evaluation of the IWG on DNS

[Gordon_Cook1]

I normally don't post any material from my newsletter to NANOG, but I have
just had a strong "nudge" from a list member regarding the December issue
that I published tonight. Here is the portion of my Exec. Summary from a
LONG article on Internet Governace issues.

The Governance Wars
Continue, pp. 13 - 22

Motivated by an abiding hatred of Network Solutions' "monopoly" the
federal Interagency Working Group on DNS (IWG) ironically adopted, at the
end of the summer, an attitude that since the ISOC CORE effect in Geneva
was the only other game in town, it should have the US government embrace
the very folk that the IWG had been set up in fear of.

We have been told that the idea of assistance in the creation of the
database software needed by CORE has been tried out in negotiations for
changes that would make the CORE Swiss cartel more 'democratic'. Having
been warned that Brian Kahin was holding behind the scenes discussions
with IBM, AT&T and Oracle on the question of the data base software and
that Becky Burr, Kahin's partner at NTIA, was testing the waters for the
idea that a competition for software design be held, we submitted a FOIA
to OSTP on October 7 seeking all relevant data to the IBM, Oracle and AT&T
discussions. On the 27th were were told that more time would be need
because of the "substantial interest in the determination of our request."
When on Friday November 14 no documents had been delivered, we complained
and were told that the reason was because they involved coordination with
the FCC since they mentioned Mike Nelson, an ex OSTP employee. However by
the afternoon the story changed to merely that there were too many and
they were waiting to send them all.

During the week that began on November 10th, the working group was making
its own leaks that it would have its findings released - first by the 14
and then by the 17th. We complained in a public appeal to Ira Magaziner
on the 12 and on the 13th received a phone call in which he assured us for
attribution that no policy would be made for a number of weeks yet and
perhaps even for several months. On the basis of our conversation we
believe that 1. he is the 'boss' of the IWG and will prevent Burr and
Kahin from doing an end run around him in their desire to kill the NSI
monopoly. 2. That he has a sincere and humble recognition that he simply
doesnUt understand the matter well enough yet to reach the right decision.
We are encouraged to hear that he will be doing heavy duty fact finding of
his own.

Coming to understand much better the reasons for Tony RutkowskiUs dislike
of the ITU, after the Secretary General admitted that he would like to
have the ITU take over Internet governance, we believe that it is critical
for Magaziner to understand that the Internet's creative vitality comes
from Einar Stefferud calls its self-organizing 'bounded chaos'. Just as
no one entity can control the global economy so no single entity can
control the Internet. Stef has a profound understanding of these issues
and the final third of our article is a compendium of his recent writings
on the subject plus a concluding section that he wrote on November 15 in
response to our findings about the working group activities. Here he
states that Mr. Magziner must realize that there is no crisis; and that no
new top level domains should be added to the root servers until all
parties have joined into a confederation using IETF processes to develop
their own governance plan. He concludes by pointing out that the ultimate
recourse lies in the power of thousands of DNS administrators world wide
to point to the root machines that offer the best service to the network.

[Dave_Crocker]

Unfortunately, Gordon seems intent on spreading his views on this topic to
one an all venues, no matter the difficulties with his assessment.

To whit:

end of the summer, an attitude that since the ISOC CORE effect in Geneva

One problem is this lovely focus on Geneva, ignoring the rather
considerable oversight functions and constraints provided by the POC which
is not based anywhere and has global participation, with even more broad
review by the supporting signatories to the gTLD MoU. Rather, it is more
convenient to paint CORE as part of ISOC which, of course, it is not. Even
more interesting is the view that Swiss law is somehow an essential problem
with the gTLD MoU structure.

We have been told that the idea of assistance in the creation of the
database software needed by CORE has been tried out in negotiations for
changes that would make the CORE Swiss cartel more 'democratic'. Having

An idea has been tried out? What does this mean? For all this focus on US
government folks, the problem here is that the work being done by CORE is
being done by CORE and Emergent, with the relevant required assistance from
the Policy Oversight Committee, and by no one else. Others may hold
whatever discussions they want but it's difficult to understand why they
are important.

And about the inflammatory, but incorrect, term cartel. One tires of its
continued use as an effort to wave red flags at everybody. My dictionary
says a cartel controls production, pricing, and marketing. One could argue
that the gTLD MoU does control production, in the sense of regulating the
creation of one class of new TLDs, but it does not control pricing or
marketing.

Criticisms about the control of available gTLDs ignore legitimate questions
about DNS scaling.

believe that 1. he is the 'boss' of the IWG and will prevent Burr and
Kahin from doing an end run around him in their desire to kill the NSI

This I like a lot. The idea that they would do an end run around
Magaziner. You'd have to have met these folks to realize how humorous that
idea is. For starters, Magaziner explicitly directed Burr to to be the
point of contact on this topic.

of the ITU, after the Secretary General admitted that he would like to
have the ITU take over Internet governance, we believe that it is critical

The SG admitted no such thing. He used a phrase along the lines of
"greater role in the Internet". It takes a special degree of paranoia to
translate that into "take over Internet governance". But what the heck,
the latter makes more exciting copy.

control the Internet.� Stef has a profound understanding of these issues

...

states that Mr. Magziner must realize that there is no crisis; and that no

It's always interesting to see those who are uninvolved in operations make
such firm assessments about operational requirements. This makes it so
much easier to ignore the 3 1/2 year history to this topic and the fact
that the DNS operations community considered this a crisis ONE YEAR AGO.

new top level domains should be added to the root servers until all

I'm sure that governments and organizations outside of the US will be
interested in seeing the United States government take such proprietary (or
paternalistic) actions towards an activity which is attempting to
facilitate entrepreneurial efforts for new registrars and provide
substantially better competitive benefits for consumers.

parties have joined into a confederation using IETF processes to develop
their own governance plan.� He concludes by pointing out that the ultimate

That's exactly what the gTLD MoU represents. It was designed quite
carefully to reflect IETF-like processes.

But where the IETF process fails, as do all others, is with those who are
constantly declaring that a topic needs further study. I guess 3 1/2 years
is not enough.

d/