Isnt it interesting how little actually changes in real time? Could it be that, regardless of our ideological differences, we're <shudder> _ineffective_? ======== http://www.nettime.org/nettime.w3archive/199808/msg00026.html Report from the Front Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server Systems by Ronda Hauben There is a battle being waged today, one that is of great importance to the future of society, but most people have no idea it is taking place. I just returned from Geneva, Switzerland where a meeting was held Friday July 25 and Saturday July 26 to create the organization that Ira Magaziner, advisor to the U.S. President, has called for. It is an organization to privatize key aspects of the Internet, the Domain Name System (DNS) and the control of the root server of the Internet. The meeting was the second in a series that are part of the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) (1). The U.S. government, without discussion by the U.S. Congress, the press or the public, and contrary to the direction of the U.S. court (in the case ACLU vrs. Reno) is throwing a bone to the private sector and offering them the possibility of making their millions off of the Internet. And while in Geneva, I saw folks from several different countries grabbing at the bone, in hopes of getting themselves some of the same kind of exorbitant profits from selling gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains) that the National Science Foundation (NSF) bestowed on Network Services Inc (NSI) several years ago by giving them the contract enabling them to charge for domain name registration. There is money to be made, or so these folks seem to think, and so any concern for the well being of the Internet or its continued development as "a new medium of international communication" (ACLU vrs Reno) has been thrown to the wind by Mr. Magaziner, IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) under the direction of Mr. Postel, which has the U.S. government contract to administer the Internet Addresses and Names and to administer the root server, and the others who, without any ethical considerations or social obligations are rushing through this process and squelching discussion and dissent. It is called "consensus" we are told. I went to the session setting up the Names Registry Council provisions for the bylaws of what we are told is to be the new private organization controlling these key aspects of the Internet. At the beginning of the meeting, I made the mistake of objecting when all were asked to register their consensus with the provision for a Names Council. I wanted to hear some discussion so I would know what I was voting on. I was scolded by one participant for asking for a discussion. He claimed that they were *not* here for people who had not read the bylaws proposal that appeared online only a few days before. I had read the bylaws proposal but was naive enough to think that one would hear discussion and clarification before being asked to declare one's adherence. In that way I thought one would know what one was agreeing to. Instead, however, I soon learned that that was *not* how business (or really religion) was being developed in the session I attended. After harassing me for asking for clarification and discussion, the meeting continued. The Chairman asked people to brainstorm and list the functions for the council. When I asked that the activities of the council be reported online and that there be online discussion with anyone interested being allowed to comment on all issues concerning the council, the scribe miswrote what I had proposed. When I asked it be corrected, I was told by the Chair that there was no "wordsmithing" allowed, i.e. that it would not be corrected. After a number of people had listed functions for the council, it was announced that the meeting would vote on the functions to determine if there was "consensus". Then a vote was rammed through on the items. However, instead of counting the numbers for or against each function, there was a declaration of "consensus" if, we were told, it seemed as if there were 60% of those voting who had voted for the listed function. For the first few functions those opposed were allowed to voice their objection. The meeting was being tape recorded, we were told, and there would be a record kept of it. But that soon ended as someone in the room objected to hearing any objections. The Chair said that this was how this was done at the telecom meetings he knew of, as there the players were large corporations with large bank accounts that could afford big law suits. Here, however, it seemed those in control of the meeting judged this was not the case. A short break was called. After the break it was announced that those with objections could no longer voice them on the record during the meeting but were told to come up after the meeting was over. So the vote continued on, consensus continued to be declared for most of the items voted on, despite the fact there were those indicating their opposition to all of these items. But the record would no longer contain any note of the objections. The Chair and others marvelled at the roll they were on. Even though it was time for the meeting to end, one of the Chairs of the plenary meeting allowed this meeting to continue as it was on such a roll. Then to the Plenary meeting. Here there was joy and praise for this democratic process from the Chair and spokespeople from the different sessions. When I tried to go to the microphone and say that the consensus in the session I had been in to determine functions for the Names Council represented "no discussion allowed and no noting of those who objected," the Chair of the Plenary Meeting told me I was not allowed to speak there. This all followed the invitation that had been extended in the press lunch on Tuesday, July 21 at INET, where all members of the press were invited to come to the Friday and Saturday sessions of the IFWP and were invited to participate. However, by Friday and Saturday the invitation clearly had changed, especially if one had a question or objection to raise about what was happening. And this is how the supposed new private organization that is to administer and make policy for the Domain Names System that is the nerve system of the Internet and the Root Server System, is being created. No one with any but a private commercial interest (in normal language, a conflict of interest) is to be allowed to participate in the process, no discussion to clarify what people are being asked to vote on is allowed to take place, and no objections could be voiced in the session creating the Names Council, which is one of the crucial aspects of the organizational form, as it is groups with a commercial interest in the sale of gTLDs who have decreed to themselves the right to set policy and recommend actions regarding the gTLDs. What is the significance of this process as a way to create an organization to take over control and administration of the nerve center of the Global Internet? The Internet was developed and has grown and flourished through the opposite procedures, through democratic processes where all are welcomed to speak, where those who disagree are invited to participate, and to voice their concerns along with those who agree, where those who can make a single contribution are as welcome as those with the time to continually contribute. (See Poster "Lessons from the early MsgGroup Mailing List as a Foundation for Identifying the Principles for Future Internet Governance" by Ronda Hauben, INET '98.)