[governance] please read: APC text on Forum function

Thu Sep 29 10:29:17 EDT 2005

Yupe - having some actual education about the Internet and its
origins would have been something one would have hoped that the WSIS 
process would have spent some resources on - to start the process off
on a sound note. But perhaps people had to get interested in why
this is important, which maybe is only now happening. In any case
it is good it happens.

The interconnection of dissimilar but peer networks is a critical
part of the nature of the Internet, and that is why the creation of
ICANN was a serious problem from the beginning.

Under IANA, there was a mailing list of the administrators of the
cctld's where there was some form of consultation process and
discussion of what was happening with regard to the decisions
being made. I only saw the mailing list at the time when ICANN
was in the works, but ICANN was a serious diversion from the
way that there had been an effort to have a collaborative process
with feedback in the whole creation and development of the Internet.

The problems introduced by the way that ICANN was created, and what
was created are serious.

This is the critical problem that WSIS had to deal with, but it just
seemed that it got lost in other issues.

In any case, the problem of creating an international public management 
form for the Internet's infrastructure will continue to be a critical
problem that needs solution, or else there will be a serious danger to
the integrity of the Internet.

Any claims that there is "no problem" are seriously mistaken.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:

>
> So true. And these principles, including that of shared responsibility
> ensures that we can then count on it as the NGN. Interesting that few people
> involved in the IP NGN issues are involved in IG issues. I think this is
> key.
>
> Meanwhile, whilst I was in Geneva, I heared rumours that some delegations
> (not to be named) are hoping to use the lack of info of the public Internet
> and how this open architecture works, to tell delegates that want to control
> the Internet, to agree to have their own DNS and IP system, without telling
> them that that would be introducing an alternative root system, thereby
> fragmenting the open and public architecture of the Internet. Not sure how
> this has progressed over the last few days, but I was concerned about this.
> I was also concerned that some CS players were feeding this confusion by
> making such statements too.

Thanks for this info. I hadn't noticed discussion of this on the list
before (though the posts have become too voluminous to read them all
lately).

This is the critical danger that exists.

WSIS had to recognize this danger early on and take measures to counter 
it.

>
> This gets emotions high. Also they are not making a difference between
> oversight of new names and existing one (especially TLDs) and also the
> difference between management of  IP address allocation issues which is not
> really under ICANN or US gov as such. DNS wise, The Somalia? And Libya?

Management of the IP addresses is under an entity that the US created
and that is ultimately also under ICANN as far as I understood.

The IP addresses is in fact what is critical to the operation of the
Internet. It is serious there hasn't been more public discussion of this.

> examples were being circulated as saying the US can get a CCTLD off the
> Internet if they like to. Apparently coincidentally or NOT, these countries
> were in discussions or something with the US when it happened.

I thought there were examples of how ICANN took names out of the root,
and I know of at least one case where ICANN's mismanagement led to
one entity losing its domain name and someone hijacking it.

So there is a real problem with ICANN as an entity that is not legitimate
and not created as an entity capable of dealing with a very serious
obligation.

>
> As far as I know, the individuals running the master and the copies around
> the world of the root server, will usually not allow this to happen. It may
> have happened because the administrator did not pay their dues for the CCTLD
> or something. Between this and IP issues, there may also be concern that as
> we go IP NGN globally, allocation issues will also be important and not sure
> they understand how this will be done. I was involved in APNIC';s early days
> and I do know misconceptions governments have about this. Being part of and
> having a say in APNIC is not something they know how to do, as these are new
> cultures to them.
>
> Getting the facts right would certainly help diffuse the emotions running
> high in Geneva. Not break it but diffuse it.

Yes there is a problem of governments getting it right. It doesn't help
to have a situation where the key issues are not being made clear, but
instead secondary issues are being raised to cloud what is really at
stake.

The process needs open information and discussion, rather than 
obfuscation.

> Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas Ronda.

Thanks Laina for this info about what is happening and the background
you have given.

>
> Laina

>

Ronda

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:55 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene
> Cc: 'Lee McKnight'; wdrake at ictsd.ch
> Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function
>
>
> About 'end-to-end' and 'open architecture'
>
> Actually the architectural principle for the internet was 'open
> architecture' which meant that all the info about the the communicating
> networks would function as peers of each other,rather than requiring that
> any one become a component of another."
>
> A definition of open architecture is "Open architecture...describes the
> structure of the Internet, which is built on standard interfaces, protocols,
> a basic data format, and a uniform identifier or addressing mechanism. All
> the information needed regarding the interconnection aspects is publicly
> available."
>
> The end to end principle has been promoted as the essence of the Internet,
> but the Internet is not any single network (which goes from one end to
> another end.). The Internet is a network of networks.
>
> So it is important that this interconnection of dissimilar networks be
> recognized in characterizing the Internet, as this is the conception of its
> origin and what its nature is. This is what makes it possible for so many
> dissimilar networks to be interconnected in today's Internet.
>
> Ronda
>
> http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt
>
> http://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_Chttp://www.circleid.com/article/96
> _0_1_0_C
>
> http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:
>
>>
>> Agreed with you Lee. There is a need to remind people about the
>> openess of the Internet and the spirit in which it was created and
>> spread around the world. In our statement, we tried to remind
>> delegates that the Internet was created by individuals with a high
>> sense of shared responsibility and trust, and any efforts for IG,
>> whether improving the status quo, creating a forum and/or new
>> oversight mechanisms, should all be done within these same spirit.
>>
>> Currently, as Amb Klarkin pointed out, we are at a unique juncture of
>> public and private international law coming together. It has happened
>> before from the 60s to 90s, with the rise of MNCs and international
>> law moving towards the application of "soft laws" and increase of
>> private international law applications. Now we have the civil society
>> equation, which is new to some agencies especially the likes of ITU.
>> It is a very unique juncture of the creation of a "new form of
>> cooperation" between stakeholders and a new form of "soft law" (even
>> moving beyond what we have in PIL....a term used in public
>> international law vis a vis MOUs e.g. lke the one we had on GMPCS on LEOs
> etc..).
>>
>> Laina
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM
>> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function
>>
>> Karen, Bill,
>>
>> I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill
>> that 'binding international agreements' on openness is a
>> contradication in terms that will never fly.
>>
>> Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in
>> mind the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as,
>> 'openness etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement
>> easier, since then the forum is signalling the techies that it will not
> muck things up.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
>> School of Information Studies
>> Syracuse University
>> +1-315-443-6891office
>> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>
>>>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>>
>> Karen,
>>
>>>> In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape
>> of
>>>> the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding
>> international
>>>> agreements that relate to:
>>>>
>>>> -        the architectural principles of the Internet, including
>>>> interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle
>>
>> I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe
>> it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the
>> forum outright.  I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous.
>>
>> Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc.
>>
>> BD
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>> _______________________________________________
>>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance