--- From: Bretton Vine <brettonat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Subject: .za hijacking by DoC proposed ecommerce legislation Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 03:12:00 +0200 Cc: mlawrieat_private Hi Declan (apologies for the length of this document) I wonder if you could kindly give some exposure to what I have put together below. I find myself in a situation where I'm witnessing the development and implementation of groundbreaking legislation related the Internet and ecommerce in South Africa. However, certain developments have become a farce and the South African Government (by means of the Portfolio Committee on Communications and the Department of Communications) has begun to embarrass itself far beyond what can be politely accepted. The ignorant efforts of our elected officials have rapidly entered the realm of grossly intolerable behaviour in an online context. I've given a short history to the process of this legislation, and some links to the relevant documents. For the purposes of this email I want to focus on the Domain Name issues as described below. Please note that this is not the only area of the proposed bill with major problems, but it is the one creating the most confusion to the technical running of DNS services in South Africa. I have also included: - brief overview of situation - background to the ECT Bill in question - links to ECT Bill - paraphrased exert from proposed Bill - namespace.org.za information - background to redelegation of .za - links to Uniforum, ISOC-ZA, Namespace ZA submissions - extracts from RFC1591 - extracts from ICP-1 - some important links - and finally, the submission of Mr Mike Lawrie himself. Mike Lawrie is the current administrator of the .za domain and has performed an outstanding job since 1994 on an unpaid basis. I'm confident there are many in the ccTLD field or DNS related fields who can attest to the character and ability of Mr Mike Lawrie in the capacity as administrator of the .za domain and in other fields related to the Internet or the provision of Internet service at an educational level all the way through to a national level. Please note, I do not speak for any of the individuals or organisations mentioned. I am an Internet user and a domain name owner. My interest in the proceedings is personal and I have no vested interest in the way things turn out other than the continuing functioning of my own domain name. Opinions are my own and do not reflect any employer or body I may be aligned with. In brief, Chapter 10 of the proposed Electronic Communications and Transactions Bill seeks to establish a Domain Name Authority within South Africa and give control of the .za domain to that Authority under the auspices/control of the Department of Communications. This has been done with zero consultation with the current .za administrator or other bodies involved in the redelegation process which is already underway involving Namespace ZA [www.namespace.org.za.] In submissions to the Portfolio Committee on Communications various stakeholders have presented their viewpoints to the committee on Chapter 10. These viewpoints, from technical experts in the field of domain names and DNS administration do not appear to be given any value or getting any consideration by the Committee or the Department of Communications at this stage. Even the explanation of technical factors related to RFC1591 appear to be lost on them. Quite simply, the Internet is a connection of private networks which choose to communicate via commonly agreed upon protocols while adhering to commonly agreed upon standards. The DoC seeks to write its own standards, and the Chairman of the Committee says (paraphrase): "The law in South Africa is the law. No-one is above the law. The Internet (and ICANN was implicated as well) will submit to the law of South Africa" They appear to feel that they can create legislation to force the redelegation of the .za domain to the DoC. They refuse to accept the provisions of RFC1591 or ICP-1 and do not seem to understand that if they do not abide by the standards for connection to the Internet, then the Internet will not connect to them. The technical DNS folk are dealing with people in government who are grossly ignorant of many factors related to the Internet and the governance processes which already exist, in particular for DNS. While some of these matters are technical, the fundamental ones are not. Yet even though government has repeatedly demonstrated ignorance of technical matters and has demonstrated no desire to allow themselves to be educated (by people who are trying very hard to educate them) their fundamental misunderstanding is not technical at all and shouldn't require any education whatsoever. Quite simply, the current .za domain administrator will not redelegate the administration of .za to anyone incapable of fulfilling the requirements in RFC1591 and IPC-1. ICANN won't allow this either. But the government refuses to see reason here. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions from the information supplied below. But if the legislation is passed in its current form it would have a severe and detrimental effect to the provision of Internet services in South Africa. This is not something that needs to be tested in order for a point to be proven and the government to realise the error of their ways. It is a situation where the government is trying to hijack an existing redelegation process by creating legislation of it's own, and in that legislation transferring ownership. They fail to see that this will have no effect whatsoever on how the rest of the world will choose to cooperate with and/or view .za in light of RFC's and ICANN etc. Background to the ECT Bill [From: http://www.bridges.org/policy/sa/ect/synopsis_comment.html] The Electronic Communications and Transactions (ECT) Bill is the result of a democratic and consultative process that began in 1999 with the publication of a