[ga] New.net presentation to GA MdR session
We've received a number of requests for copies of David Hernand's presentation to the GA session in Marina del Rey earlier this month. Because many of you were unable to be there or tune in at the late hour the meeting was held, I'm including a copy of the text below. The Powerpoint slides can be found at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/archive/pres/hernand.html If you are already familiar with the company, you can skip the first half and page down to the subhead, "ICANN Amok." Best regards, Steve Chadima New.net SECURING THE FUTURE OF INTERNET ADDRESSING Presentation to the ICANN DNSO General Assembly David M. Hernand, CEO, New.net November 12, 2001 INTRODUCTION Danny, thanks very much to the General Assembly and you for this opportunity to address the GA. We’re now well into the 13th hour of continuous meetings, and this is starting to feel like an ICANN telethon. I hope the viewers at home are enjoying the show. As Danny said, I am David Hernand, CEO of New.net, a domain name registry and registrar business that is using a market-based approach to expand the availability of more logical and easy-to-remember domain names. You all know that our company has engendered a fair amount of controversy in ICANN circles, much of which is highly relevant to issues currently being considered and debated by members of the GA. Accordingly, I thought it might be helpful for me to provide some background regarding New.net, our objectives, our experiences in the ICANN process, our views of ICANN, and the need for change. BACKGROUND Let me begin with some background on New.net. We formally launched our business in March of this year, and began selling domain names ending in 20 new domain name extensions, such as .shop, .inc, .kids, .family and .sport. We offer names that are more descriptive and relevant than traditional domain names that make it easier for web sites to communicate what they offer and easier for consumers to find what they are looking for. We recently introduced many more descriptive extensions in French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish, all with the aim of making Internet navigation easier and more locally relevant. We plan to do the same thing with non-Latin based languages later this year. New.net utilizes the existing distributed domain name system to resolve our domain names, and all of our names follow the www.something.something syntax that ordinary Internet users understand to be a web address. Our overarching mission is to improve the current domain name system to make Internet navigation easier and more productive. As is often touted by our detractors, New.net domain names are not yet universally resolvable. Rather, our names are accessible in two primary ways. First, the names will resolve if a user is accessing the Internet by using an ISP that has added stub zones for each our extensions to the ISP’s servers this is a rather simple solution that requires that no special software and takes only several minutes for to implement. This is the approach used by all of the ISPs that have turned us on. Second, if a user isn't using an ISP that has turned us on yet, the user can download a small client application that will enable him or her to access our names. This small application works at the operating system level by appending “.new.net” to any New.net domain name typed into the browser or used in another application. Our client application is available at places like CNET and ZDNet, and comes bundled with some of the most widely distributed free software applications on the Internet. With both of these solutions, New.net names can be used like other names for browsing, email, FTP and other applications. Thus far, New.net has convinced 5 of the top 7 ISPs in the United States, the top ISP provider in the U.K., the leading Spanish-language ISP in Latin America and many other smaller ISPs worldwide to support resolution of New.net domain names. In the United States, this means that over 40% of all dial-up accounts are already New.net enabled. Together with our deployment of our client application to individual users, we currently have a base of over 73 million Internet users with access to our domain names. This number does not include everyone online, but it is what we have achieved in our first seven months. We plan to get to 100 million Internet users by the end of this year, and 200 million by mid-2002. Our goal is simple: to continue expanding the reach of our network, reach critical mass, and ultimately achieve universal resolution. ICANN AMOK New.net is a massive, growing, *voluntary network* of ISPs and individuals that choose to obtain access to a naming system that *supplements* the naming system based on top-level domains included in the U.S. Government Root. It is a voluntary network that exists -- and indeed our company exists -- expressly because ICANN has not moved quickly enough to release additional descriptive and useful top-level domains sufficient to satisfy market demand. It is thus somewhat ironic that ICANN’s Staff and many of its supporters object so strongly to our efforts to channel market forces to enable dramatic expansion of the name space. The Staff apparently objects to the idea that tens of millions of Internet users should have the choice of using more descriptive domain names that in no way conflict with ICANN-sanctioned names. In contrast, we think that the existence of our vast network demonstrates the lack of consensus support for the ICANN Staff’s strident opposition to alternative naming systems. The ICANN Staff’s view of New.net and other alternative naming systems is symptomatic of a larger flaw in the overall ICANN process. The ICANN Staff seems to perceive all independent