DNS Comments Submitted on 10/11/98

From: Stephen Page <ichannel@home.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy),NTIADC40.SMTP40("mark.harri...

Date: 10/12/98 3:21am

Subject: Comments & Proposal, Stephen J. Page

October 11, 1998

TO:Honorable William M. Daley

Secretary of Commerce

c/o Karen Rose

Office of International Affairs

Room 471

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

United States Department of Commerce

14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20230

FROM: Stephen J. Page, 2800 Independence Drive

Livermore, CA 94566

T: 925-454-8624

F: 925-484-0448

email: usdh@ccnet.com

Re: New Concepts and Ideas in Support of the BWG and ORSC Proposals for

Management of Internet Names and Addresses (including supporting Addenda A-F)

CC: House Science Committee

Subcommittee on Basic Research

c/o Mark Harrington <mark.harrington@mail.house.gov>

THE AUTHOR:

Stephen Page is a researcher, former Regular Army Officer, U.S. Army, a

recognized business network architecture designer as a project manager for a

DARPA funded Network Architecture grant in 1994, and practicing optometrist.

He is 41 years old, resides and practices Northern California, a graduate of

University of Santa Clara (bachelor), University of California Berkeley,

(doctorate) and Boston University (masters degree in Business Administration).

He is a participant in the IFWP as a Virtual Attendee submitting comments via

email, as well as a participant with the Open Root Server Consortium (ORSC),

representing Internet .a(sm)-.z(sm) Name Registry, a California Corporation.

Dear Sir,

The basic principle of my proposal, which I have not seen articulated by

anyone involved in the process thus far, is that the management system of

Internet names and numbers needs to be scalable and stable over time based

upon its harmony with the mathematically-proven order which exists in our

universe, and ourselves.

This viewpoint differs from the point of view where stability of the

Internet, today, is our most pressing concern. Proven leadership implores us

not to ignore the future because of expendiency of today*s time-limit-driven needs.

This is one person*s attempt, again, to influence those who are in a position

of power, authority, or decision-making, to understand that there is a proven

architecture which exists, to which we must be sensitive, and with which we

must harmonize, or risk potentially grave consequences in the future.

The costs of fixing mistakes rise, once the deployment phase of a commercial

deployment has begun, and since we are already in the commercial adoption

phase of the Internet as a medium, the risks are high in doing it right the

first time.

The First Step is to Ask the Right Questions

There are many questions which have not been asked, which need to be asked at

this critical point in the process of developing an acceptable, scalable

system of managing intellectual property across the intellectual space

(commonly called cyberspace) which is facilitated by the Internet medium.

The first question that needs to be asked is, *What are we doing, and how

does it relate to what has been done in the past?*

Very simply, we are transitioning the highly controlled management function

which has overseen the initial phases of the development of a trans-geography

system of energy-carrying wires which transmits intellectual property from any

one point in the universe, to any other point in the universe, providing that

these points use the same numbering system (IP) and the same symbolic

language-mapping convention, DNS.

What are the real-world parallels to this transition which we can draw from

in order to make the right decisions? The parallels which have been done in

the past are, in the U.S., the creation of the interstate highway system, to

include the physical construction, the mapping, signage, and the languages

used to assist drivers in navigating throughout the system. In Europe, the

inter-national and intra-continental system of roads which feed traffic from

one geographical territory (nation) to another.

Using the interstate highway example again to reflect the view of the various

proposals, one proposal (ICANN) created by IANA is created by the leader of

the group which has a stake in maintaining is perpetual role at the center of

the *new corporation* . Using the highway analogy, this is the equivalent of

a mapping contractor to the U.S. Dept of Transportation or in California,

Caltrans, placing themselves in the center of the new corporation whose

purpose is to manage all of the present and future drivers of automobiles (in

the case of the Internet, browser-drivers). The asphalt companies,

construction firms, engineering firms, geotechnical firms, automobile

companies, tire companies, gasoline suppliers, etc. all depend upon the

successful and scalable architecture of the system of road for their economic

livelihood, but it is not their interests which should be represented at the

heart of the new corporation, but the interests of the millions of people who

actually drive the browsers.

As one of the drivers myself, and one of the people interested in providing

service to other drivers in the future, I and others have found ourselves in

the uncomfortable position of being told by those who control all of the names

and numbers that the names that I have chosen, although they are intellectual

property, cannot exist and therefore cannot be used to attract customers along

the side of the road. I, along with others have been warned that there will

be no system of governance or oversight which will protect my right to obtain

a license, drive my browser, navigate the roads using my own language, or open

up a business on the side of a road to serve others.

These positions are especially surprising because they arise from within the

system of government which is based upon a foundation of protections of

individuals rights and freedoms, which has created this new system of

cyber-roads which we navigate, and will continue to navigate in the future.

Unless the course of this process changes, what we are apparently witnessing

is the largest sell-out of individual protections, rights and freedoms, in the

history of the world, because there will be no guarantees of accountability of

future leaders to the people who use the system, nor guarantees of a lawful

foundation. This direction has the potential to negatively affect each and

every person, now and in the future, who drives a browser across the roads of

cyberspace, so this oversight should be remedied.

