DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC
"As such, the US Department of Commerce will issue later this week something we call a Notice of Inquiry, which will seek public input on all aspects of DNSSEC deployment." http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speeches/2008/Baker_EU_081007.html
This smells bad. Why would the USG, through the Department of Commerce, solicit and consider the input of foreign entities? On Oct 8, 2008, at 8:33 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
"As such, the US Department of Commerce will issue later this week something we call a Notice of Inquiry, which will seek public input on all aspects of DNSSEC deployment."
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speeches/2008/Baker_EU_081007.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
This smells bad. Why would the USG, through the Department of Commerce, solicit and consider the input of foreign entities?
Remember WSIS and now the IGF? There are a variety of folk in gov'ts, civil society and even the private sector who do not care for the historical role of the USG in rootzone management. This seems to be a way of listening to those folks, so as not to draw their ire any further. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com
This smells bad. Why would the USG, through the Department of Commerce, solicit and consider the input of foreign entities?
Presumably because there will be ccTLDs in the DNSSEC signed root zone who would have some interest in the chain of custody of their own DNSSEC data from their TLD managers to the signed root. DOC has, after all, been careful over the years to avoid do anything at the root that would annoy other governments. R's, John
On Oct 8, 2008, at 8:33 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
"As such, the US Department of Commerce will issue later this week something we call a Notice of Inquiry, which will seek public input on all aspects of DNSSEC deployment."
On Oct 9, 2008, at 7:09 AM, John L wrote:
This smells bad. Why would the USG, through the Department of Commerce, solicit and consider the input of foreign entities?
Presumably because there will be ccTLDs in the DNSSEC signed root zone who would have some interest in the chain of custody of their own DNSSEC data from their TLD managers to the signed root.
DOC has, after all, been careful over the years to avoid do anything at the root that would annoy other governments.
I hear you, but it doesn't add up. The DOC has no foreign mandate that I'm aware of, and I have no standing with them as a foreign citizen. So while I see the words on the screen in front of me, I'm a bit confused about whether or not me speaking to them will carry any weight at all, or whether this is just window-dressing. /r
On Oct 9, 2008, at 7:09 AM, John L wrote:
This smells bad. Why would the USG, through the Department of Commerce, solicit and consider the input of foreign entities?
Presumably because there will be ccTLDs in the DNSSEC signed root zone who would have some interest in the chain of custody of their own DNSSEC data from their TLD managers to the signed root.
DOC has, after all, been careful over the years to avoid do anything at the root that would annoy other governments.
I hear you, but it doesn't add up. The DOC has no foreign mandate that I'm aware of, and I have no standing with them as a foreign citizen. So while I see the words on the screen in front of me, I'm a bit confused about whether or not me speaking to them will carry any weight at all, or whether this is just window-dressing.
Did they listen during the Green/White paper discussions? That it's mentioned during a meeting hosted by the EU Presidency perhaps significant. They do need countries on their side with whatever decisions they make. But who knows what happens if Norm Coleman or similar pick up on this. Adam
/r
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I was at the meeting, which was indeed hosted by the EU presidency. One additional piece of information is that at the same meeting, the day before, Eric Besson (French State Secretary for the developement of Digital Economy) had announced the "French root" for the object naming system, as complementary to the one managed by Verisign. Different people might have different opinions on whether the two items are related or not. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, 09 October 2008 15:01 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC
On Oct 9, 2008, at 7:09 AM, John L wrote:
This smells bad. Why would the USG, through the Department of Commerce, solicit and consider the input of foreign entities?
Presumably because there will be ccTLDs in the DNSSEC signed root zone who would have some interest in the chain of custody of their own DNSSEC data from their TLD managers to the signed root.
DOC has, after all, been careful over the years to avoid do anything at the root that would annoy other governments.
I hear you, but it doesn't add up. The DOC has no foreign mandate that I'm aware of, and I have no standing with them as a foreign citizen. So while I see the words on the screen in front of me, I'm a bit confused about whether or not me speaking to them will carry any weight at all, or whether this is just window-dressing.
Did they listen during the Green/White paper discussions?
That it's mentioned during a meeting hosted by the EU Presidency perhaps significant. They do need countries on their side with whatever decisions they make.