Discussion Paper designed to stimulate discussion and debate. This was followed in November 2000 by the publication of a Green Paper that highlighted the numerous legal and practical issues that would need to be addressed in a Bill. In order to fast-track the process, the Department of Communications (DoC) decided to dispense with the normal procedure of publishing of a White Paper -- which would have allowed for further consultation -- and tabled the current Bill as it stands, inviting only final public comments. The deadline for submitting comments was 8 May 2002 A Copy of ECT bill can be downloaded at: http://co.za/ect/ecommerce.doc or viewed in HTML at: http://co.za/ect/html1 Of note is Chapter X which is too large to include completely in this email. Please refer the links above for a full copy of the proposed bill. Chapter X seeks to establish a non-profit body of which the State is the only shareholder and the Minister of Communications is given complete control. It seeks to establish a board of directors of between 8 and 16 people. [Note: .za is currently run and has been since early 1990's by one person who receives no remuneration] Stakeholders (The Internet community isn't the main stakeholder in the bill) must nominate two persons to serve on this board. The Minister can refuse to allow this if they desire. No person may update a repository or administer a sub-domain unless such person is licensed to do so by the Authority. This implies that I, as a domain holder of somedomain.co.za now need a license for machine1.somedomain.co.za. The Authority must— (a) administer and manage the .za domain name space; (b) comply with the requirements for administration of the .za domain name space as provided for by ICANN, its successors or assigns; (c) license and regulate registries; (d) license and regulate registrars for the respective registries; and (e) publish guidelines on— (i) the general administration and management of the .za domain name space; (ii) the requirements and procedures for domain name registration; and (iii) the maintenance of and public access to a repository, I won't go more in-depth than that just now. You can read the Chapter if you are interested. Quite simply the DoC has no understanding of DNS administration or existing processes. They seek to write their own. They're also horribly confused as to ICANN and GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) and seem to think that the GAC dictates policy to ICANN. About Namespace ZA Namespace ZA is an organisation formed as a result of co-operation between the present administrator of the .ZA domain, Mike Lawrie, and ISOC-ZA in order to better represent the South African Internet community on issues pertaining to responsibility for the .ZA domain. Background to Redelegation of .za In November 1998, Mike Lawrie drew up Terms of Reference for the appointment of a committee to draft conditions to be used for and guidelines that are to be used by a new administration of the .ZA namespace. On Thursday, 4 February 1999, the ISOC-ZA Committee chose sixteen people out of a list of nominees and volunteers to be on the Namespace Drafting Committee (DC). After over a year of deliberation and public comment, the Drafting Committee completed its work and presented final documentation to ISOC-ZA in terms of its terms of reference. On 13 March 2000, the proposal was provisionally approved in principle and adopted by the ISOC-ZA committee. The ISOC-ZA committee called for a public comment period, ending on 14 April 2000. On 1 November 2000, ISOC-ZA passed a resolution to proceed with implementing the recommendations of the Drafting Committee. On 31 August 2001, Namespace ZA held its founding meeting. Interested parties were invited to attend and the board was elected. For a thorough background on the redelegation processes and stakeholders go to http://www.namespace.org.za or http://www.isoc.org.za/dc Both sites have background info and submissions. The following submissions on the Bill itself apply in addition to Mr Mike Lawrie's submission which is at the end of this document: 1) Uniforum submission http://co.za/UniForumECTBillSubmission.pdf 2) Namespace Draft Submission - 2002-04-24 http://www.namespace.org.za/020424A_ectresp.htm http://www.namespace.org.za/020424A_ectresp.doc http://www.namespace.org.za/020424A_ectresp.txt 3) ISOC-ZA submission http://www.isoc.org.za/ectbill.htm 4) Various industry bodies such as the ISPA (http://www.ispa.org.za) endorse the Namespace submission as well as various individual companies or groups of companies who have expressed their support or endorsement in their own submissions RFC1591 can be viewed at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1591.html Of particular interest: * "The major concern in selecting a designated manager for a domain is that it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have the ability to do a equitable, just, honest, and competent job." * "Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party." * "The designated manager must do a satisfactory job of operating the DNS service for the domain." * "That is, the actual management of the assigning of domain names, delegating subdomains and operating nameservers must be done with technical competence." * "For any transfer of the designated manager trusteeship from one organisation to another, the higher-level domain manager (the IANA in the case of top-level domains) must receive communications from both the old organisation and the new organisation that assure the IANA that the transfer in mutually agreed, and that the new organisation understands its responsibilities." ICP-1 can be viewed at http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm ICP-1: Internet Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (ccTLD Administration and Delegation) Of interest from ICP-1: * "Delegation of a new top level domain requires the completion of a number of procedures, including the identification of