The understanding of the highway system is derived from exploring the past,

present, and future by asking only one question, *What are we doing, and how

does it relate to what has been done in the past?* However, there are many

more questions which need to be asked after we recognize exactly what we have

created, what we are creating, and what we will be living with after we create

it.

As a participant in the process for several years, one who has recognized the

need to build a future upon a solid foundation of physical and mathematical

truth, I would like to share some insight which might make things more clear

so that all people who are in the position to influence the future, are able

to do so with confidence and conviction, knowing that they stand upon solid ground.

The Mathematics of Networks or the Six Degrees of Separation

This past summer, in the June 23 edition of Nature mathematicians proved what

has been understood and demonstrated by people in the human and social

sciences for a while, that there is a common mathematical architecture which

applies to everything, social structures, power grids, and even the Internet.

What does this newly proven fact have to do with the process of transitioning

the names and numbering function of the Internet from a controlled function of

the U.S. government, to a corporately-structured entity? It has monumental implications.

First of all, the fact that there is a mathematical framework which affects

everything, including the Internet, means that we need to first be humble

enough to recognize how the framework is applied to the Internet. (This task,

has already been complete by myself, as a researcher working independently and

as a member of a small research team which had received a Network Architecture

grant from DARPA in 1994.)

Secondly, once discovered to be a part of a unified framework, we need to

recognize how this framework is applied to the U.S. government itself, so we

can recognize how our country has been able to harness the framework for our

collective economic, social, and political benefit. (Again, I have been

studying the role of the framework as it applies to the Constitution of the

United States, as well as how it has been successfully applied by other

people, nations, and economic systems, but most importantly how it will be

applied successfully in cyberspace.)

What can be simply concluded is this: if we can recognize the role of

mathematics to influence everything, over time, as we have now done, then we

need to apply this understanding to recognize how it applies to all things

human (biological, linguistic, cognitive/intellectual, social, economic, and

political), as well as all things *networked*. The point of intersection of

all things human, and all things *networked*, is where we must focus our

attention with the clarity of purpose which mankind focused upon other

objectives which were seemingly impossible, but achievable, like flying to the moon.

What I propose is that we leverage our recent understanding of the framework

which governs the DNS and IP numbering system, and harmonize our

to-be-incorporated structure to reflect the most stable, scalable, and

Constitutionally-inspired protectiveness over the intellectual property which

is the currency which flows across the Internet, removing all arbitrary

decision-making from the process, recognizing that there must be justification

for actions at the center of the power-vortex which we have called the

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and which we might refer to as The

Internet Channel, an open system unlimited in its scalability, subject to

principles of stable management, and trust. Why trust? All people will be

able to trust the system because it will be recognized to be based upon the

laws of the Creator which govern the Universe.

How these Principles Fit with the Existing Proposals, ICANN, BWG, Hauben and ORSC.

First, the ICANN proposal is derived from the efforts of one person who is

apparently not accountable to any other person. This fact, makes the proposal

inconsistent with the mathematical framework which governs the evolution of

scalable networks over time. There is no way that one person, developing a

plan designed to keep themselve in proximity to power and control, because

that is where they want to be, can create a proposal and impose it upon

humanity. (See the comments of BWG and Hauben for their reasons for

submitting their proposals.)

Secondly, in my opinion, BWG and ORSC proposals were created with input from

individual participants after hours and hours of meetings, discussions, and

conversations, driven by the principles of the White Paper, which can be

viewed as a document driven by political and practical expediency forced by

the expiration of the NSF contract. As a participant in the meetings, a

virtual participant, I have attempted to provide input which implored the

participants to recognize the design of the DNS and IP numbering systems as

being special.

Lastly, but not least, the Hauben proposal for recognizing the spirit of the

Internet as being a *Treasure*, comes closest to what I would call recognizing

that the mathematical design framework which exists is *the Treasure* and that

the intellectual property contents which flow across the network, from point

to point, as *the life*s blood of a body of collective human energy generated

by individual creativity and effort*. Recognizing the importance of

preserving the treasure, while protecting the flow of human energy across the

Internet Channel, is the highest calling which we need to undertake at this

critical point in time.

To summarize, the blending of the inclusiveness of the BWG and ORSC

proposals, built upon the spirit of Hauben proposal, should be the direction

where we should be collectively headed.

Having attempted to deal directly for several months with IANA regarding

issues which not only apply to myself and my business, but to the principles

which apply to others* businesses as well, with no success, I have very little

confidence in any organization regardless of what it is called which has no

stated foundation of Constitutional principles of protection or balance of

power. I have attempted to influence this oversight by the submission of

many comments regarding these oversights sent to the COMMENTS@IANA.ORG

website, with no apparent result, thus far.

A Nice Place to Start: Leverage a Model Which Already Exists

The Presidio of San Francisco is a symbol of a former militarily-inspired,

government controlled asset which has been transitioned for the benefit of

society into something new. It has been my suggestion, and continues to be,

that the Presidio, which is now a public park which is operated under the

oversight of the United States government as a Trust. The Trust manages the

assets, the land and the buildings, which are leased out to for-profit

companies, which will hopefully lead to the development of a self-sustaining

service to the public who use the Park.