But who knows what happens if Norm Coleman or similar pick up on this.
Adam
/r
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atla rge-lists. icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I was also present at the meeting in Nice. Several people (some of them are reading this) tried to demonstrate that having another root might not be a very good idea, by referring to RFC2826. Milton Mueller had a presentation argueing that multiple roots could work. At question time, I suggested that ONS should apply for its own top level domain .ONS and work under the DNS root rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. I am not sure if proponents of the alternative ONS root have done their homework & looked at previous attempts in details (AlterNIC etc.) I am not sure whether this & the DOC sollicitation are related. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. E-mail:<ocl@gih.com> | http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@icann.org> To: "'At-Large Worldwide'" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC
I was at the meeting, which was indeed hosted by the EU presidency. One additional piece of information is that at the same meeting, the day before, Eric Besson (French State Secretary for the developement of Digital Economy) had announced the "French root" for the object naming system, as complementary to the one managed by Verisign. Different people might have different opinions on whether the two items are related or not. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, 09 October 2008 15:01 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC
On Oct 9, 2008, at 7:09 AM, John L wrote:
This smells bad. Why would the USG, through the Department of Commerce, solicit and consider the input of foreign entities?
Presumably because there will be ccTLDs in the DNSSEC signed root zone who would have some interest in the chain of custody of their own DNSSEC data from their TLD managers to the signed root.
DOC has, after all, been careful over the years to avoid do anything at the root that would annoy other governments.
I hear you, but it doesn't add up. The DOC has no foreign mandate that I'm aware of, and I have no standing with them as a foreign citizen. So while I see the words on the screen in front of me, I'm a bit confused about whether or not me speaking to them will carry any weight at all, or whether this is just window-dressing.
Did they listen during the Green/White paper discussions?
That it's mentioned during a meeting hosted by the EU Presidency perhaps significant. They do need countries on their side with whatever decisions they make.
But who knows what happens if Norm Coleman or similar pick up on this.
Adam
/r
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atla rge-lists. icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
DOC has, after all, been careful over the years to avoid do anything at the root that would annoy other governments.
I hear you, but it doesn't add up. The DOC has no foreign mandate that I'm aware of, and I have no standing with them as a foreign citizen. So while I see the words on the screen in front of me, I'm a bit confused about whether or not me speaking to them will carry any weight at all, or whether this is just window-dressing.
I read it as primarily an invitation to foreign governments. They can accept comments from anyone, but I agree that individuals outside the US aren't likely to be high on the list of influencers. R's, John
At 13:28 10/10/2008, John L wrote:
DOC has, after all, been careful over the years to avoid do anything at the root that would annoy other governments.
I hear you, but it doesn't add up. The DOC has no foreign mandate that I'm aware of, and I have no standing with them as a foreign citizen. So while I see the words on the screen in front of me, I'm a bit confused about whether or not me speaking to them will carry any weight at all, or whether this is just window-dressing.
I read it as primarily an invitation to foreign governments. They can accept comments from anyone, but I agree that individuals outside the US aren't likely to be high on the list of influencers.
R's, John
John, The WSIS (and therefore the USG) has acknowledged the legitimacy of the different poles of the Internet Governance. They are the regalian domain, the private sector, the international organization, the civil-society and progressively the notion of "Internet Community", i.e. the @large or de facto the Internet lead users. The USG is not as fool as Stalin who asked "the Pope? how many armies?". The power on the Internet is a power of technical consensus. That consensus can be politically imposed on Governments, financially purchased from the private sector, dealt with the International Organization, social-engineered for the civil-society, but there is not yet a solution to impose a technical consensus to the ecology of the digital ecosystem. This is what Peter de Blanc (I hope people remember who he was) called "our nuclear arsenal". I am sure serious people at the USG know how serious that comparison stands and prepare carefully their Hyderabad answers, where the real issue will be the ICANN legacy and replacement. Indefatigably, I will repeat that this will be decided by the @larges, through what the can do and what other decision maker believe they can do. Indefatigably, I will repeat that ICANN makes the decision through the way they relate with and use the ALAC. jfc
On Oct 10, 2008, at 7:28 AM, John L wrote:
I read it as primarily an invitation to foreign governments. They can accept comments from anyone, but I agree that individuals outside the US aren't likely to be high on the list of influencers.