a TLD manager with the requisite skills and authority to operate the TLD appropriately." * "Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the proposed TLD manager is the appropriate party." * "TLD managers are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the community. The designated manager is the trustee of the TLD for both the nation, in the case of ccTLDs, and the global Internet community" * "For transfer of TLD management from one organisation to another, the higher-level domain manager (the IANA in the case of TLDs), must receive communications from both the old organisation and the new organisation that assure the IANA that the transfer is mutually agreed, and that the proposed new manager understands its responsibilities." Some Important links + Namespace http://www.namespace.org.za + ISOC-ZA http://www.isoc.org.za/ + Department of Communications http://docweb.pwv.gov.za/ + Government Information http://www.polity.org.za/ And finally the submission of Mr Mike Lawrie himself: The following document is retyped from a paper copy which Mr Lawrie allowed me to photostat due to problems getting an electronic version to me in the timeframe concerned. It contained many additions and underlines in pencil as well as an additional piece of paper with points written on it in pencil. Any errors in this manual reproduction are mine. Please contact Mr Mike Lawrie <mlawrieat_private> if you desire to have a copy forwarded to you directly. If you are in a position to, word of your support would probably be most welcome and appreciated. [imho] My comments are in {} brackets - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Portfolio Committee on Communications Comments on the Domain Name Issues in the Electronic Communications and Transactions Bill. Mike Lawrie - Administrator of the ZA Domain Name Space - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I write in my capacity as the person who brought the Internet to South Africa, who got permission for the country to use the ZA namespace in November 1990 and who has been the de jure administrator of the ZA namespace since February 1994. {In pencil: "Assisted in establishing Internet in .mz .ls .aw .zm .gh .sw .tz .na NED, BSc Hons Msc"} The Portfolio Committee needs to be aware of some of the background regarding the approach taken in the bill with regard to the namespace issues in Chapter X. This will hopefully influence its deliberations on this Chapter. In 1998, at my request, the South African Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-ZA) established a Drafting Committee to produce proposals for a new administration for the ZA namespace. There was no pressure from any source other than from myself for a change to the status quo. There had at that time been absolutely no interest by government in the matter, although the name of the Director-General of the Department of Communications had been proposed (with his permission, I understand) and accepted to serve on this committee. For the record, the D-G did not attend a single meeting, nor send an alternate during the 3 year life of this committee. The Committee comprised considerable expertise, indeed the cream of the country's Internetworkers were involved, and produced an excellent proposal after a very open and consultative process. By deliberate choice, I did not serve on the Committee. During the lifetime of the Drafting Committee, it has emerged that the DoC was quietly and secretively preparing its own proposal for the administration of the ZA namespace. There was no consultative process whatsoever. I was never approached by the Department of Communications for input from an experienced country domain administrator, which is quite surprising. It was at my request that I met once with a staff member of the department, who was clearly lacking in both expertise and understanding of both Internet issues and domain name issues. The proposal that emerged from the DoC process showed abysmal ignorance of what domain administration is about. The proposed costs were horrendous. What I was doing on a voluntary and unpaid basis was now proposed to be done by a staff of 14 full-time and 3 part-time persons, with a budget of R24,525,000 over three years. This included an annual salary bill of R4.2million at 1999 rates. [See document published by the DoC Office of Director-General titled "Establishment of Domain Name Authority, Updated Final Version, October 1999"] {unavailable to me} I find it quite remarkable that the D-G of the Department, with full knowledge of the process under way through ISOC-ZA, and having allowed his name to be put forward as an active participant in that process, took an approach of drawing up through a secretive process an alternative document, rather than work openly or in co-operation with persons who have the well-being of the Internet at heart. The Internet has grown to be what it is by working <em>with</em> others, and not <em>against</em> them. Fortunately, the outcry arising from this document made the DoC withdraw it. It is disturbing to think how much was paid to the consultants who drew it up, and frightening to become aware of the ignorance of the domain name issue at government level. There was a Green paper process leading up to the Bill, to which I had the greatest difficulty in being invited. Apparently I did not "represent" an "industry group", I was only the administrator of the ZA domain, which did not appear to count. Eventually I received last-minute permission but by then had made other commitments so I did not attend. I quote from the Executive Summary of a document produced by Edward Nathan and Friedland as a result of the Green Paper process:- "The administration of the domain names in South Africa has been done to date by a private person on a monopolistic basis without a regulatory framework within which to ensure good and non-discriminatory practices. This is not to say that the system has been discriminatory or not good in