We can think of the Internet in the same terms. The developed Internet was

developed by the U.S. government, and is now being transitioned for the

benefit of society into something new. It has been my suggestion, and

continues to be, that the Presidio Model, be applied to managing the assets

(the names and numbers) under the Trust model. The Trust manages the assets,

the intellectual property assets, which are leased out to for-profit companies

(or non-profit), which will hopefully lead to the development of a

self-sustaining service to the public who use the Internet.

The Presidio, as a symbol of a successful transition from government to

private sector, under the oversight of Congress, would be a logical place to

locate the administration of the new Corporation. The state of incorporation,

would not matter as much as the symbolism of the location itself. In fact,

this year, being the 50th year anniversary of the historical U.N. meetings in

San Francisco, would be an ideal reason to choose the Presidio of San

Francisco as a location for the global Internet. (I submitted a similar

proposal to the Presidio Planning Committee during their Call for Interest

several years ago, so this is not a new idea, although at the time it was

made, few people had heard of the Internet.)

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views. I would hope that you

consider the very important role of a balancer of powers as being a necessary

function which we cannot ignore.

Respectfully,

Stephen J. Page

From: Stephen Page <ichannel@home.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy),NTIADC40.SMTP40("usdh@ccnet...

Date: 10/12/98 3:29am

Subject: Addenda 1 to Comments of Stephen J. Page

Addendum A: Protecting Intellectual Property in Cyberspace

Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 16:33:07 -0700 (PDT)

X-Sender: usdh@pop.ccnet.com

Mime-Version: 1.0

To: <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>

From: usdh@mail.ccnet.com (steve)

Subject: Human Rights Declaration of Individual Rights in Cyberspace, July

4, 1998,

version 1.0

Cc: usdh@ccnet.com

An Open Letter Declaring Individually Created and Consumed Electromagnetic

Energy Protected

TO: the Cooperative Community of Individual Citizens of the World and

Present and Future Users of the Internet Channel

THRU: Open RSC Domain Policy Organization

TITLE: Human Rights Declaration of Individual Rights in Cyberspace, July 4,

1998, verson 1.0

a foundation for structuring scalable information systems (IS), data

systems (DS) and registration system (RS) while promoting long term social

and economic stability worldwide through a process of self-organizing

decentralization of control empowering individual energy creators and

stakeholders

by Stephen J. Page

MBA OD BSc

promoting individual rights to access, navigation, & electromagnetic

energy transmission universally

T: 925-454-8624 F: 925-484-0448

email: usdh@ccnet.com

Inspiration

The 50th Anniversary of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights was

an inspiration for recognizing that human rights and individual rights in

cyberspace are inseparable. When the UN crafted the Universal Declaration,

there was no Internet. Today, the Internet is a channel whose value is

entirely dependent upon the actions of millions of individual people. As a

collective massing of cooperating people whose individual and collective

creativity forms the sum of all value which is created, transmitted, and

broadcast universally, the Internet represents a treasure which is worthy

of extraordinary protection. By protecting the individual rights of one

person, and applying that protection universally, that treasure will be

protected forever, for all to benefit.

(This copyright is applied merely to identify the source of authorship.

Feel free to distribute this anywhere, so long as the copyright mark is

attached.)

Introduction

In 1948 the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was

written to provide a guide for the nations of the world and a beacon of

hope for oppressed and suppressed human beings everywhere.

International wars between nations are now rare, but civil wars within

traditional nation-state boundaries are becoming more common as the forces

of central control and self-interest run against the forces of self-rule,

autonomy, and self-organization.

Fueling the hope of human beings who seek to make their voices heard is the

technology which enables the Internet, an electromagnetic energy

transmission medium. This technology gives anyone with the

telecommunications access to the global network of networks, and a browser

which they individually control, the same right to seek and receive

information as anyone else in the world.

As people use their eyes and brains to send and receive information in the

three dimensional physical space of the universe, so do people who are

globally interconnected and internetworked by the Internet use their eyes

and their brains to rapidly send and receive information.

In such an intercommunicating world of individuals, truth can no longer be

suppressed or controlled by governments, and oppressed and suppressed

people worldwide have demonstrated that in the age of the Internet that

they will no longer tolerate a lack of information, access to human

energy, or voicelessness associated with having no free communications

channel.

So, in the anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

and on July 4, the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it seems

appropriate to create a Universal Declaration of Individual Rights which

can serve as a cornerstone of the future self-organizing structure of the

Internet, insuring that it will remain a channel for each individual to use

whenever and wherever they choose.

The vision of the Universal Declaration of Individual Access Rights to

Electromagnetic Energy Transmission Across the Internet, is that each

individual person inhabiting the world will enjoy the rights and benefits

of being able to send and receive information to and from any point to any

other point in the universe.

The Declaration:

Universal Declaration of Individual Access Rights to Electromagnetic Energy

Transmission across the Internet (iACCESS(r) RIGHTS(tm)

We the people, do recognize that we individually have the right to seek

truth and other benefits wherever we feel that we might find them.