I read it as a way of subverting the global, private sector led process that we all agreed to back in the '90's. international != global. The USG needs to back-off of our internet. /r
Talking from the USERs side: I agree with Ross - any Government intervention in the "functioning" of the Internet is not good news now, and in the future. The Internet phenomenon is a development that should not be politicized and not Governed by any particular sovereign state as it has been since ICANN (and its Constituencies) was mandated to do. There is room for each Governments to advise;that is through GAC and that process has been going on well.(?) At least there is this resource that is "neutral" and should be kept so. ym
From: ross@tucows.com> To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:37:11 -0400> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC> > > On Oct 10, 2008, at 7:28 AM, John L wrote:> > > I read it as primarily an invitation to foreign governments. They > > can accept comments from anyone, but I agree that individuals > > outside the US aren't likely to be high on the list of influencers.> > I read it as a way of subverting the global, private sector led > process that we all agreed to back in the '90's.> > international != global.> > The USG needs to back-off of our internet.> > /r> > _______________________________________________> At-Large mailing list> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
Talking from the USERs side: I agree with Ross - any Government intervention in the "functioning" of the Internet is not good news now, and in the future. The Internet phenomenon is a development that should not be politicized and not Governed by any particular sovereign state as it has been since ICANN (and its Constituencies) was mandated to do.
USDOC's position relative to ICANN and the root is the same now as it's been for a decade. Somehow we have a cycle where once or twice a year people discover with shock and horror that ICANN owes what authority it has to a contract with the US government. You don't have to like it, but it's not going to change. Can we make this a FAQ? R's, John
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Yassin Mshana <ymshana2003@hotmail.com> wrote:
Talking from the USERs side: I agree with Ross - any Government intervention in the "functioning" of the Internet is not good news now, and in the future. The Internet phenomenon is a development that should not be politicized
While I agree with the above.....
and not Governed by any particular sovereign state
I take some exception to this statement, as the Internet as a whole is not "governed" by the USG. The role that NTIA has is a very minor one in that it "rubber-stamps" changes to the rootzone file. I think it's useful to keep in mind that the vast majority of Internet Governance has traditionally been done by non-governmental actors. John is correct, the situation is highly unlikely to change, it seems that energies directed toward that change could be more usefully spent on other things. A FAQ is not a bad idea at all. -- Cheers, McTim mctim.blogspot.com
Hi all I guess everybody knows that many governments did not like the Idea of ICANN not to be really international. Unhappily the way people see international organization around the world nowadays still have a government strong hand. This was the key point to ITU to start the internet governance forum in the first place. Many reactions against the idea of have United Nations well known not efficient system taking care of Internet gave some relief for this battle but still have a lot of pressure to ICANN to move into an international organization other than one supported/ controlled/ assisted ( whatever the word is) etc by any government . There is no such model to copy, so the process to reach a new model for ICANN will take some time and till them the system we are running under now shall be improved to accommodate mostly the tentative models we will be testing. My little experience with DOC tells me that they will take into consideration whatever relevant comments they receive not matter from which part of the world they come from. Americans are practical people. Any good proposal they can use for free, they will. Many of us have a very clear position and add such comments will certainly contribute to improve the whole process. regards Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Yassin Mshana Enviada em: sexta-feira, 10 de outubro de 2008 12:52 Para: At-Large Worldwide Assunto: Re: [At-Large] DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC Talking from the USERs side: I agree with Ross - any Government intervention in the "functioning" of the Internet is not good news now, and in the future. The Internet phenomenon is a development that should not be politicized and not Governed by any particular sovereign state as it has been since ICANN (and its Constituencies) was mandated to do. There is room for each Governments to advise;that is through GAC and that process has been going on well.(?) At least there is this resource that is "neutral" and should be kept so. ym
