From: Boudewijn Nederkoorn <Boudewijn.Nederkoorn@surfnet.nl>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/8/98 10:22am

Subject: CENTR response to IANA Proposal to NTIA

CENTR Statement on IANA's Proposal to the NTIA of 2 October 1998

Utrecht, 8 October 1998

Scope of this Document

CENTR is in a position to speak on behalf of the European ccTLD Domain

Registries and has commented (Edinburgh, 22 September 1998) on the fourth

draft definition of the Bylaws of the new IANA.

CENTR has also (March, July 1998) made known its position and requirements

regarding the new IANA.

This document comments on IANA's Proposal to the NTIA (2 October 1998) in

the light of CENTR's position and requirements.

Comments

We recognise and warmly appreciate the role which IANA has played in

documenting the consensus-building process which has taken place during

recent months.

We welcome the current proposal as the result of this process.

We hope that our continuing requirement for better balance of

international representation on the Board, for which we understand there

is considerable demand worldwide, will be reflected in the final version

of the Bylaws.

On behalf of the CENTR Policy Group,

Boudewijn Nederkoorn

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("centr@ripe.net","ec-pop@anwalt.de...

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>

To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("list@ifwp.org")

Date: 10/7/98 10:19pm

Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: House testimony today

Marc and all,

Marc Hurst wrote:

> This would appear to be the "duck and cover" analogy ?

Yes, this would appear to be "Hubbard hiding in her Cubbard" scenario, of

whichwe have noticed, seems to be the ARIN's "Modus Operendi".

>

>

> On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Kim Hubbard wrote:

>

> > >

> > > Martin,

> > >

> > > >Did Sims really say he didn't know how the Board got selected?

> > >

> > > Yes, it was repeated several times. "I don't know."

> > > Clearly some folks were on the spot.

> > >

> > > There was a certain amount of chuckling in the

> > > audience, with references to Clinton and Monica.

> > >

> > >

> > > --tony

> >

> > The way I heard it, Congressman Pickering asked who specifically made

> > the phone calls to ask the individuals if they would serve on the board

> > to which Mr. Sims replied, "I don't know" and then went on to explain that

> > he didn't know who made the actual phone calls, but he could find out if

> > they needed to know. And then Becky Burr said that no one in the USG

> > made the phone calls.

> >

> > When asked "how" the board was selected, Mr. Sims said that it was a

> > chicken and egg problem but the IANA talked to as many people as they

> > could to get suggestions and used those suggestions to select the board.

> > I am definitely paraphrasing here and my impression was that Mr. Sims

> > answers did not really satisfy Congressman Pickering but I don't recall

> > Mr. Sims saying he didn't know "how" the board was selected.

> >

> > Kim Hubbard

> > ARIN

> >

> > Kim

> >

> > >

> > > __________________________________________________

> > > To view the archive of this list, go to:

> > > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp

> > >

> > > To receive the digest version instead, send a

> > > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org

> > >

> > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:

> > > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org

> > >

> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:

> > > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org

> > >

> > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.

> > > ___END____________________________________________

> > >

> >

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> > To view the archive of this list, go to:

> > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp

> >

> > To receive the digest version instead, send a

> > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org

> >

> > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:

> > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:

> > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org

> >

> > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.

> > ___END____________________________________________

> >

> >

>

> __________________________________________________

> To view the archive of this list, go to:

> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp

>

> To receive the digest version instead, send a

> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:

> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:

> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.

> ___END____________________________________________

Regards,

CC: Arin Council <arin-council@arin.net>

Jeffrey A. Williams

DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.

Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.

E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>

To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("list@ifwp.org")

Date: 10/8/98 3:16pm

Subject: Re: [ifwp] Delicate balance

Jonathan and all,

Jonathan Zittrain wrote:

> Documents alone can't produce an organization that well serves the public

> interest and holds a public trust. Of equal if not greater importance are

> the people who run the organization, and to whom those people are and feel

> accountable. For this reason, much of the insistence on a

> "to-be-determined" membership structure -- i.e., one that is to be mandated

> by the bylaws, but not specifically spelled out -- may be misplaced.

It cannot be misplaced if these NewCo is to represent ALL of the stakeholders

and isbuilt from the "Bottom-up" as in mandated in the White Paper, and properly

so.