We the people, do recognize that we individually have the right to send our

electromagnetic energy freely across the electromagnetic transmission

medium called the Internet.

We the people, do recognize that we individually have the right to protect

ourselves from any electromagnetic energy delivered across the

electromagnetic transmission spectrum which we feel is unhealthy or

offensive to ourselves or our families.

We the people, do recognize that we each are the individual owner of a

unique sensory management system called a human brain which we each use so

that we survive, procreate, work, educate ourselves and our children, seek

and attain contentment and peace, individually, and therefore,

collectively.

We the people, do recognize that our brain receives energy from various

channels. One form of energy is photons which represent useful information

which is processed at the eye's retina, the eye channel(tm), before being

transmitted electrochemically for our understanding. Other forms of energy

channels are the nerves which deliver sound, smell, and taste to our brain.

Each form of individual energy channel can be called an i(r)Channel(r).

We the people, do recognize that the Internet is universally an open and

accessible transmission system for energy which is created, sent, and

received by individual human beings, and therefore, it is a form of

communications medium, just like air which contains the necessary oxygen

which we breathe to sustain life. Without air, we would not be able to

breathe, nor would we be able to exist because our brain would suffocate

from a lack of oxygen. Likewise, without individual access to the

electromagnetic energy transmitted across the Internet, the intellectual

capacity of our brain would suffer from a lack of access to information

available universally through the Internet.

We the people, do recognize that we have the individual right to choose any

access provider to provide us with access to individually created human

energy across the Internet.

We the people, do recognize that we have the individual right to navigate

our browser to any location or destination universally without fear of

reprisal from anyone or any organization or government.

We the people, do recognize that we have the right to freely associate with

any other person or organization universally and exchange our thoughts and

ideas for our own individual benefit, and when aggregated, for our

collective individual benefits.

We the people, do recognize that we have the right to ownership of the

creative efforts which we have chosen to protect as our own property, and

the right to protection from intellectual property thieves. This right

stems from the law of physics which recognizes that electromagnetic energy

is generated from individual human effort, education, training, and has an

associated cost. Electromagnetic energy transmitted across networks

recognizes no geographic nor organizational boundaries. Therefore, from

the time of intellectual property protection, we individually have the

right to have our property protected worldwide, because if it were not

protected, then the electromagnetic energy transmitted worldwide would be a

channel for stealing intellectual property.

(This copyright is applied merely to identify the source of authorship.

Feel free to distribute this anywhere, through any channel or medium, so

long as the copyright mark is attached.)

Background of the Author

Please refer to archives of DNS@ntia.doc.gov for previous submissions.

Appendix B Supporting Position for Privatizing the Internet in the Same

Method of Privatizing Presidio Park Assets (Differing from the Concept of

Internet/Presidio Self-Regulation)

>At 12:25 PM 10/7/98 -0400, Dr.Milton Mueller wrote:

>>Before the House Committee on Basic Research

>>October 7, 1998

>>Mr. Chairman:

>>The White Paper process has not been a total failure, but it has

>>suffered from a serious conceptual error.

>>When it issued the White Paper, the Clinton administration announced

>>that "self-regulation" by industry rather than direct government

>>intervention would solve the problem of moving the Internet into the

>>private sector. Whatever one thinks of the philosophy of ìindustry

>>self-regulation,î it is apparent now that it is counterproductive to

>>frame the Internet transition in this way.

>>What is really going on--or what is supposed to be going on--is a

>>process of privatization, not ìindustry self-regulation.î That is, the

>>government is supposed to be transferring processes and resources that

>>it created and funded to the private sector. There is, in fact, no

>>pre-existing ìprivate sectorî in Internet address allocation or domain

>>name root server operation to regulate itself; these processes have

>>been created and monopolized by the US government, and developed in

>>other countries informally by governmental and educational

>>institutions. It seems odd that at this late stage of the game one

>>would find it necessary to re-assert this fact.

>>The inapplicability of the "industry self-regulation" model is

>>apparent at a glance. The two biggest players in the White Paper

>>process have been Jon Postelís IANA, the DARPA contractor that

>>controls address assignments, and Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), the

>>National Science Foundation contractor that controls the name space

>>and root servers. By abdicating responsibility for the transition to a

>>mythical ìprivate sector,î the White Paper in effect asked these two

>>organizations to define the terms of their own privatization. The

>>participation of private sector interests eventually degenerated into

>>a process by which various commercial interests lined up behind one of

>>these two government contractors. The parameters of the debate were

>>set by what was or was not acceptable to IANA or NSI.

>>IANA in particular insisted upon defining the terms of the transition

>>in a way that maintained its own control. From day one, it developed

>>its own draft articles that located the organization in southern

>>California and was plainly meant to make the existing IANA staff the

>>core of the new organization. IANA did not put this draft before the

>>International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) as a submission to be

>>considered and negotiated alongside others before the IFWP. Instead,

>>it set up its own, one-way process through which people could comment

>>on its proposals and it could, at its own discretion, decide whether

>>to use or ignore the suggestions. In order to develop support for its

>>own proposals, IANA leveraged its longstanding connections to the IETF

>>and to Internet administrators around the world, and drew upon the

>>political alliances that developed out of the ill-fated and notorious

>>gTLD-MoU. In the final stages of the IFWP process, IANA effectively

>>destroyed any opportunity for a consensual compromise by refusing to

>>participate in a final negotiating session. One can only ask: by what

>>right does a government contractor set itself up as a

>>quasi-governmental authority with the power to hold proceedings on how

>>to privatize its own functions?