From: ross@tucows.com> To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:37:11 -0400> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC> > > On Oct 10, 2008, at 7:28 AM, John L wrote:> > > I read it as primarily an invitation to foreign governments. They > > can accept comments from anyone, but I agree that individuals > > outside the US aren't likely to be high on the list of influencers.> > I read it as a way of subverting the global, private sector led > process that we all agreed to back in the '90's.> > international != global.> > The USG needs to back-off of our internet.> > /r> > _______________________________________________> At-Large mailing list> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I think you are very close to my point Vanda. The UN, ITU, etc. are all international organizations - i.e. organizations that sit between nations. ICANN was conceived of as a global organization, something that works independently of governments and nations (certainly not outside the reach of governments and their laws). ICANN was to be an organization that sat between people - an interpersonal organization. The DOC consultation seems to be saying, we don't trust the organization that we delegated this responsibility to (that of global consultation on DNS policy issues) so we're going to undertake an international consultation. The impact of this is two-fold - it diminishes the power and importance of ICANN as the organization where DNS policy matters are dealt with and more importantly, it diminishes the power and importance of individuals in that process. On Oct 13, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Vanda Scartezini UOL wrote:
Hi all I guess everybody knows that many governments did not like the Idea of ICANN not to be really international. Unhappily the way people see international organization around the world nowadays still have a government strong hand. This was the key point to ITU to start the internet governance forum in the first place. Many reactions against the idea of have United Nations well known not efficient system taking care of Internet gave some relief for this battle but still have a lot of pressure to ICANN to move into an international organization other than one supported/ controlled/ assisted ( whatever the word is) etc by any government . There is no such model to copy, so the process to reach a new model for ICANN will take some time and till them the system we are running under now shall be improved to accommodate mostly the tentative models we will be testing. My little experience with DOC tells me that they will take into consideration whatever relevant comments they receive not matter from which part of the world they come from. Americans are practical people. Any good proposal they can use for free, they will. Many of us have a very clear position and add such comments will certainly contribute to improve the whole process. regards
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action."
"As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor."
-----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org ] Em nome de Yassin Mshana Enviada em: sexta-feira, 10 de outubro de 2008 12:52 Para: At-Large Worldwide Assunto: Re: [At-Large] DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC
Talking from the USERs side: I agree with Ross - any Government intervention in the "functioning" of the Internet is not good news now, and in the future. The Internet phenomenon is a development that should not be politicized and not Governed by any particular sovereign state as it has been since ICANN (and its Constituencies) was mandated to do.
There is room for each Governments to advise;that is through GAC and that process has been going on well.(?) At least there is this resource that is "neutral" and should be kept so.
ym
From: ross@tucows.com> To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:37:11 -0400> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC> > > On Oct 10, 2008, at 7:28 AM, John L wrote:>
I read it as primarily an invitation to foreign governments. They > > can accept comments from anyone, but I agree that individuals > > outside the US aren't likely to be high on the list of influencers.> > I read it as a way of subverting the global, private sector led > process that we all agreed to back in the '90's.> > international != global.> > The USG needs to back-off of our internet.> > /r> > _______________________________________________> At-Large mailing list> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
"Ross Rader" <ross@tucows.com> wrote: [...]
The DOC consultation seems to be saying, we don't trust the organization that we delegated this responsibility to (that of global consultation on DNS policy issues) so we're going to undertake an international consultation.
The impact of this is two-fold - it diminishes the power and importance of ICANN as the organization where DNS policy matters are dealt with and more importantly, it diminishes the power and importance of individuals in that process.
I completely agree and would add that the flipside of this is that other governments (for example, in Europe) take this as a proof that ICANN is just a puppet organisation used by the US government to "control" the Internet. Why is this happening? Why feed conspiracy theorists? Why weaken ICANN? What good does this bring to the common table? After all, are we (in the widest term) not all supposed to work for the public good? O. -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. E-mail:<ocl@gih.com> | http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
I completely agree and would add that the flipside of this is that other governments (for example, in Europe) take this as a proof that ICANN is just a puppet organisation used by the US government to "control" the Internet.
Gee, here we go again. None of this should be a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention. ICANN's authority, such as it is, comes from its US government contracts. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Hello Mc Tim, On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:22 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
and not Governed by any particular sovereign state
I take some exception to this statement, as the Internet as a whole is not "governed" by the USG. The role that NTIA has is a very minor one in that it "rubber-stamps" changes to the rootzone file. I think it's useful to keep in mind that the vast majority of Internet Governance has traditionally been done by non-governmental actors.
