[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: >Ronda, >> The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on >> March 31 [1998] had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt >> officials couldn't set up a corporation like the FCC-Schools and >> Libraries Corporation. > >> That this was in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act. > >> Were the Green and White paper issued to try to go around that law? > > You have to go by 'the letter of the law.' It doesnt say USG cant >simply give assets to a private corp, only that it cant *create* the >corp to give them to. Conflict? What conflict? But the U.S. government has been creeating ICANN and that is why it is doing what it is doing behind the scenes and secretly. The meetings with Postel and NSI were the govt meeting with them to get them to create the corporation. And Postel and NSI were both under contract to the U.S. government and doing what the government was requiring them to do as part of their contracts. > Its interesting reading, nevertheless: It seems important to see the law as it seems clear that the whole effort of the Green and White papers has been to try to evade the law. No Internet community has created ICANN. The U.S. govt has created ICANN. ======= >http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy090140.000/hs >y090140_0.htm >[Mr MAGAZINER: W]e proposed the adding of five names, and >then a second question came, which was, in the CORE proposal, >for example, there is one group, essentially one organization that >would manage the databases for all registry top-level generic >names, and it would be a nonprofit organization, I think in the >public trust, is the way it's described? > There are good arguments to go in that direction, but the >concerns were that if you have just one organization managing all >the registration databases, that you wouldn't have the benefits of >competition and the kind of innovation that competition can bring, >and the efficiencies that competition should bring. So, what we >proposed, based on those arguments, was that you would allow >five new organizations to come into existence, each of which was >managing a name, a generic top-level name, and you would have >NSI continuing to manage the database for .com, although it would >have to allow anybody to register into it. But it's not that "competition" brings innovation, but that government support for science and scientists brings innovation. That is the history and development of the Internet. > And then you would have at least six competitors, and that >would exist only during an interim period. After the interim period, >once the new organization gets up and going, it will review all these >policies so that what we were doing was just for a transition period, >to get competition moving. And in that sense, I guess what's being >said is that it sets up monopolies because you'd have only one >organization managing the database for a name, a specific name. >That's true. On the other hand, the CORE proposal would have only >>one organization managing all names, nonprofit. But the assinging names is an administrative function, not a testbed for so called "market", especially when it is being set up by some organization. So it seems that the ICANN is the new deus ex machina of the "market" ? Makes one think that there is no such thing as a "market" functioning anywhere. At least not in these times. >[...] > Chairman PICKERING. Thank you. There are two objectives that >have been raised in the panel discussion. One that we need to >make this transition as quickly as possible, and we need to remove >the government involvement, and get a new structure in place, a >new protocol, new dispute mechanisms in place as quickly as >possible. But you can't remove government because they have a problem and no idea how to solve the problem. And instead of deciding how to solve the problem, they decided to hide the government role, which means that it is impossible to solve the problem. As the whole effort becomes how to hide the government role, *not* to solve the problem. > As many of you know, the NSF/NSI cooperative agreement >expires today. I believe, at least my understanding is, that it will >automatically extend 6 months. Mr. Magaziner, do you think that >we can have a new system in place by September 30? Can we >have the consensus? > Mr. MAGAZINER. Well I though our goal is to get as close to >that as possible, and what we've done as a safeguard in our >proposal is to say that the contract would not be renewed as of >September 30, and that there would be some oversight of the >Commerce Department, which would continue for a limited period >of time, until the new organization and the new system were fully >up and going. Sounds awfully like the U.S. government is doing the creating of this new entity :-( And it is that it should be actively trying to figure out what is needed, *but* not in a way to evade its laws. There is a reason the law forbids what the U.S. govt is doing. > It would be our desire for that to be as limited a time as >possible, but if we're concerned about stability, we've got to make >sure that we just don't pull the plug on this system before the new >system is in place. That would be, in our view, irresponsible. > Chairman PICKERING. To that end, is there any legislative >authority that you may need, for example, if there's a new nonprofit >entity that will help in the organization or setting up the new >structure? >There is a ruling within the FCC that when they tried to >set up a similar program to administer the links to schools and >libraries, that they—it was a rule that they did not have the >authority to do so. From your interpretation, do you have the >authority, currently, to establish a nonprofit entity to do this, or do >we need to take some legislative action in this regard? So Chairman Pickering acknowledged that the U.S. Government didn't have the authority to set up an entity. I had found another reference that said that the ruling was a GAO ruling about the FCC. > Mr. MAGAZINER. Let me ask the Commerce Department about >this. > Ms. BURR. Thank you. I think there are two questions of >authority here, but the Green Paper does not call for a government- >chartered corporation or for the government to establish a >corporation. Rather, it calls for a private-sector