>>NSI, for its part, did participate fully and openly in the IFWP

>>proceedings and did not adopt the unilateralist model of IANA. But in

>>the final analysis, the IFWP process was inherently incapable of

>>resolving any of the outstanding issues involving NSI. This was true

>>simply because every serious issue about NSI revolved around the terms

>>of contracts between NSI and the US government. In the negotiation of

>>those contracts, IFWP simply had no standing. For this reason alone,

>>the ìindustry self-regulationî model made no sense.

>>On the positive side, the IFWP did an excellent job of mobilizing

>>hundreds of idealistic and independent participants from every

>>continent. These activists, who came from the Internet Service

>>Provider (ISP) industry, public interest groups, academia, law firms,

>>and electronic commerce interests from all over the world, did manage

>>to come up with various proposals and consensus points that can guide

>>the US Government in its final determination. Most notable in this

>>regard are the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the Boston

>>Working Group. (See http://www.mama-tech.com/boston/) Also worthy of

>>note are the proposals of the EuroISPA Association (See

>>http://www.euroispa.org/papers/icann.articles.03.html) Both of these

>>proposals were produced by independent actors with no economic or

>>political relationship to either IANA or NSI, and while their models

>>differ in certain respects it may be possible to reconcile them.

Appendix C Sustainable Governance

>Mikki Barry wrote:

>>While I agree that this is rather important, there is also the issue of the

>>actual corporate structure and framework. I'm personally very concerned that

>>if the new IANA is indeed a non profit corporation under the standard US

>>model, it will have much less accountability to shareholders (or stakeholders)

>>and no real requirement for open meetings and records. That is going to be

>>one of the issues I'm sure will be discussed at GIAW.

>Steve:

> That's the same comment Lawrence Lessig had when apparently

>speaking about yesterday in New York (see bottom of page).

> If one uses the idea of "governance" as in Constitutional

>governance as a framework, we need to look at setting things up in a way to

>protect the rights and freedoms of individuals FIRST, while serving the

>society as a whole. (A society is only a large number of individuals, so

>protecting the rights of individuals should be foremost in our minds.)

>This can be done by recognizing that all individuals (regardless of

>non-attendance at the meeting) are stakeholders in the process.

> Contrast this approach to the approach of IANA, summarized by the

>comments at the top of www.iana.org's transitional web page:

> "Dedicated to preserving the central coordinating functions

>of the

> global

> Internet for the public good."

>Some fundamental questions to be asked at the Giaw and by the to-be-named

>Board of Directors of IANA and others:

>1.Where has U.S. Govt has given IANA the right to be 'dedicated to

>preserving the coordinating...'?

>2.Does "central coordinating functions" mean "government"? If so, where is

>that stated? Who gave it?

>3.Where's the framework supporting the protections of rights and freedoms

>recognized in U.S. Const?

>4.What does the "public good" mean? Is it defined anywhere?

>5.Who defines "public"? Is it a global public or is it a

>geography-dependent public?

>6.Whose public does this refer to? American? German? Swedish? Albanian?

>Who decides?

>7.Who participates in determining what is "good" for the public? How is

>the input received?

>8. What if the "public good" clashes with one individual's "good". (The

>classic conflict of 'individual' versus the 'state'.) Who decides the

>outcome of that clash? U.S. law? Chinese law?

>9.What will be the relationship between IANA and Internic? NSI? How will

>that change from the past?

>10.Is IANA, as a quasi-governing entity, allowed to own property?

>Intellectual property? Addresses?

>11. How does that differ from IANA's owning property in the past?

>Intellectual property? Addresses?

>12.If so, under what jurisdiction does IANA have these rights?

>13. If IANA will function as a quasi-governing body, what happens if IANA

>asserts ownership of property which "for the public good" when it is owned

>by an individual or a corporation? (it competes)

>14. Does IANA have the right to "eminent domain" of property "for the

>public good"?

>15. If so, from which document does that right flow? Is there recourse to

>individuals/companies?

><snip>

>Mikki:

>If there is need for policy people at this time,

>>I'd certainly consider it. I still think that the overall framework needs to

>>be discussed first however.

>Steve:

> The framework, as Dr. Lessig points out, exists, but is apparently

>going to be ignored for reasons that appear pragmatic and/or political.

>The very fundamental question is this: How can the protections afforded

>individuals in the U.S. Constitution be ignored in a medium which will

>affect individuals, not only from the U.S., but from elsewhere?

>Mikki:

>I'm also wondering how to get the word out to

>>enough people to have a meaningful consensus. I think that definitely there

>>are some excellent minds here on newdom, but I think we need more input.

>>Thoughts?

