From: Keith Gallistel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, Jul 4, 2006 3:51 PM
Subject: How the Internet should be run.
It has come to my attention via
that your committee was looking for public input on how
should be run. As a lowly citizen of the United States
I will try to
answer with my opinion as best I can.
/1. The DNS White Paper articulated principles (i.e.,
competition; private, bottom-up coordination; and representation)
necessary for guiding the transition to private sector
management of the
Internet DNS. Are these principles still relevant? Should
principles be considered in light of: the advance in
technology; the expanded global reach of the Internet;
gained over the eight years since the Department of Commerce
DNS White Paper; and the international dialogue, including
discussions related to Internet governance at the United
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)?
/Stability: If by stability you mean static, than ICANN
is doing its job
quite well. The Internet DNS setup barely changes from
my point of view.
Competition: Even though there are plenty of companies
names, I feel as though they all stay at the same price.
doesn't shift as much as it should and it is costly for
just anyone to
get an Internet address.
Private, bottom-up coordination: No, it seems like those
who control the
"structure of the Internet" dictate from the
top down how everything
Representation: The Internet has not become the "Great
Melting Pot" of
cyberspace that the cities of America are today. The
feels very much like a Western walled community with
representation of the rest of the world.
As for the United Nations, it has no place running the
Internet as it is
packed with dictators that have no understanding of Freedom
The United States should remain in control of the Internet
which time the Internet has been transitioned per the
DNS White Paper.
We screwed up giving up the Panama Canal and turning
the Internet over
would be just as big a mistake.
/2. The DNS White Paper articulated a number of actions
that should be
taken in order for the U.S. Government to transition
its Internet DNS
technical coordination and management responsibilities
to the private
sector. These actions appear in the MOU as a series of
core tasks and
milestones. Has ICANN achieved sufficient progress in
its tasks, as
agreed in the MOU, for the transition to take place by
September 30, 2006?/
I have looked over the DNS White Paper and I do not
feel that ICANN has
lived up to any of the goals set out for it.
/3. Are these core tasks and milestones still relevant
this transition and meet the goals outlined in the DNS
White Paper and
the U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and
System? Should new or revised tasks/methods be considered
in order for
the transition to occur? And on what time frame and by
should a transition occur?/
Yes, these tasks and milestones are important and relevant.
Also, I am worried that the domain name system has been
malice criminals are allowed to create domain names similar
businesses to lure unsuspecting customers to sites where
can easily be conned out of their most vital information.
resulted in both Microsoft in its Internet Explorer
browser and the
Mozilla Corporation in its Firefox 2 web browser
(http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/) adding anti-phishing
filters to stop
these acts of "spoofing" legitimate domain
names. Since these two
products (Internet Explorer 7/Mozilla Firefox 2) are
still being tested,
I use a product called SpoofStick (http://www.spoofstick.com/)
protect myself from fake websites with very similar domain
/4. The DNS White Paper listed several key stakeholder
meaningful participation is necessary for effective technical
coordination and management of the Internet DNS. Are
all of these
groups involved effectively in the ICANN process? If
not, how could
their involvement be improved? Are there key stakeholder
listed in the DNS White Paper, such as those with expertise
in the area
of Internet security or infrastructure technologies,
that could provide
valuable input into the technical coordination and management
Internet DNS? If so, how could their involvement be facilitated?
I feel that ICANN's technical coordination has been
less than successful
and I didn't even know it had management controls over
Are you sure that both technical and management duties
are capable of
being handled by one committee? I'm not.
A better system would be a "non-profit foundation" in
control of a
"for-profit corporation" arrangement. The "foundation" would
policy, fully control and own the "corporation,
and being non-profit
there would be no financial interest to corrupt it. The "corporation"
would handle the technical aspects and applying the policy.
is kind of how Mozilla functions (Foundation: http://www.mozilla.org/
and Corporation: http://www.mozilla.com/).
/5. The DNS White Paper listed principles and mechanisms
coordination and management of the Internet DNS to encourage
participation and representation of key stakeholders.
conjunction with many of these key stakeholders, has
supporting organizations and committees to facilitate
participation in ICANN processes. Is participation in
organizations meeting the needs of key stakeholders and
community? Are there ways to improve or expand participation
organizations and committees? /
Who are the stakeholders? If these stakeholders are
big companies like
telephone companies, cable companies, entertainment companies,
technology companies; then I would say that "No,
these stakeholders do
not represent the Internet Community." Stakeholders
represented by the university systems that were originally
part of the
Internet among others.
/6. What methods and/or processes should be considered
greater efficiency and responsiveness to governments
and ccTLD managers
in processing root management requests to address public
sovereignty concerns? Please keep in mind the need to
security and stability of the Internet DNS and the goal
decision-making at the local level. Are there new technology
available that could improve this process, such as automation
Not my area of expertise, but I don't think that the
Internet should be
very concerned with the sovereignty of any individual
Internet should be nation-agnostic and an extra-national/global.
nation or its sovereignty should sway the direction of
the Internet just
because something happens on it doesn't comply with their
/7. Many public and private organizations have various
responsibilities related to the Internet DNS, and more
Internet governance. How can information exchange, collaboration
enhanced cooperation among these organizations be achieved
as called for
by the WSIS? /
As I said in question one:
> "As for the United Nations, it has no place
running the Internet as it
> is packed with dictators that have no understanding
of Freedom and
> Rights. The United States should remain in control
of the Internet
> until at which time the Internet has been transitioned
per the DNS
> White Paper. We screwed up giving up the Panama
Canal and turning the
> Internet over would be just as big a mistake."
As for the other groups, I don't think that the whole
well balanced or well thought out. It seems like the
exists without any direction or governance.
*Further Comment: *
I believe that the Internet should continue as an open
and free means of
communication and idea sharing. The Bill of Rights should
serve as the
foundation for the Internet, specifically the following
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion,
Peaceful Assembly, Right to Petition the Government,
Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Protection Against Self
Net Neutrality should be the standard as there should
be no tier system
to the Internet. No company should make some packets
cost more than
others and no government or company should block access
to a website
because it can.
Finally as far as privacy is concerned, if it requires
warrant in the real world, than it should require a court-issued