It is therefore necessary that and Initial Membership Organization be the

central

part of the NewCo bylaws in order the achieve Open, Fair, and Transparent

transition of the Internet to the Private sector. THis Initial Membership must

be able to be inclusive of ALL of the Internet community on an EQUAL basis

from the standpoint of their vote. In order to meet the White Paper requirnment

of "Bottom-up" structure of the NewCo this Initial Membership Organization

must Elect any and all Directors of SO's, Initial Board members, and any

Committee members that may be deemed necessary at some point. Any other

scenerio does not meet the litmus test of Transparency, Openness, and oversight.

> Charging the interim board with executing a fair and representative

> membership structure is only slightly more specific than charging the

> interim board with investigating the merits of such a structure, and no

> less open to failure if the board isn't already inclined to broaden the

> organization's base.

THis is fundamentally an inaccurate assessment, and quite frankly does notmeet

reasonable logical base.

> More important, then, may be securing commitments by

> the "at-large" board members to create a perpetuation structure by which

> their succcessors will be answerable to the broad Internet communities.

And the only way to meet this need and requirement is that an

InitialMembership organization as we have described be in place and central to

the

Bylaws of the NewCo.

>

>

> The IANA proposal offers an architecture for corporate governance which, if

> properly implemented, could produce a fair and elegant balance between the

> engineering communities that have brought the Net to its present state, and

> the at-large internet communities.

The Draft-5 IANA proposal cannot by design offer openness, transparency,and

oversight in its current form as it does not provide for broad internet

community

Equal input to the formation and allocation or necessary resources that are

central

toe the stability of the internet operation.

> This architecture includes nine

> directors chosen by the engineering communities through supporting

> organizations, nine directors chosen to represent the at large communities,

> and an executive who is also a director, chosen by mutual agreement of the

> other directors. Fundamental change to this balanced structure can be made

> only by two thirds vote of all directors.

Yes and this is a "Self Perpetuating" all powerful Board. THis would not

beexpectable to the broad Internet community, nor could it provide for proper

oversight, openness, or transparency in this form without an Initial Membership

Organization that would by vote select the Board members, Directors, President,

and any necessary committee members.

>

>

> Under the terms of the IANA proposal, once the initial at-large directors

> are appointed, they must determine a process for selecting their

> successors.

This is were there is again a fundamental flaw in the IANA's Draft-5bylaws.

The initial board must be selected by vote from All of the

Stakeholders by majority vote. This can only be accomplished by an Initial

Membership Organization.

> If the initial at-large directors choose an open electoral

> process based on as broad an elective system as is workable, then we would

> have some assurance that the public interest mission of the corporation

> will be served -- after all, half the board would owe their seats to a

> large public electorate.

Yes but this can and must be done Initially. And this can only be

accomplishedwith and Initial Membership Organization that will elect the Initial

Board members.

> But to the extent that future at-large directors

> are selected in any less than open or less inclusive way, then, to that

> extent, the public will fear that the corporation is subject to capture and

> perversion of its mission.

Exactly correct. ANd with the current form of the IANA's Bylaws (Draft-5)this

is a real possibility or even a likelyhood.

>

>

> If the initial at-large directors are committed to achieving their public

> mission, and provided the means to make well informed choices and to be in

> touch with the populations that the document calls upon them to serve, then

> many objections to the IANA proposal melt away, leaving in their wake an

> architecture for a responsible self-governing corporate organism which is

> legally and conceptually fair and balanced.

Allot of "IF's" here. Too many to make us comfortable.

>

>

> Charles Nesson and Jonathan Zittrain

> The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School

>

> __________________________________________________

> To view the archive of this list, go to:

> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp

>

> To receive the digest version instead, send a

> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:

> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:

> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.

> ___END____________________________________________

Regards,

CC: Ira Magaziner <Ira_C._Magaziner@oa.eop.gov>

Jeffrey A. Williams

DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.

Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.

E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>

To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("list@ifwp.org")

Date: 10/8/98 5:48pm

Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: Delicate balance

Jonathan and all,

Jonathan Zittrain wrote:

> Karl,

>

> You're right that the name of the game is structural accountability of the

> board--or, in the bicameral structure here, at least half the board--to the

> internet community/communities at large. The right membership structure is

> one way to try to ensure that. The only problem is that pretty much

> everyone has punted on coming up with a specific membership structure, both

> because it's hard to map out and because any given map won't readily gather

> a steam of consensus around it at this stage.