the past, it is simply to say that with the next wave of explosive growth of the Internet, that we should expect if the barriers to electronic [commerce] are [to be] successfully removed, a system should be in place to ensure the required standards. Ultimately, this may require no more than a policy statement by the government within which a private system should operate. More study and consultation in this regard is necessary" As best I can make out, this document was not on general distribution to the public. I believe I stay in touch with developments on the Internet in South Africa, yet I received a copy indirectly only in April 2002 when I became aware of its existence. There are various implications in the quoted paragraph that can be challenged, like "the next wave of explosive growth" (there are no such "explosive waves", this is buzzword stuff), and "barriers to electronic commerce" in the present domain administration do not exist, both by admission in the above quotation and by the acceptance of the Internet community. Fundamentally wrong is the implication that there are such things as "<em>THE</em> required standards", implying quite incorrectly that something new has emerged in the way of standards and that the present system is not coping or not meeting Internet standards in some way or other. This is very far from the truth on all counts. The only accurate statements in the quotation are "Ultimately, this may require no more than a policy statement by the government within which a private system should operate. More study and consultation in this regard is necessary". I urge the Portfolio Committee to consider that advice very carefully, because that advice appears to have been ignored by the DoC. It is remarkable that the present administrator of the ZA domain space was not consulted in terms of the "More study and consultation in this regard is necessary", because indeed that lack of consultation is self-evident in Chapter X of the Bill, as any Internet expert will attest. During the drafting of the Bill itself, I was not approached even once by either the Department or by the drafting team. With due respect to the drafting team, they appear to have had precious little technical Internet knowledge amongst them, and they did not (or were not allowed to) seek expert input which is a great pity indeed. Further it has transpired that their hands were somewhat tied when writing Chapter X. The drafting team did make contact after the event, and endeavoured to have suggestions incorporated into the draft even though their work was officially completed. This was not particularly successful, very few of these suggestions appear in the Bill. Issues that definitely need to be dealt with in regard to the administration of the ZA namespace (be this from within Parliament or otherwise) are :- - more than one person needs to be involved in the decisions of how to deal with various ZA issues - there needs to be accountability to the Internet users (and potential users) of the country. - there must the no stifling of the ideas of experts in the field of domain name administration. - there needs to be a name dispute resolution mechanism that has the power of law. - the ZA primary nameserver needs to be moved, because of my personal situation. Issues that are "nice to have but not essential" are :- - there could be some kind of government participation (not control) in the decisions about the use of the ZA namespace, as is done in the majority of other countries - there could be some kind of legal framework to give authority to the administration of the ZA namespace I submit that these do not need anything like the proposals of Chapter X of the ECT bill. I also submit that the administration of the ZA namespace has very little if anything to do with communication matters, but it has a great deal to do with issues that belong under the Department of Trade and Industries, both for issues of ecommerce and for issues of trademark and other intellectual property issues. The wrong department is piloting this aspect of the Bill through Parliament. Options facing the Portfolio Committee are, in order :- * excise Chapter X from the Bill - most country domains administration have little or no legislative backing, and indeed little is needed in South Africa * replace Chapter X with nothing more than a policy statement, as suggested in the Green Paper * modify Chapter X to allow in the first instance an organisation like Namespace ZA to administer the ZA namespace under threat of government take-over if they get it wrong (in whose judgement?) * in all three options above, legislate (after further advice) a mechanism for dealing with alternative dispute resolution over namespace issues In my opinion, it is not an option of the Portfolio Committee to ignore the leads of other countries, and therefore should desist from attempting to legislate on Internet matters that require technical skills. Just for one thing, both GOV.ZA and the PARLIAMENT.GOV.ZA domains are badly broken. One of the five nameservers for GOV.ZA is setup correctly, and only one of the two nameservers for PARLIAMENT.GOV.ZA is operational. So members of the Portfolio Committee should not be surprised if email to <someoneat_private> does not work. It's been this way for months. If a key domain such as the Government's very own domain is not working, why is there a reason to suppose that the government is capable of maintaining the ZA domain in good order? In closing, let me point out to those who feel I write this with a vested interest or chip on my shoulder that this is far from the situation. I want "out" from the administration of the ZA namespace. I'm at the end of my career, I'm on pension, I've no empire either to build or sustain. What I do want to see is a well-run Internet in South Africa, something for which I had a vision way back in 1988, and still have. <ends> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 18 2002 - 18:54:55 PDT