Another Perspective

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

I draw your attention to an article recently written
by Bradford Brown, formerly with the U.S. Department
of Commerce, and now Chairman of the National Center
for Technology and Law, posted at
http://news.com.com/The+e-mail+must+go+through.+Will+it/2010-1028_3-5469987.html
 

The article, in its entirety, appears below:


The e-mail must go through. Will it?
November 30, 2004

"The motto of the Pony Express was, "The mail must go
through." Now, 140 years later, we can say, "The
e-mail must go through."

Today, the ability to communicate and transact
e-business is fundamental to our economic security,
and by extension, our national security. As a result,
the stability of our core systems is critically
important. Such has been the case with the cycle of
business throughout each generation.

Having served in the U.S. Department of Commerce, I
have become concerned in recent months about the
upcoming process to decide who will run the .net
Internet domain registry. Simply put, the re-compete
of the .net registry is a very unique situation.

The Commerce Department shares responsibility for the
management of the Domain Name System but has
specifically delegated the coordination function,
including oversight of the .net registry, to the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), a California not-for-profit corporation. As a
result, the .net registry agreement is a private
corporate arrangement and not a government contract,
per se. Therefore, ICANN--not the Department of
Commerce--is putting out bids to re-compete the
existing agreement to manage that registry. 

 Yet the re-compete of the .net registry agreement is
not just another private contract competition. The
stakes are far higher, and ICANN must get it right. I
am heartened that ICANN announced recently that it
will use a third-party arbitrator to help make this
decision, a move that will have far-reaching
implications for e-commerce, communications, economic
security and national security.

But whether or not the ICANN structure and
deliberative process is capable of factoring such
considerations is anyone's guess. In the past, ICANN's
decision-making process has been arbitrary, unclear
and subject to internal political struggles. That
said, this competition cannot become a test bed for
new entrants.

In the current security environment, the United States
cannot afford that kind of risk. Simply put, in this
environment, a track record matters. An ability to
handle volume and technical issues while providing
stability also matters. How such factors are weighed
is up to ICANN. In this volatile period, the United
States is at war, fighting a global terrorist network
bent on destabilizing our national security by
undermining our economic security. Yes, much is on the
line.

The Internet has helped create a truly global market
and has forged unprecedented improvements in
productivity. Millions of users have come to rely on
.com, .gov, .net and other registries for
communications, transactions and information in the
billions of dollars in overall economic value. What
those numbers do not reveal is that interdependencies
exist between these registries that require stability
in the system.

If the .net registry is not stable, it's unlikely that
.com and the other registries can remain stable. To
take that one step further, a large percentage of the
.gov registry also depends on .net to have a
predictable level of performance. In simple terms, the
.net registry is much like a body's central nervous
system; it is critical to enabling the entire network
to function.

On its face, the re-compete of the .net registry
agreement seems fairly straightforward. Put in
context, however, what is at stake are billions of
dollars in daily e-commerce, billions of page views
and e-mails--not to mention the global stability of
the Internet, as a large number of the Internet hosts
are dependent on .net. One would think that
maintaining these numbers has to be a major concern of
the federal government. 

 In a recent analysis, Legg Mason concluded that the
re-competition is focused on "stability of the
Internet and the promotion of competition." There is
no doubt that with all things equal, the promotion of
competition is a paramount concern. But what ICANN
needs to remember is that global competition, in many
vertical sectors of the economy, requires this system
to function. And the bottom line is that stability, a
track record and security must be strongly weighed.

In times of war, the United States historically faces
a unique business and geopolitical environment--the
so-called "wartime economy." In such environments, our
policy bias has been skewed toward maintaining the
stability of existing systems and institutions in
order to allow broader markets to function. In times
of crisis, the prudent path is the road more traveled,
not less traveled.

Over the years, ICANN has made a number of terrible
decisions. Those decisions have made many
observers--myself included--question its process and
procedures. There are many questions that need answers
in this situation.

Given ICANN's current structure, how are the national
and economic security concerns of the federal
government going to get factored into ICANN's
deliberation of this important matter? What is that
mechanism? Does the Department of Commerce provide
that input through its existing Memorandum of
Understanding with ICANN? Even though it helped create
ICANN, is the Department of Commerce in a position to
provide that input? Who consults with ICANN, and how
are these concerns weighed and balanced in the context
of the re-compete?

Stability provides continuity and promotes faith in
our systems, faith in our institutions, faith in our
economy, faith in our government and faith in
ourselves. When faced with the uncertainty of war, the
certainty of communications and transaction systems is
clearly required. The stability of the Internet as a
whole needs to be maintained.

As such, I urge Congress and the Bush administration
to pay close attention to this vital issue. The e-mail
must indeed go through."


 


                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com