Well first of all this statement is inaccurate a we have provided for

amembership structure.

See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/comments/10-05-98.htm

for more information. Our proposal listed at this URL address provides for a

structured membership Organization and how it can be implemented.

Secondly the "RIght" membership structure, was pretty much defined at on this

list

just prior to the Reston conference and agreed to by all. That being that

everyone

is an Equal member.

>

>

> My own shift in thinking away from a bald membership requirement came in

> reflecting on the fact that, once we're in essence punting on a specific

> membership design, all the blandishments in the world ("you MUST come up

> with a membership structure by such-and-such a date") couldn't guarantee,

> even legally, the right result from a board intent on acting poorly here.

> Such a board could, for example, amend the by-laws themselves to eliminate

> the requirement, or simply come up with a membership structure that

> featured about fifty members, all friends of the board.

THis would not be the case if any and all resolutions that the board or

SO'smay come up with is subject to membership vote. It is extremely doubtful

that

any Membership Organization is going to eliminate their own membership.

> In both instances

> a lot of people would cry foul, for it's clearly an end run around the

> document. This highlights that, whether it's the task of defining a

> membership, or the task of defining the rules of the at-large board's

> succession, a bad board can subvert and a good one can rise to the occasion.

It is more likely that an Initial Board would make whole sale changes in

thesections of the bylaws or amend those bylaws that an Initial Membership

Organizationally approved by vote, Initial Board would. Especially if that

Membership Organization, as provided for in our proposal, must approve

by majority vote any changes to any of the bylaws by vote.

>

>

> If we have a bad board, we'll know it as soon as it flubs the task of

> defining its successors. If we have a good one, perhaps it's best to give

> it the flexibility to really make the organization work as it delves, with

> input from the larger communities, into the tough questions of long-term

> balance and accountability. Membership might be one way to do it, but as

> meant in bylaws it is in essence a mere legal regime, no more, no less,

> grounded in a specific state's laws and worked through the cumbersome

> levers of suit and countersuit. I could imagine, for instance, a good

> board conceiving of a kind of membership that California (or Delaware)

> might not countenance, but that might be just what the organization needs.

> Indeed, some sort of broad-based electorate that would pick half the board

> on a regular basis could be a form of membership in the important,

> philosophical sense, regardless of whether it's membership the way some

> particular American state defines it.

In our Proposal, the Initial Membership Organization would vote for, on an

equalbasis, ALL of the board members, Directors, President, and Committee

members,

as may be needed fro time to time.

Please review,

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/comments/10-05-98.htm

under INEG. INC Draft Proposal for further details.

>

>

> To be sure, the more items in the by-laws that the board has to subvert to

> keep itself closed, the more noticeable it might be to people that there

> was trouble brewing. Close monitoring, long after many of the tents have

> been folded up and gawkers have gone home, and without counting on the

> California AG, is essential--and, I think, can pay off as easily with the

> tripwire of board succession rules as by whether membership is adopted,

> even if the IANA by-laws stop short of requiring membership and instead

> wholly punt on it. ...JZ

>

> At 08:51 PM 10/8/98 , you wrote:

> >

> >> Indeed. But I don't think there is any possibility for the initial

> >> at-large directors to avoid that committment -- they will be under

> >> intense public scrutiny, and intense legal scrutiny as well.

> >

> >Under the proposed IANA articles (and the BWG ones too) the *ONLY* person

> >on the entire planet who can impose legal pressure on the new entity is

> >currently a person named Dan Lundgren, the Attorney General of the State

> >of California. (Who is busy running for governor on the Republican

> >ticket.)

> >

> >So the Interim board can simply sit and say "ho hum, such problems, so

> >many constituencies, let's go to lunch".

> >

> >Even if Mr. Lundgren (or his sucessor) were so motivated to try to coerce

> >the new corporation's board, until they actually violated something, there

> >would be no cause of action.

> >

> >If one has so much confidence in the inevitable creation of a membership

> >organization, then one should have no objection to the BWG's removal a

> >loophole through which the initial board could avoid doing the job.

