FC: South Africa vs. Internet: Tempest brewing over .za domains

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Sat May 18 2002 - 15:56:46 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: More on mailing list operators and Museum Security News case"

    ---
    
    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