Re: [ga] VeriSign fends off critics at ICANN confab and ALAC's ligitimacy
You're leaving out one major factor. Regardless of what ICANN or the USG may
do
to restrict or control things, it is really the telcos that have the strangle
hold, along
with the RIR's.
On 12 Oct 2003 at 16:13, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 01:41 p.m. 12/10/2003, Don Brown wrote:
> >Joop,
> >
> >I can't state it more simply, but I do not desire to offend you - You just
> >do not understand.
> >
> >The Internet was born out of a U.S. defense initiative. Don't hold
> >your breath for the Congress, Senate, Executive or Judicial branch of the
> >U.S. government to donate it to to the world. It's not going to happen.
> >That's the reality of it.
>
> Don,
>
> I am pleased that you make the argument so openly. You may be right with
> your assessment of the current mood in the United States. I don't know.
>
> But there is also another reality. The Internet choke-points and DNS
> policymaking are not susceptible to "donation" .
This is true where the TCP/IP protocol is concerned. Yes, it is edge
controlled.
However, the numbering is where things can get rough. If the RIR's wanted to
capture things and pander to special interests, they could do so and cut off
much of
the user base from establishing networks, along with the telcos cooperation.
ISPs
are already restricting the use of their networks by restricting ports to
individual
subscribers. This is effectively narrowing the number of web and mail servers
run by
individuals and small businesses who use broadband. Soon, some of the laws
being passed will restrict the use of VPNs, NAT and other security measures.
Present laws could do that now if courts chose to interpret them broadly. They
would make criminals of individuals and small businesses who can't obtain
multiple
static IPs and use NAT behind firewalls and also those who connect to remote
company servers or telecommute, etc. using secure VPN's.
So they don't have to "donate" anything. All they have to do is make it
difficult to use
networks.
>
> "The internet" cannot be donated by any party to anyone, because the whole
> is made up by those who populate its DNS.
Only to a point. See above. Telcos are regulated. The government could
restrict
the use of lines, which would restrict the use of the internet. The major ISPs
would,
in turn, increase the restrictions on the use of their networks and the IP's
they
allocate to subscribers. They're doing that now. Users go to NAT due to
restrictions
on the use of IPs and NAT can be construed as criminal use of the ISPs network
because is masquerades. ISPs are not using the law in this fashion - yet - but
they
could.
>
> It is a network formula between them. It is a public protocol. It is out of
> the bottle. Its value and composition are a result of global participation.
What good is the protocol if you can't connect or use ports?
>
> Impose too high cost or too many restrictions on Naming and Numbering and
> the demand will route around you. In other words, any single Nation's grip
> on the Net must remain gentle or it evaporates.
A new global system would have to be implented and used by the entire world
simultaneously to achieve this. It's not that it cannot be done. It's just a
gargantuan
undertaking, including the establishment of new ways to connect - new telcos-
which
are regulated by government. Circular argument.
>
> Clinton and Magaziner recognized that. They were not giving up anything
> with the White Paper.
>
> >Besides, why should they - what margin is in it for them? Making
> >non-US citizens pleased is not on their agenda.
Eventually, it will. Commerce is global now, so there will be much more
pressure
coming from outside the US than there is now. It's already happening with the
EU
imposing things like Safe Harbor, VAT, etc. These pressures will come to bear
on
the use of networks, the root operations, TLDs, etc. The US can ignore the
global
climate for only so long.
Don't get me wrong. I would not be happy to see control of any part of the
core
handed over to any authority that could be captured like ICANN has been. I
would
also not wish to see the internet handled in any way by the UN, ITU or any
governmental organization. That would be worse than what we have now.
>
> ouch :-)
>
> >With that said, you can be instrumental in making a positive change.
> >We all know that ICANN is dysfunctional and fully controlled by the
> >insider cliche. We can all write to members of Congress and to
> >Senators to show our disdain. The number of similar letters from U.S. and
> >non-U.S. citizens should get some attention.
>
> OK. Here I am with you. We can help with web-form petitions and email or
> paper letters and see if by presenting massive numbers ICANN can be morphed
> into something more transparent and answerable by US politicians. It
> might.
>
> >That is our shot -- to make things right. I don't know of any better way
> >to slay the dragon, do you?
>
> Work seriously on an alternative and better structure. Then lobby for that
> structure. Spend personal money. Volunteer time. Aim for surviving long
> enough that natural selection can do its work. Internet time runs too fast
> for dragons.
>
> I'm not saying it's easy.
If you're thinking of lobbying government, you must think major dollars. Think
votes
and what will convince voters to join in an effort to lobby along with non US
individuals.
15k plus signers of a petition received considerable notice regarding Verisign,
but
that company can still implement its SiteFinder if it chooses to do so and just
wait for
the court battles to settle it.
To get Congress to pass legislation takes a monumental effort (doable but
costly)
and then we face the legal challenges when entities claim it's
unconstitutional.
Getting injuctions is also doable, but only when an action causes immediate
harm to
the public (prove it) or to business (prove it).
So this is truly an uphill battle that will take an enormous number of
signatures and
well written petitions that the US voting public will support. Any effort will
have to be
published by mainstream media as well, and a serious marketing effort will have
to
be in place for outreach globally. Make it public enough and congresscritters
take
notice.
It's easy to say "use your own money" and time and effort, but it will take an
army of
people doing that to succeed. It's called a grassroots movement. Ross Perot
did it.
We can, too, but at great cost.
Be careful what you fight for. You might not like the win if it results in
even greater
restriction and/or regulation. When you lobby congress for such changes, you
face
just such a danger.
>
Leah