From: Keith Gallistel <gallistelk@uwstout.edu>
To: <DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, Jul 4, 2006 3:51 PM
Subject: How the Internet should be run.

Hello,

It has come to my attention via
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/The_Internet_needs_YOU!,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/02/ntia_icann_consultation/, and
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2006/NOI_DNS_Transition_0506.htm
that your committee was looking for public input on how the Internet
should be run. As a lowly citizen of the United States I will try to
answer with my opinion as best I can.

*Questions:*

/1. The DNS White Paper articulated principles (i.e., stability;
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 additional
principles be considered in light of: the advance in Internet
technology; the expanded global reach of the Internet; the experience
gained over the eight years since the Department of Commerce issued the
DNS White Paper; and the international dialogue, including the
discussions related to Internet governance at the United Nations World
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 selling DNS
names, I feel as though they all stay at the same price. The market
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
should work.

Representation: The Internet has not become the "Great Melting Pot" of
cyberspace that the cities of America are today. The Internet still
feels very much like a Western walled community with very little
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 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.

/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 to facilitate
this transition and meet the goals outlined in the DNS White Paper and
the U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing
System? Should new or revised tasks/methods be considered in order for
the transition to occur? And on what time frame and by what method
should a transition occur?/

Yes, these tasks and milestones are important and relevant.

Also, I am worried that the domain name system has been compromised as
malice criminals are allowed to create domain names similar to actual
businesses to lure unsuspecting customers to sites where the customer
can easily be conned out of their most vital information. This has
resulted in both Microsoft in its Internet Explorer
7(http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx) web 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/) to
protect myself from fake websites with very similar domain names.

/4. The DNS White Paper listed several key stakeholder groups whose
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 groups not
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 of the
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 the Internet.
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 set
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. This system
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 for technical
coordination and management of the Internet DNS to encourage meaningful
participation and representation of key stakeholders. ICANN, in
conjunction with many of these key stakeholders, has created various
supporting organizations and committees to facilitate stakeholder
participation in ICANN processes. Is participation in these
organizations meeting the needs of key stakeholders and the Internet
community? Are there ways to improve or expand participation in these
organizations and committees? /

Who are the stakeholders? If these stakeholders are big companies like
telephone companies, cable companies, entertainment companies, and
technology companies; then I would say that "No, these stakeholders do
not represent the Internet Community." Stakeholders should be
represented by the university systems that were originally part of the
Internet among others.

/6. What methods and/or processes should be considered to encourage
greater efficiency and responsiveness to governments and ccTLD managers
in processing root management requests to address public policy and
sovereignty concerns? Please keep in mind the need to preserve the
security and stability of the Internet DNS and the goal of
decision-making at the local level. Are there new technology tools
available that could improve this process, such as automation of request
processing?/

Not my area of expertise, but I don't think that the Internet should be
very concerned with the sovereignty of any individual nation. The
Internet should be nation-agnostic and an extra-national/global. No one
nation or its sovereignty should sway the direction of the Internet just
because something happens on it doesn't comply with their laws.

/7. Many public and private organizations have various roles and
responsibilities related to the Internet DNS, and more broadly, to
Internet governance. How can information exchange, collaboration and
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 arrangement is
well balanced or well thought out. It seems like the Internet just
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 sections:
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of
Peaceful Assembly, Right to Petition the Government, Protection Against
Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Protection Against Self Incrimination.

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 a court-issued
warrant in the real world, than it should require a court-issued warrant
in cyberspace.

Sincerely,
Keith Gallistel