>Steve:

> If the average U.S. citizen was made aware of what is happening,

>they would be dismayed. The freedoms, to own property, to be free from

>tyranny of too much power in the hands of central government, etc., have

>been recognized as being worthy of armed conflict to protect and defend.

>To just give them away makes no historical sense. Dr. Lessig is right.

>Mr. Magaziner is, once again, acting in a manner which has no sense for

>historical precedent.

>Stephen J. Page

>MBA OD BSc

>U.S. Data Highway Corp.

>usdh@ccnet.com

>T: 925-454-8624 F: 925-484-0448

>(1)

>Magaziner, Lessig Spar Over Domain Name Plan

> (06/11/98; 2:46 p.m. ET)

> By Mo Krochmal, TechWeb

>NEW YORK -- Ira Magaziner, the Clinton administration's point

>person on technology, said Wednesday the next few months will tell if

>the U.S. policy of letting the Internet self-regulate will work.

>Magaziner, who shared a forum with technology pundit Esther Dyson

>and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, said within six months

>the federal government will know if private initiatives on Internet

>domain names are working. "If not, then we will have to review it

>again," he said.

> [snip]

> But Lessig disagreed, saying the implications of

>creating a special

> non-profit agency seems like a substitute for

>government, but one that

> does not have to answer to an electorate.

> "This is bizarre for a democracy," said Lessig. "Why

>not just carve up

> the government into private non-profit organizations

>and be done with

> it all? We are creating the most significant

>jurisdiction since the

> Louisiana purchase, and we are building it outside

>the review of the

> Constitution."

> Magaziner bridled at the suggestion.

> "In Washington, you need to act," Magaziner said.

>"The contracts

> were up in September and we couldn't let the

>Internet dissolve. You

> have to do something."

>[remainder of article

>at:http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/domnam/TWB19980611S0009

Appendix D Postel at the Center of the Process, No Magaziner to Be Found

>Tony Rutkowski <amr@netmagic.com> quoting House testimony:

>>Pickering: let me followup on this; how do the 9 get selected?

>> who selects the CEO?

>>Sims: "I don't know how they got selected."

>>Burr: (intervening) "no one in the government was involved"

>>Sims: Postel was in the center of the process. I could

>> find out if necessary.

> Nobody really knows what the

> heck Mr. Postel is doing? Is

> that what I'm reading here?

> And why wasn't Ira Magaziner

> there in front of the committee?

> Why was no-one else presenting?

> What a travesty to have such

> an internationally significant

> process as the formation of

> IANA-2 being rubber stamped

> by US legislators with no idea

> what's happening and zero input

> from anyone outside the closed

> coven of NSI/IANA/NTIA.

> Bob Allisat

> Free Community Network . bob@fcn.net .

Appendix E

> October 8, 1998

>Honorable William M. Daley

>Secretary of Commerce

>c/o Karen Rose

>Office of International Affairs

>Room 471

>National Telecommunications and

> Information Administration

>United States Department of Commerce

>14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.

>Washington, D.C. 20230

> Re: Management of Internet Names and Addresses

>Dear Secretary Daley:

>On June 5, 1998, the National Telecommunications and Information

>Administration ("NTIA") of the United States Department of Commerce

>issued a policy statement, commonly known as the "White Paper," in

>which NTIA called on private sector Internet stakeholders to form a

>not-for-profit corporation to administer policy for the Internet name

>and address system. Since that time, people all over the world have

>been working diligently to meet NTIA's challenge.

>While some may claim to have reached that goal, the members of the

>Open Root Server Confederation (Open-RSC) believe that the process has

>gone astray. To highlight our concerns, we refer you to the press

>release issued June 5, 1998 titled "COMMERCE DEPARTMENT RELEASES

>POLICY STATEMENT ON THE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM." In that

>release, Becky Burr said:

>" . . . the policy statement describes a process whereby a new,

>not-for-profit corporation formed by the private sector would assume

>various responsibilities for DNS administration that are now performed

>by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, or by third parties under

>agreements with the U.S. Government. We invite Internet stakeholders

>from around the world to work together to form this new entity."

>She also said: "We are looking for a globally and functionally

>representative organization, operated on the basis of sound and

>transparent processes that protect against capture by self-interested

>factions, and that provides robust, professional management. The new

>entity's processes need to be fair, open, and pro-competitive. And the

>new entity needs to have a mechanism for evolving to reflect changes

>in the constituency of Internet stakeholders."

>In response to these comments, a sectorally and geographically diverse

>group of Internet stakeholders came together under the IFWP banner

>(The International Forum on the White Paper). These stakeholders met

>at assorted venues throughout the world, and the result was a series

>of consensus points for the new corporation.

>Several weeks ago, the IFWP process broke down as many of the original

>supporters decided to negotiate directly with the IANA. The result

>was the ICANN draft, a draft that is in our opinion, deficient in the

>following ways:

> - The draft was finalized behind closed doors.

> - The draft does not include many of the consensus points from the

> IFWP process.

> - The interim board suggested by the draft was presented without any

> open nomination process or discussion.

