Speech of Donald M. Heath, Internet Society President/CEO; Chair, IAHC
Internet
Domain Names: Information Session,
Meeting of Signatories and Potential Signatories of the generic
Top Level Domain
Memorandum of Understanding (gTLD-MoU)
ITU, Geneva, April 29th - May 1st, 1997
Mr. Secretary General, Dr. Pekka Tarjanne, Distinguished Signatory Representatives, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I greet you on behalf of my colleagues on the IAHC and welcome you to these information sessions to discuss our work; but, more specifically, to discuss the issues associated with the Domain Name System and the related aspects of Internet self-governance. You represent the leading edge of what may just prove to be an historic undertaking. Why do I say "leading edge"? Controversy has been created in this endeavor. A few noisy entities, with self-interests centered around "ownership" of generic names, in the form of Internet Top Level Domain names, for the purpose of increasing personal wealth, are throwing flak and other obstacles in our path. This makes the actions we are taking seem a bit more daring; perhaps, a bit more bold. But, let there be no doubt: what you are supporting is in the best interests of the Internet; what you are supporting is not self-serving; what you are supporting will make the Internet more stable, more secure, and will begin the institutionalization of some of the entities that have been functioning in the public interest, from the beginnings of the network that, today, we call, the Internet.
I, and my colleagues on the IAHC, want you to know that we greatly appreciate your actions and we encourage your continued involvement in this noble endeavor. Further, we enlist your support in bringing in other organizations and entities to participate in this process: the exercise of true self-governance of the Internet. This is a beginning! To truly succeed, we must have an even broader, deeper coalition of involved participants. I am confident that this is indeed occurring, and you are the leaders.
We believe that for the Internet to reach its fullest potential, it will require self-governance. Our intent is to facilitate that realization. The Internet is without boundaries; it routes around barriers that are erected to thwart its reach - barriers of all kinds: technical, political, social, and, yes, even ethical, legal, and economic. No single government can govern, regulate, or otherwise control the Internet, nor should it. Most governments, the enlightened ones, will say that they endorse actions by responsible parties, for efforts towards Internet self-governance. This does not mean that they should not be involved. Indeed, they must be involved; they just need to exercise caution so that they don't control and dominate by virtue of their intrinsic power.
By now most everyone knows that the Internet, in its first nearly 25 years, was the domain of the government and academic communities for engineering, scientific and research activities - primarily in the United States. The factors and forces that influenced its evolution were technological and strategic - and, by and large, not multi-cultural.
The Internet today is vastly different from that of only a few years ago - if for no other reason than it has grown so dramatically geographically - and, of course, from the incredible commercialization that has, and is, occurring with the Internet. It touches many and varied cultures; more and more, issues previously of little or no concern are either surfaced for the first time, or are amplified by the existence of the Internet.
The impact of the evolving Internet is truly a worldwide phenomenon. It is becoming a universal experience that does not seem to be scaled to the economic status of any country. Wherever the Internet goes, the impact is felt much the same. The geographical - socioeconomic depth and breadth of that impact may vary, partially due to availability of infrastructure, as well as the timing; but, the Internet is becoming virtually ubiquitous. And, of course, as the Internet continues to evolve, it will find its way across more borders and will touch more and more people and cultures. The impact of the Internet has just begun.
The Internet should prove to be the single most successful enterprise produced by man. It could prove to be a passing fancy. One thing is certain, its explosive growth in the past few years has had a significant impact in many ways:
- It has demonstrated that it can be a powerful force for democracy - a social revolutionizing force;
- It has captured the imagination of business, industry and finance; of publishing, entertainment, religion - and virtually all enterprises that can influence our lives;
- It breaks down barriers to learning, to education, to universal, ubiquitous and instantaneous communications and thus to mutual understanding and acceptance;
- It has opened the eyes of many to a vision for a brighter future;
- It has awakened in many a spirit of hope, and fueled the energy of innovation;
- It has also awakened governments, regulators, politicians, intelligence and law enforcing agencies and those who see a opportunity for a land grab in the Domain Name System.
The instrument we are here to discuss and better understand, the gTLD-MoU, codifies what has long been the policy for the Internet as stated in RFC 1591:
"Concerns about 'rights' and 'ownership' of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about 'responsibilities' and 'service' to the community."
One of the primary tenets of the IAHC foundation was derived early, from listening to the Internet community: generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) are an international resource and subject to the public trust. That is completely consistent with RFC 1591. And we are also glad to see that others, such as the European Commission, also support this fundamental principle. There are those who would say that gTLDs are not subject to the public trust; that they can be "owned" or controlled by anyone desiring to do so. We do not agree with that and publicly call that position, self-serving and short-sighted.
