[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
mg at telepresse.com
Mon Feb 17 19:46:24 UTC 2014
At 16:25 17/02/2014, John Curran wrote:
>On Feb 16, 2014, at 8:20 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> > I understand that the USG position is that the root is an US property.
> Could you provide a reference please from which you base this position?
The issue is complex. And important.
First we have to remember that Verisign was a "contractor" when ICANN
was created. Contracts show that ICANN first acted as a
sub-contractor the time they learn the task. IMHO an important
bona-fide document is Mike Robert's proposal to the USG, as it tells
how ICANN considered things. Mike can comment.
Then what we have to remember is that ICANN was NOT contracted the
root-file management but the root server system, and was allowed to
provide advises to the NTIA on possible changes. One of the
disturbing issue is that ICANN is entitled by proposition and
contract to charge for its legitimate services everyone, including
foreign governments, except the USG. This is only conceivable if the
matter being handled is an USG property. Also, the IP transfer
authorized by the USG was valued to less than $ 10.000. Is that the
value of the root-file?
From my archives.
Historically the name space was created by Tymnet under a dedicated
FCC license that should be find back.
Telenet was the first network to have an FCC license but Telenet was
X.25 and did not need names.
Deregulation created a confuse situation where ATT and further RBOC
supported the US Telenet effort in favor of X.25/X.75 at the CCITT.
The militaro-instrial complex's technology was Unix/IP. The
acquisition of Tymnet by McDonnell Douglas further to the acquistion
of Telenet by GTE , the growing influence of datacoms as separate
from telecoms, and the US position to consider them as a commercial
service product during the preparation of the Uruguay Round led to
the situation where the Internet was under the NTIA leadership while
all the other foreign networks where under the regulation of their
national FCC equivalent.
When Jon Postel inherited the Tymnet file, and kept firmly to ISO
3166 (names) only (not being in the business to decide who is a
country) while the ISO 3166/MA of the time favored an inclusion of
X.121 (addresses). Tymnet had merged them both (using numeric-names)
so the gateway with Telenet was OK and the Tymnet required only the
trick of the dot-root. (this is someting JFC Morfin can better
explain). Tymnet was aquired by McDD, then BT, then MCI (becoming
Concert). In the process it downgraded to X.25, while the Internet
took-off and developped the name space based upon the DNS flexibility.
So, legitimately, the root file,
- as an authoritative file for Class IN (ICANN/NTIA) seems to be an
US. Gov property, through the FCC origin.
- as an international datacommunication report with a accompanying
data base (http://intlnet.org/INTLHIST.HTM) used by Tymnet to comply
with the FCC requirement, the concept belongs to INTLNET. I
understand that this is the idea which is behind the planned
HomeRoot/EZOP proposition which seems to gain momentum.
A few documents I gatehered, helped me to better understand the legal
complexity and its mix with US power and soeverigty.
- Department of Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf
- a journalistic but very informed and pertinent report on it by
Ronda Hauben. http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/8369/1.html. I
think it is the most interesting one as its roots to NSF.
Otherwise some legal studies show the complexity of the issue.
And obviously PR. Michael Froomkin constitutionality study.
Professor Froomkin argues that the use of ICANN to regulate in the
stead of an executive agency violates fundamental values and policies
designed to ensure democratic control over the use of government
power, and sets a precedent that risks being expanded into other
regulatory activities. He argues that DoC's use of ICANN to make
rules either violates the APA's requirement for notice and comment in
rulemaking and judicial review, or it violates the Constitution's
nondelegation doctrine. Professor Froomkin reviews possible
alternatives to ICANN, and ultimately proposes a decentralized
structure in which the namespace of the DNS is spread out over a
transnational group of "policy partners" with DoC.
I suppose that Milton has also comments on this?
More information about the discuss