data request on Sitefinder

Tue Oct 21 15:14:38 UTC 2003

At 7:26 AM -0700 10/21/03, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>To inform? Not yet, although I have the feeling that this will be
>>>changed due to historic record. However, changes that have an effect
>>>are always analyzed and a course of action chosen. I believe this is
>>>the job of ICANN. At some point, ICANN's power will need to be
>>>tested and set in stone. Only the community can create or strip that
>>>power. Yet if an organization is going to exist to serve the
>>>community and maintain order, then it needs the power to do it.
>>
>I will point out that it will be much easier for the community to strip
>that power than to vest it in another entity.  To strip that power only
>requires one of two things:
>
>	1.	Enough of the community heading in a different direction
>		and disregarding said entity (ICANN).
>
>	2.	An organization such as Verisign openly defying ICANN
>		and ICANN failing to make a sufficiently strong response
>		to enforce and protect the consensus will of the community.
>
>I think item 1 is unlikely unless fueled by item 2.  Verisign would do well
>to notice that if they do implement the sitefinder wildcards again, and,
>ICANN does not successfully put a stop to it, the single most likely outcome
>is for the community to view ICANN as irrelevant and impotent.  Once this
>happens, the inevitable result is a fragmentation of the DNS, disparate
>roots, and, loss of the convention of a single recognized authority at
>the root of the tree.  This convention is fundamental to the stability
>of the current internet.  Losing it would definitely have negative impact
>on the end user experience.
>
>In every forum to which I have convenient access, Verisign has repeatedly
>attempted to restrict the discussion to the technical issues around the
>wildcards.  The reality is that the technical issues are the tip of the
>iceburg and, while costly and significant, they are not the real danger.
>The issues that must be addressed are the issues of internet governance,
>control of the root (does Verisign serve ICANN or vice-versa), and
>finally, whether the .com/.net zones belong to the public trust or to
>Verisign.  Focusing on the technical is to fiddle while Rome burns.
>
>>Related issues include whether the IETF process, even if flawed, is the
>>consensus means of proposing and discussing changes in the
>>infrastructure. Whether or not the operational forums like NANOG have a
>>role in this process, or even in presenting consensus opinions, also is a
>>basic question for Internet governance.
>>
>The IETF process is the consensus means of proposing and discussing changes
>in the DESIGN of the infrastructure, not the construction or maintenance.

Valid observation.

>That _IS_ the role of the network operators and the operators forums.

If one thinks of using the IETF model in the operational forums, 
which I don't consider an unreasonable idea, the operational forums 
will need specialized mailing lists/working groups, a document 
handling procedure, and a means of signing off on the "best current 
practices" track (analogous to standards track). This isn't rocket 
science, since most of the conceptual work has been done in the IETF 
-- mind you, if we ever do this, could we NOT perpetuate some of the 
more obscure rules in RFC formatting?

I'd certainly be willing to work with developing such a process as 
long as I have a roof over my head (In this economy, I'm more in the 
"will network for food" category). I think others will, and I would 
hope that there's even a little time this week for hallway discussion 
of the idea.

>For
>this to work, however, the operators have to be generally of good will and
>cooperative for the greater good.  This model is somewhat antithetical to
>capitalism because for it to operate efficiently, it requires the long term
>good of the community to take precedence over the short-term gains of the
>individual or single organization.  Capitalism is well optimized for the
>short-term gains of the individual or single organization.  This is one
>of the growing pains that comes from the internet being originated as a
>government-sponsored community research project.

Although there have been precedents for competitive profit-making 
organizations to cooperate for their mutual benefit.  One of the 
earliest examples is the cooperation of insurers to form Underwriters 
Laboratories.

>   The design was done
>assuming a collection of organizations whose primary motivation was to
>cooperate.  As we shifted to a privatized internet, that fundamental design
>assumption was broken and we have seen some interesting changes as a result.

Again, there are precedents for conflict-avoiding organizations, or 
organizations to mitigate industry-created threats. In the first case 
are both government organizations like the air traffic control 
system, and private monitoring centers for utility and telephone 
networks. We have intermediate cases like the VISA network, owned by 
its competing member banks. In the latter, we have things like 
CHEMTREC, a system that gives emergency responders 24/7 information 
on potetially hazardous chemical shipments.

>The fact that it still works at all is somewhat of a miracle.  Its continued
>stable operation will vitally require the continued good will and cooperation
>of the entities playing vital roles.  An ISP can be routed-around as damage,
>although the larger the provider, the more painful the injury.

That good will could be recognized, I believe, as legitimate 
enlightened self-interest. While OSI protocol development was largely 
a blind alley, the US Justice Department was willing to give 
antitrust exemptions to the Corporation for Open Systems.

>
>If it becomes necessary, significant portions of the internet will 
>route around
>Verisign in a similar manner.  The difference is that absent ICANN 
>providing for
>this, there will be no agreed upon replacement, and, several alternatives will
>emerge.  The result will be fragmentation of the root, 
>marginalization of ICANN
>and a reduction in internet stability.
>
>I believe much of ICANN's previous resistance to dealing with 
>Verisign's abuses
>of their role has been fear of the instability that could result. 
>It has appeared
>to me to be strategically and tactically very similar to the 
>accomodations made
>by the powers in Europe in the late 1930s. (No, I am not comparing Verisign's
>actions to those of Hitler, but, the strategy and tactics are a match.)
>If ICANN continues to give ground, Verisign's capabilities to commit further
>abuses will continue to grow as well.

Agreed.

>
>>Purely from my experience in journalism, media relations and lobbying, I
>>have to respect the effectiveness of the Verisign corporate folk who
>>largely have been setting the terms of debate, and managing the
>>perception -- or misperception -- of this matter in the business and
>>general press.
>>
>Agreed.  This is a big part of how the Nazis came to power in the 
>1930's as well.
>I hate using that analogy because it is so emotionally charged and 
>the scope of
>the damage was so much more significant, but, again, I am comparing only the
>strategy and tactics, not the ideology or the actions.

Sadly, you can find very similar techniques in the rise, or attempted 
rise, of other totalitarian regimes. Somewhere in this, some player 
should have a job opening for Baghdad Bob. :-(