These same people have stated that what is at stake in these debates regarding the DNS and gTLDs is Internet self-governance. We believe that when the word "governance" is used in that regard, it must be in the context of the public interest. Their use of the "self-governance" term is a form of the flak I mentioned. There can be no self-governance for the international Internet when a group of self-serving people from the same organization develop a plan designed to preserve and protect only their interests and monoply - and even audaciously claim that they "own" a top level domain (.com) created in 1984 and for which they have only been a contract registrar since 1993!
Another tenet of the IAHC plan was that competition was needed in the process of domain name registration; not in the form of competing monopolies, but in the competition for your business through better services provided to the community in the registration process. Arguments have been put forth that invoke terms normally associated with free enterprise, but misrepresenting those same terms: competition, profit, branding, etc. Monopolies don't compete! And they don't lead the way to better customer service and lower prices. They do, though, lead to higher profits for the monopolists. Throughout the world, we see nations moving away from government controlled, monopolies. The other plans would seem to be a step towards the past. This is another misuse of otherwise legitimate terms, but turned into flak to obfuscate the reality of the IAHC plan.
They would argue that athletic shoe manufactures such as Reebok, Nike, New Balance, etc., are like gTLDs. Each owns their own brand and compete amongst each other for your business. There are, however, several fallacies to this argument. The first, is that each of Reebok, Nike, and so on, invented their name and built their own designs for shoes. The gTLDs are generic words or legal terms that belong to no one. The analogue here should be what registrars can do with gTLDs by way of service offerings - the gTLDs are nothing more than the shoes. Second, I can go to any number of stores and shops where I can buy any number of Reeboks, Nikes or other brands of shoes! Those outlets compete with each other selling the same brands. That is analogous to the proper role and positioning for the registrars.
The IAHC plan calls for many registrars registering domain names under the generic TLDs. They will compete for your business. They will not be monopolies who have a lock on a valuable generic or legal top level domain. You will have a choice of registrars for the same generic TLD preserving the branding and investment that you have made in your domain name. Do I need to elaborate or contrast further? I don't think so. In the panel discussions, I am certain that you will be hearing and discussing some of the potential technical problems that could arise under monopolistic plans. Also, we will hear discussions regarding regulatory and governance problems that arise with any implementation of those plans.
The IAHC process was meant to be several things. Among them, it was to have an international orientation; not to be US-centric. It was to be an open process for the public interest, conducted in the open, available to all. We further solicited organizations, from around the world who we believed should be interested and involved in our efforts, for their thoughts and input to the ideas embodied in the work. We are glad to see many of those organizations here today. All of this information was made public and is archived for public scrutiny. We have attempted to create an on-going structure and process that will continue this openness and allow for increased participation and positive evolution.
The structure allows for optimum efficiency in day-to-day operations, the Council of Registrars (CORE), while maximizing input from the broad Internet community, the Policy Advisory Body (PAB), through a small oversight entity, the Policy Oversight Committee (POC). We need to find efficient ways for the Policy Advisory Body to assimilate and harmonize the many possible positions that may develop (here we speak from experience!). We think this may be relatively simple if you compare it to what could be required if we were attempting to address issues such as content, encryption, censorship, and privacy. But these are for another time.
The Internet holds a promise for all of us; the hype may be understatement! I think it will prove to be historic that the Internet community has come to the ITU, and in a spirit of cooperation, are finding it easy to work together toward coincident objectives. There is little doubt in my mind that the Internet, or whatever we may call it in the future, will be a blend of what is now the teleco network, the Internet, broadcast radio and TV, satellite services, and that it will be our vehicle for universal communications.
My respect for the actions of Dr. Tarjanne in recognizing the impact the Internet will have on the telco industry, is profound. I am equally grateful for the support of WIPO and their leaders including the Director-General, Arpad Bogsch, the Deputy Director-General, François Curchod, and Mr. Francis Gurry, Director of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, all through whose leadership we have been able to create an innovative system of processes to resolve disputes between domain names and intellectual property owners.
One could argue that the Internet is about 28 years old. Yet, this is just the beginning. The promise of the Internet is profound. The evolution of the Internet must be open to all, with constructive intentions. The Internet has reached its present robust state for many reasons: a brilliant protocol; an early foundational period wherein the participants were virtually unnoticed, and so, were allowed to make great progress with minimal interference; an environment extremely conducive to cooperation between and among the participants; an open forum using a grass roots approach to standards development; the freedom to experiment in an uncontrolled environment; indeed, a self-regulating and self-policing culture.
As we see new entities defining the direction, evolution and growth of the Internet, we must adopt a perspective that will allow us to see actions of these entities in the context of the consequences that may result, whether intended or not. We must all be diligent, in our reactions, to insure that the phenomenon that we call the Internet will continue to grow, in all ways, and not be co-opted into impotence. It remains to be seen – it will always remain to be seen – how we, and our successors, perform in this grass-roots stewardship of the Internet.
Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you very much for your support and participation.