The role of NTIA might be minor, even ICANN's actual place in Internet policy making might truly be minor, but the US hold over such "minor" roles have so far been highly symbolic with actual, profound implications. The traditional US thinking is almost that it has a legitimate right to dominate, if not own the Internet. So much so that part of the US Administration is now still trying hard not to 'lose' the Internet. If there is a perception that the vast majority of Internet Governance has so far been done by non-governmental actors, yes, apparently. Just like names and numbers have been governed by the International Organization - ICANN... US Government's dominance or at least influence everywhere is not as visible at it is in ICANN affairs, but in many non-governmental organizations (in general) its influence prevails, but invisible. It is just that the US Government has been less careful about its visibility in ICANN. All this is true so far, but it is quite possible that Meredith Baker meant it when he said "We look forward to working with the global Internet community to determine the best way to move ahead and I encourage all of your governments and other stakeholders in your countries to participate in this consultation process." perhaps because the US Government is beginning to understand that the world order is changing. US has not entirely lost all its hold on the International arena, but its position today stands considerably weakened for several reasons - America is becoming economically challenged, EU has become politically powerful, the rest of the world is becoming a lot more assertive. There are several other trends making the arena level. On the Internet, US probably has understood that the Internet is no longer a technical complexity that only six people in the world know how to build it (not said here with any disrespect for those who built it). It probably realizes that ICANN-squatting would create such trends as a China Internet formidably far more powerful and devastatingly hurtful to its economy. My guess is that there is a reasonably sincere change of attitude on the part of the US Government to concede its position. It might still posture up a little for some more time, but it is in a mood to understand that the world owns the Internet. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -- http://isocmadras.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
Dear Sivasubramanian, Good post! It necessarilly takes time before people accept as obvious what is obvious to others and not to them. This is the way the brain is built. This has helped mankind not to move too fast in poor directions, giving time to consider all the alternatives. But at some times in history (Socrates, end of the XVth century) we had to accept that the whole thing had definitly changed. These are named the great paradigmes. From flat earth to geocentric (Ptolemea), from geocentric to heliocentric (Copernic). The time is now mature for another of these changes, from heliocentric to ontocentric (people, stars, concepts centered world systemics). It started with Eistein and the quantic alternative, it developped with Freud, Saussure, cynerbetics, general system theory of Von Bertalanffy, Noam Chomsky, etc. and is exploding with the Internet, complexity, etc. etc. and the current financial crisis which could very well be the last step of capitalism (information capitalism) before being replaced by a more distributed vision of economy, entreprise and industry in the coming decade. From what we can observe, some cute pragmatic people in Washington keep a cold mind and follow a clear but seemingly delayed strategy that has been documented in http://withehouse.gov/pcipb. They go by the book and do not consider ICANN as anything else than what it is : a hook to fish foreign contributions to the US' benefit. This is plainly explained and this is pure common sense. Who would trust them if they did otherwise? Not me, as I do the same for my own country, my familly and myself [Please recall: this is the information society and the world's international granularity, proportionality and subsidiarity is now at personnal individual level - a people centric society). Happily, the world is not governed by ALAC and ICANN! However they can help, and our role is to help them doing just that, in the same spirit as the USG: to help ourselves. Answering the NTIA is one of the ways to negotiate with NTIA. For you and me, as well as for China. Because we are at a period of time (read Al Gore Nobel speach) nobody knows where and in which language what may change our world may come from. Also, IMHO, everyone knows that it will not come from IETF as it is organised today, because this is not its charter (please read the IETF mission - RFC 3935). Hence, there are very very few chances that the DNSSEC is the future of the world. jfc At 00:41 14/10/2008, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
Hello Mc Tim,
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:22 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
and not Governed by any particular sovereign state
I take some exception to this statement, as the Internet as a whole is not "governed" by the USG. The role that NTIA has is a very minor one in that it "rubber-stamps" changes to the rootzone file. I think it's useful to keep in mind that the vast majority of Internet Governance has traditionally been done by non-governmental actors.
The role of NTIA might be minor, even ICANN's actual place in Internet policy making might truly be minor, but the US hold over such "minor" roles have so far been highly symbolic with actual, profound implications.
The traditional US thinking is almost that it has a legitimate right to dominate, if not own the Internet. So much so that part of the US Administration is now still trying hard not to 'lose' the Internet.
