RE: FW: Behind the scenes...

@ On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote:
@ [early internet background description deleted]
@ > I am disappointed to report that the behind the scenes
@ > Internet of 1997 looks more like a communist/fascist
@ > republic than the democratic system in the U.S. that
@ > helped to create the Internet. In my opinion, this is
@ > partly because a few individuals have been allowed to
@ > rise to positions of visibility and power without the
@ > normal checks and balances that are present in a
@ > democracy.
@ Care to name these people ?

As you will note below, the U.S. Government has a system which
will identify and deal with these people. If you are a citizen you can
obtain some information on these investigations. Keep in mind that
all information is not yet available. Also, your input to the process
is valuable. That is the way the U.S. democracy works.

The United States of America is a great nation that has been one of the
primary leaders in the development of information technology. The Internet
is largely derived from government funded projects and without the security,
stability, and staying power of the U.S. Government, the large number of
Internet users around the world would not be jumping on board the Information

Many people and companies have placed trust in the U.S. Government. The
U.S. Government places trust in God. (According to the back of a one dollar bill).
Despite the fact that many people on the Internet place trust in the IANA, the
IETF, the IAHC, the IAB, the IESG and other I* organizations, the fact remains
that the U.S. Government backs the Internet. (and the U.S. dollar)

Within the U.S. Government various agencies and organizations have helped
to move the Internet forward and to provide the representative government
needed on the Internet for people to safely make investments in time and
money with the knowledge that a democractic and capitalistic group of
people are in control. One of the primary agencies helping to fund the
Internet has been the U.S. Government funded National Science Foundation
(NSF). <>

The NSF has been the primary agency helping to fund and provide the clout
for the cooperative acitivity commonly called the InterNIC. The InterNIC was
originally made up of three companies, General Atomics, AT&T, and Network
Solutions, Inc. These three companies were supposed to work together in
various capacities to provide a variety of services including the important
clerical duties commonly called "registrations".

In the original plan, General Atomics was supposed to be the NIC of NICs
and coordinate the activities of the other two companies. The NSF was
supposed to oversee the entire activity. If managed properly, many NICs
would have been developed through education programs and the Internet
Infrastructure would have been expanded beyond the State of Virginia
and the few companies originally contracted to be part of the cooperative
agreement. That has not occurred.

The history of the evolution of the InterNIC has been well-documented
and is very clear. In their original proposal to the NSF, Network Solutions, Inc.
suggested that they should do the entire job. Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds
of the IANA, are listed on the original Network Solutions, Inc. bid as
subcontractors to Network Solutions, Inc. As history has shown, the IANA,
working in conjunction with the "InterNIC" (Network Solutions, Inc.) has
helped to continue to promote Network Solutions, Inc. to a point where
most people consider NSI to be the InterNIC.

Throughout the evolution of the InterNIC from a three-company cooperative
to a one company monopoly, the NSF has apparently been caught like a deer
in the headlights of a car, frozen in indecision but providing mass when
needed to allow a few individuals and companies to leverage themselves
into positions of great wealth. The NSF has been skillfully used to provide
the U.S. Government seal of approval, while policies are enacted by private
parties who openly claim that the NSF is "backing" their agendas.

Many companies operating within the United States under Federal and
State laws, have been shocked over the past few years at how their tax
dollars are used to fund the NSF which in turn funds Internet infrastructure
with apparently no control over the outcome. Furthermore, despite repeated
efforts by other companies to participate in and make investments in the
Internet infrastructure, the NSF has stood by and allowed plans and systems
to be developed which lock certain companies out while others are given
a free pass and in some cases millions of dollars to jump start their business.

The recent IAHC <> activity is an excellent example
of how a private company (ISOC) <>, with less members
than many ISPs, is provided an NSF representative, Dr. George Strawn,
<> for credibility, while they
develop a plan to sell what amounts to Internet Domain Registration
Franchises to companies willing to pay large fees to fund the private ISOC.

Another example is the recently proposed ARIN <>
organization which claims to have strong support from the NSF to charge
fees for IP addresses. The proposed Board of Direcors of ARIN are mostly
people funded directly, or indirectly, by the National Science Foundation.

@@@@@ <> @@@@@@@@@
"Network Solutions is leading the ARIN proposal based on a mandate from
the Internet community reached in rough consensus with strong support
from the National Science Foundation and the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA)."

Fortunately, the U.S. Government had the wisdom to set up an agency
within the NSF to provide some of the checks and balances needed to
regulate the NSF. That agency is the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
<>. OIG is headed by the Inspector General
(IG), who reports directly to the President (via the NSB) and to Congress.

---- Inspector General -------

name: Sundro, Linda G.
directorate: Office of Inspector General
phone: (703)306-2100
office_phone: (703)
fax: (703)306-0649
address: 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1135S
: Arlington, VA 22230