ISI/IANA/ICANN's Sell-out of Citizen's Interests and Rights

[usdh@mail.ccnet.com (steve)]

October 23, 1998

TO: Ira Magaziner
Senior Adviser to the President,
Policy Development
Old Executive Office Building,
Room 216
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20502

CC: Honorable Mr. Pickering, Subcommittee on Basic Research; Hon. Mr. Bliley,
House Commerce Committee;  Hon. Mr. Daley, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration; Hon. E.B. Johnson; Mr. Joe Sims, Attorney,
ICANN, & Mr. Schorr, University of Southern California's Information
Sciences Institute

FROM: Stephen J. Page, Individual Respondee to DNSpolicy@NTIA.DOC.GOV;
Participant, Open Root Server Consortium (ORSC), Independent Researcher,
Network Systems, Pleasanton, California, US, representing Internet
.a(sm)-.z(sm) Name Registry, T: 925-454-8624 email: usdh@ccnet.com, and
Developer, the i(r).com(sm) network access, connectivity and content service
to the global community of i(r)ndividuals, email: ichannel@home.com

RE: ISI/IANA/ICANN's Sell-out of Citizen's Interests and Rights

FROM: Stephen J. Page, T: 925-454-8624

RE: The following is a parable which will help the educated civic-minded
and enlightened person understand what is being done with the ICANN

A True Tale...
Once upon a time, the federal government contracted with <the City of San
Francisco> to administer some <strategic assets> in the name of <national
defense>. It gave <the U.S. Army> a million dollars a
year to keep track of some out of the way, seemingly unimportant <piece of
land with buildings>.
Suppose that, in the name of <transition>, <the U.S. Army> started to
distribute the right to tap
into those <strategic assets> to <real estate asset developers> in <San
Francisco>. Suppose further that (quite plausibly) those other <real estate
developers> were quite happy with the way <the U.S. Army> was administering
the resource. They just loved the heck out of <them>. Suppose that this
<real estate> community became very large and important, and the <real
estate asset> became commercially valuable. Soon the community that grew up
around the resource dwarfed the <U.S. Army's presence> in
size. By now the federal contractor <U.S. Army> was viewed as a "God" of the
<San Francisco real estate> community.

Questions:
Q.1. who "owns" the resource?

Answer: the rights to the resource is held in "Trust" by the U.S.
government, for use by all of the people who are free to visit, creating a
commercial, self-funding operation, over a 15 year period.
This Trust is the Presidio Trust, approved by the U.S. Congress.

Q.2. who decides how to handle the transition from non-profit to commercial use?

Answer: the transition is handled through a process whereby the assets are
accounted for, a "vision" is sought for the "highest and best use", then
public comment is encouraged, received, reviewed, a plan is developed, a
Board of Trustees are chosen, and the plan is approved by Congress,
operations are begun, and the rest will be a part of the history books, to
unfold in the next 15 years...

Lessons from the Presidio Asset Management Process for the ICANN Process

        There are differences between a scarce asset like land, and an
unlimited assets like language (domain names) or mathematics (IP numbers).
(These are intellectual assets.)  The point is the process needs to be
followed, if not, there will be damage to individuals and small businesses.
        What is missing from the process of transitioning the management of
Internet names (useful addressable language) and IP numbers (mathematical
assets) is:

1) an open accounting of the past, present, and future assets (the defining
and counting of the Treasures)

2) no foundation under scientific law has been formally recognized and
formalized into a recognized system of order, although the foundation which
governs the operational design of the network is a proven fact, under a
Universal Network Systems Law(c)  (June 4, 1998 issue of Nature)

3) a "vision" of how the system is to relate to Internet users or citizens
(like residents and tourists to San Francisco) from the perspective of
"highest and best use of the assets".

4) no law-based plan is developed to achieve the vision

(A Green Paper/White Paper process is used by the Executive Office as a
"short cut" to the above and the public comment period was present.)

Companies are incorporated and Bylaws are created, ICANN, BWG(informal) and
ORSC, and the Sept. 30 deadline comes and goes, so the issue is no longer
about meeting a deadline, but about developing a plan which is scalable
over the long term, which requires being in harmony with the scientific law
which governs how all networks will develop.  ("Do it right".)

5) So far, there has been no role identified to exercise the "balance of
power" principle, as required under the law, for assets which have been
developed by U.S. government funding, as was done in the case of the
Presidio Trust, which is THE model which best fits the situation which we
now face.


Stephen J. Page
T: 925-454-8624

(c) Copyright, 1998.  Stephen J. Page.  All Rights Reserved.


>A fable....
>Suppose the federal government contracted with me to administer some oil
>reserves in the name of geological research. It gave me a million dollars a
>year to keep track of some out of the way, seemingly unimportant puddle of oil.
>Suppose that, in the name of research, I started to distribute the right to tap
>into those oil reserves to geological reseachers in North America, Europe,
>Asia, etc. Suppose further that (quite plausibly) those other geological
>researchers were quite happy with the way I was administering the resource.
>They just loved the heck out of me. Suppose that this research community became
>very large and important, and the puddle became commercially valuable. Soon the
>community that grew up around the resource dwarfed the federal contractor in
>size. By now the federal contractor was viewed as a "God" of the geological
>community.
>
>Questions:
>who "owns" the resource?
>who decides how to handle the transition from non-profit to commercial use?