If there is a perception that the vast majority of Internet Governance has so far been done by non-governmental actors, yes, apparently. Just like names and numbers have been governed by the International Organization - ICANN... US Government's dominance or at least influence everywhere is not as visible at it is in ICANN affairs, but in many non-governmental organizations (in general) its influence prevails, but invisible. It is just that the US Government has been less careful about its visibility in ICANN.
All this is true so far, but it is quite possible that Meredith Baker meant it when he said "We look forward to working with the global Internet community to determine the best way to move ahead and I encourage all of your governments and other stakeholders in your countries to participate in this consultation process." perhaps because the US Government is beginning to understand that the world order is changing. US has not entirely lost all its hold on the International arena, but its position today stands considerably weakened for several reasons - America is becoming economically challenged, EU has become politically powerful, the rest of the world is becoming a lot more assertive. There are several other trends making the arena level.
On the Internet, US probably has understood that the Internet is no longer a technical complexity that only six people in the world know how to build it (not said here with any disrespect for those who built it). It probably realizes that ICANN-squatting would create such trends as a China Internet formidably far more powerful and devastatingly hurtful to its economy.
My guess is that there is a reasonably sincere change of attitude on the part of the US Government to concede its position. It might still posture up a little for some more time, but it is in a mood to understand that the world owns the Internet.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -- http://isocmadras.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:31 AM, JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
Dear Sivasubramanian,
From what we can observe, some cute pragmatic people in Washington keep a cold mind and follow a clear but seemingly delayed strategy that has been documented in http://withehouse.gov/pcipb. They go by the book and do not consider ICANN as anything else than what it is : a hook to fish foreign contributions to the US' benefit.
jfc
Hello Morfin,
Thank you for your response. I visited the link http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/ which lists several PDFs on the US strategy for Securing Cyberspace (homeland Cyberspace ? !!) When the US Government talks about securing Cyberspace, it sounds like "Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weapons of Mass Destruction" to me ... Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://isocmadras.blogspot.com -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy ( Could you point me to exact resource in that page that has references to ICANN and indicate how US views ICANN as you have mentioned ? )
HI Ross Considering the effort DOC had made to avoid the take over of ICANN by ITU and other countries , I don't see in this Doc's move something to reduce the strategic importance of ICANN. What I see is just a political maneuver to signalize to other countries that Doc is becoming open to take his hands out of DNS, but matter of fact, there is no chance to this happens. Diplomatically speaking the move is interesting because it is a response to the existent pressure to this move really happen, So, doing this open consultation for further consideration, you reduce the pressure in order to have time to better analyze the new reality when the new government starts. It is election year. All moves must be seen considering this. best Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Ross Rader Enviada em: segunda-feira, 13 de outubro de 2008 16:44 Para: At-Large Worldwide Assunto: Re: [At-Large] RES: DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC I think you are very close to my point Vanda. The UN, ITU, etc. are all international organizations - i.e. organizations that sit between nations. ICANN was conceived of as a global organization, something that works independently of governments and nations (certainly not outside the reach of governments and their laws). ICANN was to be an organization that sat between people - an interpersonal organization. The DOC consultation seems to be saying, we don't trust the organization that we delegated this responsibility to (that of global consultation on DNS policy issues) so we're going to undertake an international consultation. The impact of this is two-fold - it diminishes the power and importance of ICANN as the organization where DNS policy matters are dealt with and more importantly, it diminishes the power and importance of individuals in that process. On Oct 13, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Vanda Scartezini UOL wrote:
Hi all I guess everybody knows that many governments did not like the Idea of ICANN not to be really international. Unhappily the way people see international organization around the world nowadays still have a government strong hand. This was the key point to ITU to start the internet governance forum in the first place. Many reactions against the idea of have United Nations well known not efficient system taking care of Internet gave some relief for this battle but still have a lot of pressure to ICANN to move into an international organization other than one supported/ controlled/ assisted ( whatever the word is) etc by any government . There is no such model to copy, so the process to reach a new model for ICANN will take some time and till them the system we are running under now shall be improved to accommodate mostly the tentative models we will be testing. My little experience with DOC tells me that they will take into consideration whatever relevant comments they receive not matter from which part of the world they come from. Americans are practical people. Any good proposal they can use for free, they will. Many of us have a very clear position and add such comments will certainly contribute to improve the whole process. regards
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action."