developed not-for- >profit corporation based on membership associations. And under >that plan, government authority would not be needed to create >that corporation. But the U.S. govt created ICANN. And that is what the Green Paper and White Paper set up. They set up all the criteria and the only proposal that was acceptable was the one that they chose and claimed was the closed to what they required. Seems pretty much like they created ICANN and they did. > Chairman PICKERING. How would this be different from the FCC- >created nonprofit corporation for schools, referred to as the Schools >and Libraries Corporation? GAO recently issued a legal opinion >stating that the nonprofit corporation was created without statutory >authority and in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act. It would seem helpful to see the law and the legal opinion. > Ms. BURR. The FCC actually established those corporations. >The FCC incorporated them, worked to draw up the bylaws and >charters and all of that, and was involved in the creation. And that >is not what is proposed in the Green Paper. This Green Paper calls >for a private sector established— But there is no "private sector" to establish anything. The internet is not a creature of the so called "private sector". It is a new communication medium created as a result of government support computer science and needs to have that government support for computer science continued to make it possible to continue to grow and scale the Internet. > Mr. COURTER. Can I comment on that, Mr. Chairman? >Chairman PICKERING. Yes, Mr. Courter. >Mr. COURTER. Thank you. The private sector has established one >and it's CORE. I mean, I guess that's my major point. We don't This shows there is no such thing as the "private sector". CORE was established in a series of secret meets and by a set of insiders some of who were connected to the Internet Society. It's like claiming what they imagine exists and then that it therefore has the right to create what they imagine. It's a bit circular to say the least. ha>ve to wait to do it. It took 18 months, cooperation of everybody >involved with the Internet around the world, and it's done. The one There was no cooperation of "everyone involved with the Internet" creating CORE - most people who are involved with the Internet didn't even know it existed. >major criticism or concern that Mr. Magaziner had with respect to >the CORE proposal on this whole issue—and we, obviously, are >the most free-enterprising, competitive of the proposals I've >seen—is the fact that he would like more than one registry. And we >would invite that, as long as those other registries have standards, >as CORE has imposed its own internal standard, that would not be >a problem. So I would hope that we could sit down, Mr. Magaziner, >the Commerce Department, perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, and >resolve this thing in a very short period of time. This seems like a power grab if one ever heard of a power grab. >Chairman PICKERING. Thank you. Dr. Kahn. >Mr. KAHN. Yes, if I could just briefly comment. I think that the >fundamental issue here, ultimately, is governance of the Internet, >and that the essential element that's going to show up here is not >whether this is private sector versus government, or even whether >there's a need for oversight; everybody agrees that that's the case. Interesting - this is an effort to clarify the question - that the issue is who will be responsible - who will provide the oversight. >| And I suspect >| that almost everybody would agree that that oversight ought to be >| in the private sector, too. The question is what happens when the I guess if you only ask a small set of insiders then they will all agree, but I certainly don't agree that the oversight ought to be in the private sector. But it is a help to raise the issue this way - as it leads to the questions: 1) Do all agree there has to be oversight? (And there need to be reasons discussed). 2) Who must have responsibility for that oversight and why? >| oversight doesn't work properly. And that's the place where I think >| there's been very little discussion. If you look at the different | >plans, they're not very clear about that—both of them. In the case >>of the CORE plan, the ITU is a holder of an MOU, but my >understanding is that the plan is not for the ITU to be able to weigh- >in in any significant way, and I think many people would probably >raise some objections if they tried to, for a variety of reasons. And >the same thing will have to work out in the Green Papers, exactly >what that oversight mechanism is. So, until you can resolve that, it >seems to me it's really hard to know exactly what the right >structure and plan and process is to put in place. Nice effort to ask the significant question in this whole issue, and instead of anyone trying to answer it, those grabbing for power just rushed ahead and ignored the question Bob Kahn raised. It reminds me of the Caucasian Chalk Circle. Who cares for the Internet. Many people claim to care, but it is crucial to figure out who does, and that person is in a position to figure out what is a healthy path forward. >[...] Kerry, This was interesting. And I think it has implications that are important. Also in the past I have found that if one reads the laws that are applicable they help to identify the principles that will help to solve the problem. So it seems important to find a way to see the Government Corporation Control Act and decisions about its applicability. But the bigger question is what is needed. And I think I have made progress solving that question with the work I have been doing on the latest paper I have been working on. I have learned how important ARPA/IPTO was, which made it possible to give birth to the Internet. And by understanding that as a helpful and important government institution that made it possible to interface science and government, it will be possible to figure out how to create an appropriate government institution to continue to care for the development of the Internet and of computer science. And if the U.S. government can succeed in creating such an institution within government it sets the basis for other government to figure out how to do the same and how to collaborate with each other as they did in creating and building the Internet. Ronda