> - It fails to meet Ira Magaziner's mandate of accountability, as the

> ICANN board is only accountable to itself.

> - It fails to meet the terms as stated by Becky Burr, specifically

> the desire for sound and transparent processes, protection against

> capture, and fair, open and pro-competitive processes.

>The transfer of Internet assets and authority from the U.S. Government

>to this New Corporation represents a major departure for the private

>administration of a global resource. And if we were only talking

>about Internet resources, the ICANN draft might be sufficient. The

>truth of the matter is, however, that the New Corp will be making

>public policy decisions as well as administrative decisions. Diverse

>issues like free speech, access, and privacy will all be affected by

>decision made by the New Corp. It is for these reasons that Open Root

>Server Confederation, Inc. (Open-RSC) hereby and respectfully submits

>our proposal for the New Corp. Our proposal is designed to be a peer

>proposal to the already submitted IANA/BGW/Haubens proposals to

>provide another point of view for NTIA consideration in the process of

>melding all the submitted proposals into a final result.

From: Stephen Page <ichannel@home.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy),NTIADC40.SMTP40("usdh@ccnet...

Date: 10/12/98 3:33am

Subject: Addenda 2 Comments of Stephen J. Page

Appendix F Science, the Presidio, and Self-Governance Concepts

Subject:

Re: Sustainable Self-Government (was Re: Farber on

self-governance)

Date:

Fri, 9 Oct 1998 18:22:39 -0700 (PDT)

From:

usdh@mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (steve)

To:

ichannel@home.com

>June 16, 1998

>TO: Will Rodger, Dave Farber, and whom it may concern

>FROM: Stephen J. Page, OD, MBA, Network Systems Analyst: Photonic, Bio,

>Econ, Politico, Social

>RE: Sustainable Self-Government

>(Excerpted from "The Pathway to Self-Governance, a Continuous 'Visual

>Pathway' Feedback Loop: Photons, Eyes, Vision, Perception, Cognition,

>Individual Action, Collective Action, and Continuous Improvement presented

>as New Photons")

>Dear Will,

> Regarding the comments of Mr. Farber which you have forwarded,

>below, I have my own comments which I will make after introducing his

>paragraphs in order (below):

>Dave Farber writes:

>>Ever since, and even before, the issuance of the DNS White Paper, there has

>>been a flurry of plans to hold meetings to establish the organization that

>>was proposed in the paper. While that is of course great, unfortunately the

>>meetings are viewed by many as a battle to establish supremacy and

>>ownership of the new organization. They are not only uncoordinated but they

>>often slam the others as fakes, setups by the establishment (whichever

>>establishment you want) etc.

>Steve:

> Mr. Farber's warning, given from someone well-respected as a

>scientist and researcher, laments the fact that the proposed meetings are

>"'viewed by many' as a battle to establish supremacy and ownership of the

>new organization".

> It is important to note Mr. Farber's own tag-line at the bottom of

>his response: "Photons have neither morals nor visas" -- Dave Farber

>1994. Photons may not have morals nor visas, but the organization that is

>being created will only allow a subset of all photons to exist in the

>future...those whose addresses are linked to the new organization.

>Therefore, the organization is going to essentially control the existence

>and movement of ALL photons which will pass through the medium called

>Internet.

> So, if the Big Bang (or God, or both) created all of the photonic

>energy (the superset of light or photons) which will soon be divided into

>two subsets, allowable photons and non-allowable photons, which will be

>controlled by the new corporation, it is no wonder that there is some

>concern.

> It is a combination of Mr. Farber's physics-level understanding

>applied to the organizational/political process, unsuccessfully underway

>for some time now, which is required in order for the smooth implementation

>of the self-organizing process White Paper to occur, in my opinion.

> The missing link in the process is the absence of understanding of

>the interconnection between the photons to which Mr. Farber refers, and the

>impact of those photons through the medium of the Internet, on the

>individual people who are the stakeholders in the future, controlled by the

>new corporation. The issues which need to be addressed are 1) balance

>between the opposing forces of individual self interest and the

>self-interest of those to be in power, and 2) an intellectual

>understanding of the physical truth about what is being created.

>Dave Farber writes:

>>I find this very unfortunate -- no very dangerous. In back of the whole

>>USG process was, I believe, the hope that the network community was mature

>>enough to take on self governance. If we blow it the result will be

>>governance by Governments with all the negatives that holds for the future

>>evolution of the net.

>>What do we do. We could act grown up!! We could coordinate the meetings and

>>make it appear like we are organized. I wonder if the net establishment is

>>indeed willing to be grown up or will they fight till there is nothing left.

>Steve:

> Hoping that the "network community" is "mature enough" is like

>talking about any community, in general, it cannot be done in a meaningful

>way because the network community is really a compilation of individuals,

>each with their own self-interest, world view shaped by their own personal

>history. In order to focus on what is needed for governing the community,

>we need to look inward on what makes people tick inside first.

> Mr. Farber's implied threat that "if we blow it" that governments

>would negatively affect the future of Net evolution is fails to recognize

>that the essence of U.S. government is to balance the need to protect

>individuals' rights and freedoms with the need to pay for common defense,

>safety and infrastructure. What is missing today, is the protection for

>the rights and freedoms of individuals. That omission places

>self-interested individuals (humans) severely at risk over the long term

>with a new corporation which allows only a small allocated subset of all

>useable photons to flow through the medium.