"As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor."
-----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org ] Em nome de Yassin Mshana Enviada em: sexta-feira, 10 de outubro de 2008 12:52 Para: At-Large Worldwide Assunto: Re: [At-Large] DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC
Talking from the USERs side: I agree with Ross - any Government intervention in the "functioning" of the Internet is not good news now, and in the future. The Internet phenomenon is a development that should not be politicized and not Governed by any particular sovereign state as it has been since ICANN (and its Constituencies) was mandated to do.
There is room for each Governments to advise;that is through GAC and that process has been going on well.(?) At least there is this resource that is "neutral" and should be kept so.
ym
From: ross@tucows.com> To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:37:11 -0400> Subject: Re: [At-Large] DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC> > > On Oct 10, 2008, at 7:28 AM, John L wrote:>
I read it as primarily an invitation to foreign governments. They > > can accept comments from anyone, but I agree that individuals > > outside the US aren't likely to be high on the list of influencers.> > I read it as a way of subverting the global, private sector led > process that we all agreed to back in the '90's.> > international != global.> > The USG needs to back-off of our internet.> > /r> > _______________________________________________> At-Large mailing list> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Ross Rader wrote, On 10/10/08 15:37:
On Oct 10, 2008, at 7:28 AM, John L wrote:
I read it as primarily an invitation to foreign governments. They can accept comments from anyone, but I agree that individuals outside the US aren't likely to be high on the list of influencers.
I read it as a way of subverting the global, private sector led process that we all agreed to back in the '90's.
Please clarify "we". Actually, when the DoC set up ICANN in 1998, there was no alternative model proposed, apart from the gTLD MoU which was shot down by the Clinton administration. Hence, we could only agree by default. Now, all we can do is try to get the best of this model and work towards a better one. This being said, the private sector has not yet demonstrated it does better than nation states in terms of regulation, or self regulation in that case. This is also the case of the Internet industry. After 10 years of ICANNing, we still have no global legal framework to deal with issues like privacy, harmonized consumer rights regarding domain names, etc. This is outside ICANN's mandate, mostly because ICANN and the USG have no standing on their own in generating international private law. The only ones who could would be nation states, working under a common umbrella.
The USG needs to back-off of our internet.
I agree. -- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
At 11:06 11/10/2008, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
This being said, the private sector has not yet demonstrated it does better than nation states in terms of regulation, or self regulation in that case. This is also the case of the Internet industry.
All is tied together. The economic crisis also results from the digital money fluidity. Wall Street suffered first at interoperator level. Its generalisation, e-commerce and financial e-crimes create a new environment and a new finacial culture which is not finalized yet.
After 10 years of ICANNing, we still have no global legal framework to deal with issues like privacy, harmonized consumer rights regarding domain names, etc. This is outside ICANN's mandate, mostly because ICANN and the USG have no standing on their own in generating international private law. The only ones who could would be nation states, working under a common umbrella.
This has been dealt with by the WSIS. The problem we face is that the resulting operational structures are to be multistakeholder enhanced cooperations, and the USG does not want to relinquish its grip on solutions which should be open or are outdated (like in the DNS case). jfc
What is strange in all of this, it seems the USG is trying to second guess ICANN. Either ICANN is in charge or it is not, but second guessing is bad for trust, loyalty,...
At 13:09 09/10/2008, John L wrote:
This smells bad. Why would the USG, through the Department of Commerce, solicit and consider the input of foreign entities?
If you understand the way the DNS and DNSSEC work the reason why is pretty obvious: they just want to check how many of them still ignore that the root server system is of no use, the proposed DNSSEC alibi as reliable as the US banking system. If they represent more than 60% of the users (as it is probably the case today if you consider the Chinese case), DNSSEC would actually be turning the Internet control to @larges earlier than obliged. The short term $ value difference is significant. jfc
participants (14)
-
Adam Peake -
Danny Younger -
Franck Martin -
JFC Morfin -
John L -
John Levine
-
McTim -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Roberto Gaetano -
Ross Rader -
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -
Vanda Scartezini UOL -
Yassin Mshana