Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)

[mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Mr. Ohta:
These comments demonstrate the kind of confusion about ISI and IANA that are
prevalent around the world. The view that the US government is "interfering"
with ISI's activities or the development of the Internet is very strange,
almost incomprehensible. ISI's involvement with the Internet is purely a
product of US Government funding. IANA is nothing but a government contract
with the US Defense Department. Do you want the US Defense Department to be
responsible for the basic coordinating functions of the global Internet? I
suspect your answer would be "NO." If so, then it is absolutely necessary for
these functions to be moved into an entirely new structure, outside of US
government control, in the private sector, and subject to global input.

It may be true that ISI, Jon Postel, or other members of "IANA" have
developed close personal and professional relationships with people around
the world like you. Undoubtedly they, and people like you, have helped to
establish the Internet in other countries in its earlier stages of
development. These personal relationships are, quite literally, not relevant
to the task at hand. The Internet has become a global medium for commerce and
communication upon which billions of dollars of investment and business and
social activity rest. What matters now is the legal and institutional basis
for the coordinating functions that IANA provided in the past.

For this reason it is also a mistake, and a serious one, to think that we are
now creating a "new IANA." As a figure of speech, it is acceptable, because
whatever new organization is created will subsume the functions of IANA.
However, it is dangerous to use this term, because it obscures the
fundamental fact that the Internet's coordinating functions are undergoing a
radical mutation, making a sharp and irrevocable break with the past. The new
Entity will be a global organization, not a US government contractor; it will
not be dominated by one person but more of an impersonal institution, with
its own rules, and subject to much more formalized checks and balances. This
is not a "new IANA." It is an entirely new world for the Internet.

Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies

Masataka Ohta wrote:

> Vint;
>
> > my impression is that the WP was pretty open about the
> > leadership/oversight of the new IANA and only recommended
> > that the organization be incorporated in the US.
>
> The WP is fuzzy to allow various implementations including that
> described in the GP. However, the exception is that, it explicitely
> says:
>
>         As these functions are now performed in the United States, by
>         U.S. residents, and to ensure stability, the new corporation
>         should be headquartered in the United States, and incorporated
>         in the U.S. as a not-for-profit corporation.
>
> > Is the site of incorporation an issue in your view?
>
> Why do you say "incorporation"?
>
> Is it already determined in your view that there should be incorporation?
>
> In my view, *IF* incorporation is necessary, the site of incorporation
> is not so much an issue, unless the site is located in a country
> hostile to the development of the Internet.
>
> Now, let's see the reality.
>
> US courts make it impossible to stably administrate DNS name space.
>
> Worse, through the GP and WP activity, USG has demonstrated its will
> and capability to influence over the action of US local organizations
> such as ISI to interfere the healthy development of the international
> Internet.
>
> A statement by USG in the WP:
>
>         Moreover, incorporation in the United States is not intended
>         to supplant or displace the laws of other countries where
>         applicable.
>
> is meaningless.
>
> Such a statement can be valid with certain stability only when US
> supreme court judges so, but only until special laws are created by US
> congress against the judgement.
>
> And, remember, USG keeps saying that US congress can do it worse than
> the GP.
>
>                                                         Masataka Ohta