>Dave Farber writes:

>>Personally what I would like to see is for a neutral international

>>organization to call for/coordinate a set of meetings that aim at the

>>evolution of self governance. Since the Internet is so important to the

>>evolution of the worlds science and technology I would see if the

>>Organization of National Academies of Science (not just the US) would take

>>on such a difficult task. There may be other non governmental organizations

>>who have a vested interest in a good result but have no desire or mandate

>>to benefit from a particular solution.

>Steve Page:

> Neutral international organization? Politically neutral? (Does

>this exist?) Economically neutral? (Does this exist?) Legally neutral?

>(Does this exist?) Neutrality is not the point.

> What needs to be created, in my opinion, is an organization with a

>"supranational charter" which is focused on *service* to the end customer,

>the individual, regardless of affiliation. It can be organized as a

>federally chartered trust, like the Presidio Trust, and it can be

>supranational in its reach affecting global photon flow, just like the

>impact of the federal reserve' system on interest rates which affect global

>economic flows. To attempt to create something new like the proposed

>corporation from existing 'neutral' organizations will be like creating

>art, by a committee.

> Science and technology organizations would definitely have an

>educational role to play in the process of building understanding of the

>need for such a solution, but science and technology orgs would be

>secondary to the role which the new organization should play in affecting

>"balance" between equal and opposing forces, politically, economically,

>geographically, culturally.

>Background View

> In my opinion, we are witnessing the effects of the same creative

>forces which can be recognized as creating "weather" in the environment we

>call "air" but focused on a new medium which is equally electromagnetic,

>but different...Internet, which affects us all nonetheless by the

>interaction of photons electro-chemically with our inner cognitive selves.

> As biological systems, human systems called 'individuals' or

>people, once exposed to the Internet equivalent of "sunlight" (the photons

>which appear like magic on an interface) use their eyes to receive the

>images on the screen where they are sent inward through our visual pathway

>to the higher level areas of the brain where the symbolic content (text,

>graphics, video, sound...) is decoded into meaningful chunks which are

>collectively processed and distributed to the appropriate part of our brain

>where the content (multimedia) can have an impact (change) on our

>individual lives.

> Like photons from the sun flowing at lightspeed through our

>atmosphere, the photons flowing through the Internet medium are constantly

>moving (changing) and affecting us as well. Our individual brain manages

>the flowing energy and its main role is to process the changing light

>energy, insuring our survival.

> Individuals who have been exposed to the Internet have been

>fundamentally impacted by what they have seen with their own two eyes over

>the past several years because the medium is controlled by them, the owners

>of the brain, and the self-directed interactors with the interface in front

>of them.

> Individuals, once exposed to its power by their own eyes regardless

>of their race, language, job, title, age, nationality can recognize their

>power to control the medium that can and will transform their own

>organizational, social, political, and economic behavior.

> It is the organization of the "photons" configured into various

>patterns and presented as data to be received by the human eyes (cameras)

>which is at stake in the self-organizing process to which Mr. Farber

>refers. The reason this process is so difficult to manage at the

>"community" level (where Mr. Farber is imploring us as a father would do to

>a child) is that our individual brains each instinctively realize that we

>each, as owners of a brain, a computer, a browser, and therefore an

>interface, control our own individual destiny (where I want to go today...)

>as we navigate the Net.

> Our brains have limitless capacity to create, address, and store

>data and information. So, it makes little sense to implement a system

>which rewards a limited addressing capability, but that is the initial

>direction we appear headed. How to evolve the system in a manner which

>allows diversity and inclusion of all varieties of addressing systems to

>flourish should be our long term goal.

>Stephen J. Page

>MBA OD BSc

>email: usdh@ccnet.com

>T: 925-454-8624 F: 925-454-8624

>Background of the Commentator: Refer to DNS responses of Dr. Page to

>DNS@NTIA.DOC.GOV.

>>Below is a statement from Dave Farber, EFF board member, distinguished

>>computer scientist at the University of Pennsylvania and all-around Net

>>Savant.

>>Surely readers of this list will heed his warning.

>>Delivered-To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com

>>X-Sender: farber@linc.cis.upenn.edu

>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1

>>Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 05:44:29 +0900

>>To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com

>>From: Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>

>>Subject: IP: Self Governance -- to be or not to be

>>Sender: owner-ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com

>>Reply-To: farber@cis.upenn.edu

>>Ever since, and even before, the issuance of the DNS White Paper, there has

>>been a flurry of plans to hold meetings to establish the organization that

>>was proposed in the paper. While that is of course great, unfortunately the

>>meetings are viewed by many as a battle to establish supremacy and

>>ownership of the new organization. They are not only uncoordinated but they

>>often slam the others as fakes, setups by the establishment (whichever

>>establishment you want) etc.

>>I find this very unfortunate -- no very dangerous. In back of the whole

>>USG process was, I believe, the hope that the "network community" was mature