> >

> > --karl--

> >

>

> __________________________________________________

> To view the archive of this list, go to:

> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp

>

> To receive the digest version instead, send a

> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:

> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:

> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.

> ___END____________________________________________

Regards,

CC: DNS Policy <dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov>

Jeffrey A. Williams

DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.

Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.

E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>

To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("list@ifwp.org")

Date: 10/9/98 3:55am

Subject: Up with Lina and DOWN with Crocker was[ifwp] RE: Selection of the interim board

Tony and all,

I too have found lina to be a very engaging individual and a fine woman,

though

I have never met her personally. However from her postings it is obvious

that she is a thoughtful and wonderful woman with an engaging mind. It has

been my pleasure to have conversed with her on this IFWP list. I also was not

Aware that show was believer in the Bahai faith. My grandmother was one the

leaders in the Bahai faith, here name was Anna Howard, maybe Lina knows

of her.

I have read almost every post that Dave Crocker has posted on this and

several other lists dealing with DNS and the Internet. He is condescending and

often just plain wrong. He attacks anyone that happens to dis agree with

his point of view instead of engaging in reasonable discourse and looking at

their arguments. He has done this to me an many others on this and other

lists for over two years now. WHatever creditability he once had, he doesn't

seem to have earned. He is rude and quite disgusting. It is people like Dave

Crocker that are so far out of touch, that have no idea what is really going on

in the world. He continually seeks to disenfranchise the Stakeholders in

preference

for his "Anointed" few elite, most of which, such as Jon Postel, do not deserve

near what he credits them for.

Tony Rutkowski wrote:

> At 04:43 AM 10/9/98 , Heather Islip wrote:

> >Dave Crocker is held in VERY low regard on this list (and in lots of

> >other places.)

>

> Heather,

>

> Crocker is worse than low; he's sick and mean-spirited

> who visits this form of behavior on those whose views he

> dislikes and in apparent frustration because he is almost

> always wrong. He is a negative value add, and should be

> removed from this list.

>

> Let me tell you a little about this remarkable woman

> of endless energy, creativity, and goodwill called Laina.

> While fighting the double prejudices of growing up

> both an Indian and woman in Singapore, she managed to

> get a law degree with honors.

>

> She then headed off to Geneva and got a graduate degree

> in international relations and perfected her fluency in

> yet another language - French. (She is fluent in four.)

> Having some familiarity with international trade law,

> she became immersed in the newly emerging GATT telecoms

> developments and the local resident expert. To learn more

> about the subject from the telecoms side, she volunteered

> to work at the ITU legal office. Her understanding of the

> issues, ability to effectively interact with others, and

> drafting abilities led to her being hired by the ITU

> Secretary-General and she played a key role at the

> treaty conference developing the first World Telecommunication

> Regulations - that among other things, legalized the Internet.

>

> After spending another year in assisting in the liaison

> between the ITU and GATT on the GATS accord, she went to

> Washington DC to pursue further graduate studies at George

> Washington University and took an important position in the

> strategic planning group at Intelsat under the official who

> subsequently went on to create Iridium.

>

> Laina was then admitted to Harvard Law School to get her LLM.

> She also met her husband Barry Green who as it turns out was

> an excellent Internet systems engineer who ran the Navy portion

> of Milnet. They married, had their first child, and then

> headed off to Singapore to both be near Laina's ailing mother

> and to almost single-handedly help develop the Internet

> throughout South-East Asia. As a team they joined Singapore

> Telecom and created the Internet business from nothing - while

> evangelizing it through Asia and relying on the GATT (now WTO)

> agreement to open up the markets.

>

> She travelled about the region and the world constantly -

> making presentations, developing business opportunities,

> making enduring seminal contributions, and helping on many

> levels to make the world a better place - something that's

> fundamental to her Bahai faith. All of this she did while

> balancing being a wife, daughter, sister (to two other

> sisters) and mother to two children.

>

> She enjoys the highest esteem worldwide among her colleagues -

> indeed among an incredible range of people who's lives she has

> touched. She is also sometimes vexing - because she asks the

> right hard questions, and she doesn't give up when she knows

> she is right. I know well - when she worked briefly with me

> at the ITU, she effectively made the case why my views were

> wrong. And, she was right.