(2) Also historically, the processes for discussion on key issues regarding the development of the Net are carried out online, as a medium of online communication is what is being built. This is all the opposite of what is happening with the privatizing of the DNS and throwing it to the corporate interests who are the so called "market forces". Here only those who can afford thousands of dollars for plane fare can go to the meetings, and once at the meetings, one is only allowed to participate in a way that registers agreement. At the sessions I attended there was no discussion permitted so no one knows if what they think they are voting on is indeed what it appears to be and there is no opportunity to clarify one's views on an issue as there is no chance to discuss the pros and cons. And for those for whom English is not the first language, or for someone who disagrees with what is happening, there is mockery and the attempt to make them feel unwelcome. This is *not* the way to create a new and pioneering organization to administer and control the nerve center of an international public communications infrastructure that has been built with the tax money and effort of people around the world. When those who have questions or think what is happening is a problem are not allowed to speak, it means that there is no way to know what the problems are to be solved, or what can be proposed that can offer any solution. The U.S. government has initiated and is directing this process with no regard for the concerns and interests of the people online or not yet online. Instead only those with profit making blinders over their eyes are able to stand the glare this rotten process is reflecting. During his speech at the opening session of the IFWP in Geneva, Mr. Ira Magaziner said that the U.S. government no longer has any obligation to the well being of the people in the U.S. and he left the room, claiming that the U.S. government would not be involved in the process to create the new organization. But the bylaws of the new organization, made available only a few days before the meeting, and thus not long enough for those traveling to the meeting to have had a chance to study or discuss them, were presented by IANA and its lawyer. IANA is the U.S. government contractor proposing the structure of this new "private" organization. Thus the U.S. government is deeply involved in this process but not in any way that fulfills its obligation to provide for the well being of the American people. Meanwhile there is a lawsuit against the NSF brought by a company which sees itself as the MCI of the Internet. The lawsuit claims that anyone who wishes should be able to go into business creating gTLDs. The fact that the DNS is a hierarchical architecture to keep the number of root level lookups for the Internet at a minimum is irrelevant to those bringing the lawsuit and to the U.S. government who is offering out to private sector corporations competition in selling root level gTLDs. And the primary functions rammed through at the Saturday meeting was that the Names Council is being created to make policy and recommendations for how to increase the number of gTLDs, despite the fact that those proposing this structure had a commercial self interest in the issues and thus a conflict of interest in being involved in proposing or setting public policy regarding the future of the Internet. This is the degeneration that the U.S. government's pro commercial policy on the future development of the Internet has led to. There is no concern by Magaziner for the fact that millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money (and taxpayer money of people around the world) and effort has gone to create and develop the Internet. The policy of the U.S. government is to try to stop the use of the Internet as a medium of international communication for ordinary people and to deny its technical needs and processes. This is contrary to the directive of the U.S. court that the U.S. government "should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates." (ACLU vrs. Reno) The next meeting of the IFWP is set for Singapore in August 1998. Magaziner has given this ad hoc self appointed group a deadline to have an interim organization in place by September 30. So the Internet is to be auctioned off as officials in the U.S. government oversee the grabfest. But there are people who care about the Net and its continued growth and development as a medium of international communication. And it is in the hands of these Netizens that any future health of this crucial communications infrastructure that makes possible an unprecedented level and degree of international communication must rest. The public needs to know what is going on and it is important that Netizens find a way to both intervene in this give away of public property and let the rest of the world know what is happening. ------------ Notes (1) The White paper was issued by the U.S. government. It begins: "On July 1, 1997, as part of the Clinton Administration's "Framework for Global Electronic Commerce" the President directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the domain name system (DNS) in a manner that increases competition...." (2) Write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for copy of Poster. Also see "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet", http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ or in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The above report is appearing as an appendix in the Amateur Computerist, July 1998 Supplement "Controversy Over the Internet" available at: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/dns-supplement or via email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] =====
