and permits entrepreneurial opportunities.=A0 Roughly 90 companies
have put hard cash down for this. Please explain how preventing the
implementation of this activity preserves anyone's freedom except the
freedom from competition currently enjoyed by the sole registrar?




6. Some Honest To Goodness Useful Questions


> 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


Because of all the silliness preceding it, I suspect most folks missed the
fact that these questions are, in fact, specific and legitimate. This short
segment of text is the entirety of the useful content in that lengthy and
hyperbolic note. Too bad it is likely lost.




7. Yes, it's a monopoly, so why do people want to preserve it?


> 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


Personally, I have greatly enjoyed seeing NSI take the moral high ground in
matters of reliability and security. Given their actual operational track
record, it's been quite amusing. However what has been sad is that people
believe they are experts. What has been even more sad is that people
somehow believe that the technical and operational participants in the gTLD
MoU do not, also, have considerable knowledge of details concerning the
building and running of on-line transactions systems. I should note that
the existing registrar's operation is quite modest in terms of such
technology.=A0=20


In point of fact we happen to know a fair amount about such matters and
have been attending to them all along.=A0 Read the IAHC Final Report if you
think that these concerns have been ignored. Unlike most of the critics of
the gTLD MoU activities, the technical and operational participants in the
gTLD MoU effort have quite a bit of real and direct experience delivering
reliable products and services and delivering them according to aggressive
schedules.


> 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=20


Again, this isn't news and the project schedule for implementing the gTLD
MoU attends to this concern quite directly.=A0=20


> 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=20


What proposal?=A0 NSI has submitted no proposal.=A0Further NSI declined to
attend a planning meeting in New York City some months ago, to which they
were quite explicitly invited. In point of fact NSI has been unwilling to
participate in any substantive discussions with the gTLD MoU process. We
all await their change of heart.


In the meantime, the only group that is served well by delays is... NSI.
They continue to have sole access to gTLD revenues and they get to entrench
their monopoly further. Why others wish to help them do this is perplexing.


> "Eighteen months is not adequate," it says.=A0 "It must be done
> much sooner! " Well, operationally sound infrastructure cannot possibly be
> installed any sooner=20


Right.=A0 Let's ignore experienced people who say they can do it and,
instead, listen to people with no experience and people trying to protect
their exclusive control over a market gaining them roughly US$ 50M per year.


Makes sense to me.




8. The Bottom Line


It is well and good to have all manner of interested parties asserting one
requirement or another. Some appears to involve the inventing some computer
science and other appears to require inventing political science. That's
ok, as long as THEY do the work.


You see, the Internet style of getting work done is that we make decisions
based on the detail provided. If someone suggests something and everyone
likes it, fine, but if they don't then the suggestor has the obligation to
provide a detailed specification.


The gTLD MoU effort represents considerable detail, developed over the
course of a year, with broad and global participation.=A0 Please show me any
other proposals that represent such a sustained, detailed and broad effort.


It is always easy to attack a proposal. It is very difficult to formulate
an alternative.


Please remember that the gTLD MoU effort began after 2 1/2 years of
community effort. When we began, we were told that the solution was already
late. We have spent another year synthesizing requirements and developing
the basis for implementation. We covered only the gTLD space.=A0 Not other
TLDs and not the root.=A0 If others wish to cover other ground, they are
welcome to.


WHAT WE DO NOT DO, ON THE INTERNET, IS REQUIRE THAT ALL OF THE WORLD'S
PROBLEMS BE SOLVED BEFORE WE TAKE ANY ACTION. We take discrete, immediate,
specific actions and learn from them.=A0 This has been a highly successful
model and has allowed the creation of a flexible, global infrastructure.
Other recent, equivalent efforts have failed.


The gTLD activity comes from the Internet operations community. Legal and
political concerns are an unavoidable factor, but please let's not make
them the primary concern.


The primary concern should be to keep the net running and growing.=A0 This
requires more gTLDs.=A0 It requires competition among gTLD registrars.=A0=
 And,
yes, it requires improving dispute mechanisms.


d/


ps.=A0 here is the material I have previously provided to some reporters,
just so no one will claim it was "leaked":


> > But senior sources at the FCC tell me that it's still some way off.
>
> Unfortunately, some or all of the US government staff are not aware of the
details concerning the project schedule which the approximately 90
companies forming the Council of Registrars (CORE) are on.=A0 It is an
aggressive schedule, designed to produce an operational service before the
end of NSF's Cooperative Agreement with NSI and, thereby, provide a basis
for encouraging NSI's commitment to achieve shared registration of the
com/net/org top-level domains by the Fall of next year (98).
> My impression is that the project schedule will require addition of the
new TLDs approximately the middle of December.
> > One of them says: "that the iPOC
> > process has not involved enough of the key players that should be
> > involved and has not been responsive to some serious concerns raised
> > by key segments of the Internet community"
>
> Alas, they appear to be reflecting the continuing unhappiness of trademark
attorneys with some very large corporations.=A0=20
> If one, instead, reflects upon the broad and considerable GLOBAL
involvement in the gTLD MoU process, and if one further observes that there
are no plans for alternatives on the table, and if one even further notes
that the domain name service is part of the GLOBAL Internet infrastructure,
then I think one begins to wonder what would ever satisfy someone stating
the opinion you cited...
> This activity came from the Internet operations community.=A0 It's=
 important
that those not involved in the operation of the Internet develop some
appreciation for its needs or else that they not get in the way of those
needs.
> > Is it really going to happen so soon do you think?
>
> Yes.
>
> It will be interesting to see what the opinion of other governments is, if
the US government blocks opening up the domain name system registration
process to a structure which highly encourages entrepreneurial effort, has
a truly global basis, and already has 90 companies from around the world
gearing up to offer service.
> Don't you think?
>
> d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 fax: +1 408 249 6205=A0=20
675 Spruce Dr.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 dcrocker () brandenburg com
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0 http://www.brandenburg.com


Internet Mail Consortium=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 info () imc org,=
 http://www.imc.org








**************************************************
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."       
- Ben Franklin, ~1784
**************************************************