Jay Fenello wrote:
<snip>
> If it makes you feel any better, I
> object to ICANN's agenda to claiming
> superior "property rights" over *all*
> coordinated Internet assets.
<snip>
Cool, so do I. We all share these assets, or as I prefer to call them,
resources. We either all own them (which on this list means 'socialism'),
or nobody owns them.
Many private parties are involved in making the Internet, and in particular
the DNS, work (and there would be many more with multiple roots), and their
servers, routers and their local databases (but not the data in them) are
unquestionably their private property. I've argued that the data
themselves, the individual IP numbers and domain names, are not capable of
being owned, but that one can hold certain rights to their use which look a
lot like ownership. At a higher level of abstraction, those data, and the
way they are manipulated by the private assets (or 'network resources'),
start to look like a system, which leads us to look at the entire name
space, and the entire number space, and the 'system' which they constitute,
and say, hey, who owns those?
I'd like to argue for the position that nobody owns them. They are more of
a phenomenon. That's why I prefer to focus on the issue of how this
*phenomenon* is managed, not who owns it. Opinions vary, of course, on how
it should be managed, or whether it even needs to be or should be 'managed.'
I agree with the idea that the Internet just happens out of the action of a
lot of separate individuals who own their own corners of the network.
However, at some point, all that separate action creates the phenomenon.
The question of how such a phenomenon is managed does matter, because it
impacts universal connectivity.
Karl Auerbach wrote:
<snip>
> Of course, this sub-thread started off on the issue of whether the DNS
> root is a public resource or "private property".
> Given that there can perfectly well be multiple roots, I would tend
> towards, but I don't go all the way, towards the latter. But ICANN and
> its regulation are being based on the presumption of a single, universal
> root.
I know multiple roots are possible. Lots of things which detract from the
Internet as we know it are possible, but I don't think they are desireable.
Lots of people use the Internet for lots of different purposes, and for
some, an alternate (or 'non-IANA-recognized') TLD might work fine, but my
understanding is that universal interconnectivity among all public Internet
users, for which the Internet is now known, would be threatened by multiple
roots, although I'm beginning to come around to the idea that multiple roots
would result in a net _increase_ in _selective_ connectivity, just without
the _universal_ interconnectivity which the IANA root has provided.
A single root means somebody is going to hold some pretty serious power.
Jon Postel handled it pretty well, and for being concerned with universal
connectivity above all else is now referred to by some as a socialist. For
most of his career, the Internet was a pretty homogenous place, ironically,
given the diversity of networks which comprise the phenomenon. Now that
people want to 'own' TLDs and sell registrations in them, among other
things, those days appear to be over. I agree that the Internet's ability
to accommodate multiple networks and even multiple roots demonstrate that
nobody need be 'in charge' of it, but the goal of universal connectivity
seems to require that somebody, unfortunately, be 'in charge'.
One might argue that nobody need be in charge of the telephone network, or
civil aviation networks, but on a practical level, it helps, because it
makes the whole thing work better, in everybody's interest. Until Jon
Postel's death, people were pretty cool with one person being loosely 'in
charge' of the DNS (performing what Gillett and Kapor have called the "1%"
of Internet coordination in their excellent article in Brian Kahin and James
Keller's 1997 book, _Coordinating the Internet_), but the significance of
that 1% has risen steadily along with amazon.com's share price. Both levels
are ridiculously overblown and bear little relation to reality, but they
demonstrate the incredible expectations that the world has of this humble
network.
Some would prefer that nobody be in charge, others would prefer that
responsibility be distributed somehow, while others would like to see the
USG remain in charge. The trick is finding the right balance. What I've
tried to push is the idea that we all share this thing, that there are
common elements which nobody owns, but which, on one scenario (that of
preserving universal connectivity), must be coordinated. Who has the
authority to do so? Damned good question. I don't think anybody knows.
Who has authority to coordinate international civil aviation. Probably no
one. But for everyone's sake, a governance structure has been created and
maintained. It increases the usefulness of the network to everyone's
advantage. I guess what I'm saying is that either no one will coordinate
the Internet, or a legitimate international body will have to be created to
continue the unquestionably valuable work of IANA.
At one level, the Internet doesn't exist. I think this is what Tony is
getting at when he says:
> I would argue that no one should have "the authority to make exclusive
> assignment of Internet identifiers." Indeed, there is no such thing.
> You can today use any identifier you choose - and many institutions do.
> However, unless you have made special arrangements, your traffic might
> not end up in the right place. As a shared user network, the users
> vote as to whose identifier system is used and on what terms, not
> some higher authority - ICANN or otherwise.
But at another level the Internet does exist. Whoever runs the dominant
identifier system does accrue certain power. The current system is what the
public thinks of as the Internet. That system has been governed since its
inception. That governance structure is now evolving, and steps away from
the IANA root are steps away from the public Internet, which many people
think exists, and would like to see continue to exist.
Many of the points of view expressed in this list can be divided up based on
whether the poster thinks the Internet exists or not. I think it does. I'm
not willing to concede that it doesn't because its promise to the world is
too important. NTIA and ICANN appear to think that it does exist, but for
many they are taking the power of coordination a bit too far. I would argue
that they are simply trying to institutionalize the same power which IANA
held, but every move they make highlights the fact that the contours of
IANA's power have never been fully considered or documented. When Joe Sims
writes it down, it doesn't look very nice. It no longer walks in sandals.
But it is almost exactly the same power. It's all how you use it. What
authority would Postel have had to add new TLDs? What authority would
ICANN, or NSI, or NTIA? Nobody knows. This is all new territory.
When people criticize ICANN's methods and power, some essentially argue that
it should be more like a government, with due process controls and
democratic authority before it imposes fees (which many erroneously call
taxes - a curiously American predilection). No taxation without
representation, they say. Wait a minute, I thought government was the
problem, and the last thing we wanted was government. How ironic it is to
hear the anti-government posters finally implicitly recognize that whoever
does this job has to have legitimate authority and function in everybody's
interests. Sounds like government, huh?
It seems ICANN can do no right. When it acts like a government it gets told
to stop it and butt out of a private network, but when it acts like a
private corporation it is told to shape up and act more like a government.
Authority, legitimacy, democracy - these are heavy-duty issues and are at
the root of this ongoing circus. If we believe that the Internet does
exist, and would like to see it continue to exist, then we have to find a
workable combination of authority, legitimacy and democracy to support it.
I don't think we've found it yet.
Craig McTaggart
Graduate Student
Faculty of Law
University of Toronto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