>

> She also refuses to play a subservient role to men, and is

> proud of her cultural heritage - as anyone who has watched

> her stride onto a podium in a sari knows. Laina is a woman's

> woman, a lawyer's lawyer, and model for everyone. The world

> is a decidedly better and more interesting place for her being

> here.

>

> --tony

>

> __________________________________________________

> To view the archive of this list, go to:

> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp

>

> To receive the digest version instead, send a

> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:

> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:

> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org

>

> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.

> ___END____________________________________________

Regards,

CC: US commerce department <commerce@mail.house.gov>

Jeffrey A. Williams

DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.

Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.

E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

From: Robert Phelps <r.phelps@worldnet.att.net>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/8/98 11:55pm

Subject: Re: EDUCAUSE endorsement of ICANN

Dear Mark Luber,

I tihnk IANA should consider adding something like the following (the

ALL CAPS addendum below - the only change) to the By-Laws as submitted:

ARTICLE III

....

Section 2. ACCESS TO INFORMATION

The Board shall publish, at least annually, a report describing its

activities, including an audited

financial statement and describing any payments made by the Corporation

to Directors (other than

reimbursements of expenses). All minutes of meetings of the Board,

Supporting Organizations (and

any councils thereof) and Committees shall be approved promptly and

immediately following

approval shall be made publicly available on the Web Site and otherwise;

provided, however, that

any minutes relating to personnel or employment matters, legal matters

(to the extent the Board

determines is necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the

Corporation), matters that the

Corporation is prohibited by law or contract from disclosing publicly

and other matters that the Board

determines are not appropriate for public distribution shall not be

included in the minutes made

publicly available. For any matters that the Board determines not to

disclose, the Board shall describe

in generic terms in the relevant minutes the reason for such

nondisclosure AND PUBLISH A GENERIC DESCRIPTION OF ANY MATTERS AND

REASONS FOR NONDISCLOSURE AS A PART OF OR AS AN APPENDIX TO THE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING IN WHICH IT THE MATTER WAS RAISED.

As now submitted this Article III Section 2 provides the Board no

guidance on how/when to publish the generic descriptions it mentions,

suggests a lawyerly approach that is at odds with the transparency goals

set forth earlier in the Article.

My suggestion would not "hobble" the board. However the veyr weak

obligation created by the dangling last sentence (unmodified) is

bothersome given that it refers to "other matters that the Board

determines are not appropriate for public distribution". A mechanism

that permits interested IANA stakeholders <<timely>> access to complete

minutes, i.e. minutes with pointers to what are effectively redactions

do a lot to maintain confidence that the organization is operating with

an appropriate degree of openness.

Robert Phelps

Milton, Masachusetts, USA

From: Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>

To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org>

Date: 10/8/98 7:54pm

Subject: [ifwp] I had hoped for a different response.

There are a lot of interesting posts, tonight. I can't keep up. Why don't some

of you lurkers jump in. What do you think should be done?

Dave Crocker wrote:

> ...You mean the views of the person who created the activity and has

> been responsible for it for its entire, 10-year life do not warrant special

> consideration?

Whoa, there Saphire, who said anything like that? Of course his views mean

something. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. The question is whether anyone

elses does. He says "no." That is the wrong answer. The answer is "Of course."

Special consideration? Spell it out. He wants the CTO position. There was

never any argument over that. I think we kept his Bylaw requiring that the

office be in Los Angeles.

Should we also agree to letting him carry on governance to our exclusion?. I

will dispute that.

I have another question. Is he such an expert on governance that we should

prefer his to our own consensus? Is there consensus on that? I don't think so.

> Are you seriously suggesting that people with no experience should be

> valued the same as those with extensive experience?

Yes and no. Yes they should be valued as members of this community with

interests and the sense to figure a few things out. No, their opinions on some

things should not compare with Jon Postel's. But, governance is clearly not one

of those subjects. We are all equals as far as that goes.

What are we to do? Let him/them have our governance--the very web by which we

shall exist in cyberspace--to construct his wrong way? Is that "proper"

respect? I don't think so. That is a mortal sin. You do not want to do that.

It is a "no" "no."

>

__________________________________________________

To view the archive of this list, go to:

http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp

To receive the digest version instead, send a

blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org

To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:

subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org

To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:

unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org

Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.

___END____________________________________________