From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #96 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Tuesday, April 25 2000 Volume 01 : Number 096 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:55:07 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Sunday Reflections Oki all, The principle casualty has been direct-interest in hierarchical delegation, whether "enlightened" or "not", joining founder-competency (d. 1997) and HOSTS.TXT, (d. 1984 - 1988). As there is liable to be some confusion as to these, I've made a comment as a footnote [1]. As Kent points out, self-selection is not "representative". The choice to reject it (or its work product) for failing to meet some inchoate test for that elusive characteristic is an important one. WG-C, like every aspect of the ICANN formation process is only "representative" if that word is ment to be context dependent, representative of some interest or another. Once that common understanding is removed and the meaning shifted from interest, it is time to look for objectivity in one of her guises. Having outgrown its creators (founder-competency) and operators present and pending (direct-interest), the DoD (now DoC) DNS is now subject of its third institutional caretaker, institutions valuing the DNS as a mechanism for the promotion of trademarks, indirect-interest. This transits the DNS from value based upon knowledge, or knowledge and vanity, to value based upon sales, as its basic organizing principle. The mechanism effecting the transformation from direct- to indirect-interest is an appeal within the ICANN framework to the non-representative nature of direct-interest. The guise of objectivity is the power of money. Indirect-interest is not "representative", and is just as vulnerable to the mechanism of appeal within some framework, and the next available framework where objectivity resides is the democratic political framework, where the currency is debates and votes. The process of substitution of indirect-interest for direct-interest has had only marginal oversight by the ultimate delegating authorities, the US and other territorial jurisdictions. It is time we founders and operators look for more effective allies in Washington and Brussels and make our case that a California 501(c)(3) is not the best or final candidate caretaker. There are public policy issues affecting the Internet which simply must have better care than one California 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation can offer. The care can be better than turning the Net into Television. The US and EU legislative bodies have tried and will continue to try to make some policy on content, naturally not getting it right the first time they try. There should be bills in 2001 on regulating the generic DNS, and more in 2002, and still more in 2003, and bills mandating delegation of specific chartered TLD in each year, until indirect-interest is replaced by political policy as the caretaker of the DNS. Until value based upon sales is driven out by value based upon value based on knowledge, or as much of that rare commodity as public life affords anyone ever. Indifferent hands are not the best hands to take care of what joins us all, and we may have more votes in Brussels and Washington than Madison Avenue. Kitakitamatsinopowaw, Eric References: 1. The parties leaving the queue to augment or replace the US Agencies as policy making bodies for the DNS circa 1997 were the IHAC community as a body, Jon Postel, and the IETF as a body. They were mechanisms for a range of policies, some realized, some only described. The mechanism I also mention as a casualty -- the SRI-NIC HOSTS.TXT file, supported a prior DNS policy, explicit static address resolution. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:26:36 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] Re: for the NC At 09:48 AM 4/22/00 +0200, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote: >==> Jon, > > It is Saturday, Easter weekend morning here. > I connected to check the situation before I take three days off > and travel for familial weekend. > > Let me express here my personal thanks to you for everything: > extremely professional work, your curtesy, being always on time, > understanding different cultures (when they dare to express > themselves), and adding the dignity to the debate. > > Elisabeth Elisabeth -- I hope you had a good holiday. I have to say, in return, that none of us could have possibly have survived this process if not for you. Because your work has been behind the scenes, the working group members probably don't know how vital and dedicated you have been, and how much you have gone beyond the call of duty, in keeping the list and the web site going. They surely don't know how much work it has all been. And yet you have done all this in a manner that is gracious and unfailingly professional (even when provoked). I'm now in a position to scale back my DNSO-related activities; you, on the other hand, seem condemned to keep going. But I am confident that we will all be in good hands so long as you are here. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:22:30 -0400 From: Craig Simon Subject: Re: [wg-c] Sunday Reflections Eric Brunner wrote: > > Oki all, [snipped] > until indirect-interest is replaced by political > policy as the caretaker of the DNS. Until value based upon sales is driven > out by value based upon value based on knowledge, or as much of that rare > commodity as public life affords anyone ever. I don't as much cause for optimism as you apparently do in such a large scale transformation of the public's political sophistication in such a compressed space of time. At whatever level you pitch it, one interest group's strategic success in a process is another's setback. (Even a "non-zero sum" type compromise between contending groups can have its unspoken-of losers.) Power is a matter of capturing contended terrain. It's fair to speak of casualties, as you have, but as I see it, the process (especially if your prescription for the next stages of it plays out) reflects a steady shifting of the terrain from the commanding heights to the vastness of the trenches. Craig Simon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:39:58 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Sunday Reflections Craig, Thanks for commenting. I don't think that taking the DNS to the legislatures will be any easier than taking any other complicated policy issue for which non-legislative mechanisms have failed, or resulted in the capture of a policy area by a non-representative group not acting in the common interest. I'm not so much "optimistic" as convinced that the jurisdiciton issue can be solved by the territorial jurisdictions -- they may choose to create a new aterritorial jurisdiction, "Sunrized and then some" is the flavor of the month, but they may also simply affirm the existing legal terrain, and more importantly, the principle of public over private law. > At whatever level you pitch it, one interest group's strategic success in a > process is another's setback. (Even a "non-zero sum" type compromise between > contending groups can have its unspoken-of losers.) A misunderstanding I hope to get right the