Summary Comments on IANA Comments-Mail Archives

[Tim Bass (IETF) <ietf@silkroad.com>]

I have intentionally stayed on the side-lines of these events over
the past few months, choosing to enjoy monsoon rains in Asia over
the political bickering which surrounds top-level Internet issues;
including domain and address space control.

Today, I decided to login to the IANA archives and read selective
threads and discussions relative to the issues at hand; and I must
say that the context and outcome is absolutely no surprise.

The same players exist, the same polarizations exist, the same
power struggles exist, the same emotional arguments exist.  Personal
attack and 'Orwellian speak' dominate logic, common sense, fairness,
and justice.

Many of the same players responsible for the failed policies of the
past still speak with authoritative voices, drowning out the voices
of those who would chip away at their power base or influence.

The process is still has virtually no accountability and is structured
so that those who are in a position of power and influence remain in
influence.  Those with opposing view are given little real opportunity
to have any influence except a virtual 'venting processes' which
encourages arguments and 'discussions' but the end result is that
the vast majority of people in the 'Internet community' have little
or no representation in a process which claims in somewhat 
Orwellian terms to represent the 'good of the Internet community'.

>From my reading of selective samples of the threads (download time
is too slow to read more than samples) it is apparent that little
tangible progress has been made to give more representation to
people without direct conflicts-of-interest in issues revolving
around control of TLDs, name space, and address space.

It is interesting, that the entire TLD, name space, and address
space are intangible assets that belong to the world; but the
fate of this is based on the economic and political will of a
very few (and most have direct economic or other interest).

What I do not understand is why this is tolerated by those in
whom we trust to provide oversight into the process.  Nor do I 
understand why so many with direct conflicts of interest are
allowed to dominate those with more generic and social (artistic)
interests.

The word 'consensus' is used without obtaining any tangible ballots
or voting process.  Then entire process appears to be an Orwellian
style mockery of due process.

I don't think it takes the genius of great minds to read through 
a sampling of threads and discussions in this area to see,
from an outside perspective, what is fair, ethical, and just.

It appears obvious that the process does not meet any of those
criteria and that the entire situation is controlled by the
voices of those in power and that that power and influence will
not be minimized under the current structure.

To create a public corporation with such a broad set of responsibilities
and powers without any voting from any public membership is a very
sad state of affairs.  It is a sad commentary on the year 1998 and
a mockery of words like "fairness", "ethics", "due process",
"accountability" and "democracy".

That is one reason why many professionals (including myself) do
not participate in the process.  To draw conclusions that "the
Internet community" agrees with the proposals as written, based
on the input I've read in the archives, is ignorant (at best);
and is best describes as the Internet version of Orwellian-speak.

Best Regards,

Tim

-- 
   Tim Bass
   Principal Consultant, Systems Engineering
   Internet Systems and Services, Inc.
   Tel: (703) 222-4243
   Fax: (703) 222-7320
   EMail: bass@silkroad.com.antispam (remove antispam tag)
   http://www.silkroad.com/