action outside of their direct control to be a threat. New.net fits into this category, as do the ccTLDs, and even the General Assembly. The ICANN Staff is insisting that everyone agree to top-down directives in order to participate formally in the ICANN process. As many of you know, the ICANN Staff refused to let my company provide refreshments for this GA session because our views are different than those held by the Staff. Apparently, if you believe that it is technically feasible for users to access both the U.S. Government root and competing naming systems, then you should be banned from the process. Perhaps Karl Auerbach should be forced to resign from the Board for harboring such views? Perhaps AT&T should be excommunicated from ICANN because AT&T owns a New.net domain name? Obviously, such actions would be absurd, but would be entirely consistent with the current approach taken by the ICANN Staff. We think this approach turns ICANN’s original charter on its head. ICANN was originally formed to create an inclusive environment for bottom-up, consensus-based coordination of the Internet’s central technical functions, foster a support-based structure for a distributed domain name system, and introduce market economics to open up the domain name industry. Unfortunately, a central control mentality has completely taken over, undermining ICANN’s original objectives. I don’t think that I have to convince most in this room that there are many participants in the process that feel disenfranchised. I can tell you that my company has made repeated efforts to participate at various levels within the ICANN process, and doing so has been a pitched battle met with stiff resistance from insiders that use ICANN as a tool to further their own interests, and use doublespeak -- or perhaps we should call it “ICANNspeak” -- to justify policies and actions of exclusion. The reality is that this so-called consensus-based organization is run with top-down decision making. Repeated calls for making this organization more representative and efforts to give Internet users and individual domain name holders a broader voice in the process have gone unheeded, at least to date. TOWARD A SLIMMER AND HEALTHIER ICANN So, what do we do about it? Despite ICANN’s shortcomings, we do not support abandoning ICANN altogether, but share the view of many persons that significant reform is needed. We share the views of many groups that are clamoring for ICANN to become more representative of the broader Internet interests affected by its decisions, but ICANN’s role also must be scaled back. David Johnson said earlier tonight and some will remember his presentation in Stockholm regarding two different models for ICANN: a “thick” ICANN that purports to be the sole semantic gardener of the name space, and a “thin” ICANN that is more like a trellis that allows many different kinds of plants to grow and prosper. We too advocate a thin ICANN, calling for ICANN to return to its intended role as a technical standards-setting body instead of the uber-government of the Internet that it appears headed to become. Of course, many in ICANN's inner circles claim no interest in becoming a government, but as the old saying goes, "actions speak louder than words," and we think their actions scream at this point. With a thin ICANN, the organization would be able to better focus on and fulfill its technical coordination mandate. Today, too much of ICANN’s energy is spent on trying to extract loyalty oaths from persons and entities that interact with ICANN and negotiating massive legal contracts. With a thin ICANN, there would be less perceived need to exclude parties with opposing viewpoints. Global governance structures also would need to be invoked only on rare occasions for truly key issues. Finally, a thin ICANN could allow for Internet users to directly participate in the selection and success of new top-level domains via the marketplace. Sadly, the prognosis for change within ICANN does not look good. The trend line seems to be toward greater control, less debate and a broader scope of authority. The ICANN Staff changed the agenda for this meeting to focus on Internet security matters, resulting in expanding ICANN’s purview and postponing having to address difficult restructuring issues until next year. Moreover, the Staff is now using rhetoric to define anything out of their control as a threat to the Internet. This includes alternative naming systems, broad participation of ordinary Internet users, ccTLDs’ demands for independence and recognition, and so on. In contrast, the real threats to the Internet’s stability and vitality are continually expanding centralized control and top-down decision-making, demanding “loyalty oaths” to participate and gain recognition in ICANN processes, intolerance for differing viewpoints, and resistance to broader representation. These efforts to centralize control run counter to what the Internet is all about. The Internet has prospered because it is organic and decentralized, and it is diversity that gives it strength, resilience, and adaptability. Efforts to resist change and innovation threaten our security. Despite the trend in the wrong direction, we call upon members of the General Assembly to demand that ICANN return to a more limited technical standards-setting role, embrace truly inclusive, bottoms-up processes, embrace the principle that market forces matter, and adopt the perspective that the Staff serves the Internet addressing community and not the other way around. We at New.net thank the General Assembly for this opportunity to share our perspective regarding the direction that ICANN appears to be headed and the need for change. We hope to continue our active involvement in ICANN and the General Assembly. Thank you. |