second time... There is direct interest (parties engaged in the operations of the DNS, whether registry operators (ccTLD or gNSI), the registrars, agents, integrators, vendors, and ISPs, and registrants. Their "interest" in "names" begins and ends internal to the DNS. WG-C is one expression of "interest". Issue a "call" today with the same or a similar charter and a different, though possibly similar set of participants would form a mailing list. Constrain the working language to French, not English, and "interest" in this sense would still be present. Then there are indirect interests, and trademarks is one example, copyright another, and patents a less obvious third, as are any other non-operators who seek to influence the activities of operators. The rejection of the WG-C work product (interest, however flawed, and the wart-density is indeed high) by the DNSO NC means that parties other than those with or wanting a direct stake in DNS operations are dominant in that body. An effective story for the removal of stakeholders has been told, now another effective story for the removal of private law captured by e-ponzi schemes in names needs to be told. Having sat on a bench with Postel listening to some Brit rant about .mil, it isn't clear that the transition is from "high" to "low", but my milage varies. What is trench-like about a bill concerning the jurisdiction of the present .COM? It is "in" the US, isn't it? We lost the struggle to make the DNS sui generis, so it is the subject of trademark law, and in territorial jurisdictions the law is at least settled, and stability is pretty damn important. I'll grant you it is a drag to lobby your congress-critters, but they can't help but register in .COM, so it isn't as if they can't be educated that the caretaker situation for the DNS couldn't be improved. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:04:45 -0400 From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] Sunday Reflections It isn't clear how much some parties want a broader public participation. It is clear that there is substantial resentment toward participation by persons who do not master the archives of past NDS wars, even in cases where this is an inefficient way to discuss particular problems. For example, private email to people warning them that they are risking being the subject of public humiliation and ridicule because of ignorance of certain historical documents is one way to discourage participation among people who have other interests in life, outside of ICANN. Jamie Eric Brunner wrote: > > Craig, > > Thanks for commenting. > > I don't think that taking the DNS to the legislatures will be any easier > than taking any other complicated policy issue for which non-legislative > mechanisms have failed, or resulted in the capture of a policy area by a > non-representative group not acting in the common interest. > > I'm not so much "optimistic" as convinced that the jurisdiciton issue can > be solved by the territorial jurisdictions -- they may choose to create a > new aterritorial jurisdiction, "Sunrized and then some" is the flavor of > the month, but they may also simply affirm the existing legal terrain, and > more importantly, the principle of public over private law. > > > At whatever level you pitch it, one interest group's strategic success in a > > process is another's setback. (Even a "non-zero sum" type compromise between > > contending groups can have its unspoken-of losers.) > > A misunderstanding I hope to get right the second time... > > There is direct interest (parties engaged in the operations of the DNS, > whether registry operators (ccTLD or gNSI), the registrars, agents, > integrators, vendors, and ISPs, and registrants. Their "interest" in "names" > begins and ends internal to the DNS. > > WG-C is one expression of "interest". Issue a "call" today with the same or > a similar charter and a different, though possibly similar set of participants > would form a mailing list. Constrain the working language to French, not > English, and "interest" in this sense would still be present. > > Then there are indirect interests, and trademarks is one example, copyright > another, and patents a less obvious third, as are any other non-operators > who seek to influence the activities of operators. > > The rejection of the WG-C work product (interest, however flawed, and the > wart-density is indeed high) by the DNSO NC means that parties other than > those with or wanting a direct stake in DNS operations are dominant in that > body. An effective story for the removal of stakeholders has been told, now > another effective story for the removal of private law captured by e-ponzi > schemes in names needs to be told. > > Having sat on a bench with Postel listening to some Brit rant about .mil, > it isn't clear that the transition is from "high" to "low", but my milage > varies. What is trench-like about a bill concerning the jurisdiction of the > present .COM? It is "in" the US, isn't it? We lost the struggle to make the > DNS sui generis, so it is the subject of trademark law, and in territorial > jurisdictions the law is at least settled, and stability is pretty damn > important. > > I'll grant you it is a drag to lobby your congress-critters, but they can't > help but register in .COM, so it isn't as if they can't be educated that the > caretaker situation for the DNS couldn't be improved. > > Cheers, > Eric - -- ======================================================= James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176 ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:16:17 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Sunday Reflections James, Wouldn't it be simpler if you simply sent mail you've received from me, to which some expectation of privacy was obviously attached, to any list you please? You have my express permission to do anything you think useful with mail you've received from me, this release is retroactive. Eric ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:30:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Kamantauskas Subject: [wg-c] FYI - CNN article that mentions WG-C http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/04/21/new.domains.idg/index.html excerpt: "NSI's position paper steals thunder from ICANN's Domain Names Supporting Organization, which has been squabbling for months about what recommendations to make to ICANN regarding creation of new generic top-level domains. At ICANN's March board meeting in Cairo, Egypt, the DNSO was unable to deliver a coherent recommendation as to how to proceed. So ICANN granted the DNSO an extension until April 20, which apparently has proved fruitless. Two DNSO working groups have been wrestling with the issue but can't reach a consensus." - -- Alex Kamantauskas alexk@tugger.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:57:11 +0200 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG C Jon, As a member of the NC who has actively participated in WG C I would like to thank you for excellent chairmanship. The task has been far from easy - and you have had to do this latterly without the support of an NC liaison. Philip. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #96 *************************