From: Chris Wellens <chrisw@iwl.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/13/98 1:32am

Subject: Comments on New Domain Name Corporation

Unquestionably the best ideas for this proposal are from the

Boston Working Group. This Group has carefully thought through

the issues of oversight and accountability that are missing from

the IANA proposal. I strongly support this effort.

Chris Wellens

President & CEO

InterWorking Labs

From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/12/98 11:34am

Subject: Joint Statement of the Regional Internet Address Registries

Regional Internet Registries Statement on the New IANA

Monday, October 12th 1998

In June 1998, the Executive Boards and Councils of each of the current

Regional Internet Registries (APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC) reviewed the US

Government White Paper at

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm and welcomed

it, especially the emphasis on self-administration for the Internet.

In particular, the registries believed then and believe now that for

stability of operation, the technical work of the new IANA corporation

must be initially built out from the existing IANA technical team hosted

by the Information Sciences Institute of the University of Southern

California.

The three Regional Internet Registries have supported and participated

in the various processes helping to build consensus about the

incorporation of the new IANA. In particular we have commented publicly

on recent drafts published by the current IANA and have seen many of our

concerns addressed in the process.

We fully support IANA's proposal as submitted to the NTIA on October 2nd

and commit to work within its framework. While this framework is not

perfect from all points of view, we realise that any result of a global

consensus building process cannot be perfect for any one party. We are

confident that the IANA proposal is good enough for the present and that

it has the potential to evolve further as necessary.

We commit to work together and with others to establish the "Address

Supporting Organisation" and have it recognised by the new IANA as soon

as practical.

We renew our commitments to contribute our fair share of the operational

costs of the new IANA.

---

The Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)

APNIC, the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre, performs Internet

address allocation and registration, and other Internet administration

services, throughout the Asia-Pacific region. It is one of only three

such organisations which exist in the world today, and which are

officially recognised and empowered by the peak administrative body of

the Internet, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

APNIC is an open, neutral, non-profit and membership-based organisation.

It has over 220 members located in over 40 countries and regions, as

well as more than 200 organisations represented by APNIC Confederations,

throughout the Asia-Pacific. Most APNIC members are Internet Service

Providers (ISPs), National Network Information Centres (NICs), or

multinational organisations.

For more information about the APNIC see http://www.apnic.net/

----

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

ARIN is a not for profit, membership-based organization tasked with

the administration and allocation of Internet addresses and

Autonomous System numbers for North and South America, Carribean and

sub-Sahara Africa. ARIN has been in operation since December 22, 1997

and currently has 180 members. To date, ARIN has allocated IP numbers

and/or ASNs to approximately 900 organizations.

For more information on ARIN see http://www.arin.net/

---

Reseaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC)

The RIPE NCC provides Internet address space registration and other

coordination services in the RIPE area which includes Europe, northern

Africa, the Middle East and parts of northern Asia. The structures and

activities of the RIPE NCC have been developed through open processes

starting from initial proposals in 1990, becoming operational in 1992

and incorporating as a not-for-profit association funded by its members

in 1997. The RIPE NCC association currently has more than 1100 members

from 88 countries, most of them Internet service providers. The RIPE

NCC members provide Internet service to millions of users in more than

100 countries. The NCC staff is based in Amsterdam and the budgeted

operating expenditure for 1998 is 3457 kECU.

For more information about the RIPE NCC see http://www.ripe.net/

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("comments@iana.org")

From: "David W. Maher" <dwmaher@ibm.net>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/12/98 12:45pm

Subject: Comments by POLICY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE on Private Sector Proposal for New Domain Name Corp.

Honorable William M. Daley

Secretary of Commerce

c/o Karen Rose

Office of International Affairs

Room 471

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

United States Department of Commerce

14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20230

Re:Management of Internet Names and Addresses

Dear Secretary Daley:

On October 2, 1998, Professor Jon Postel wrote to you regarding the

Articles of Incorporation and proposed bylaws for a new corporation that

has been formed in response to the "White Paper," in which NTIA called

on private sector Internet stakeholders to form a not-for-profit

corporation to administer policy for the Internet name and address

system. The Policy Oversight Committee (POC) fully endorses the

proposal by Professor Postel, and agrees with his conclusion that the

"documents reflect the consensus judgment of the global Internet

community as to how to form a corporation that will include the IANA

function, and in addition take on other coordination and administrative

responsibilities necessary for the continued operational stability and

growth of the Internet." The POC urges you to accept Professor Postel's

proposal and take the necessary steps to transition the United States

government's role in Internet administration to the new corporation.

The POC is an international committee and is the successor to the

International Ad Hoc Committee ("IAHC"), which was formed and chartered

by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") and the Internet

Society ("ISOC") to take a leading role in the evolutionary growth and

development of a program for expansion of the

generic Top Level Domain name system. The present members of the POC are

listed in the Committee's web site at http://www.gtld-mou.org/.

The POC has been an active contributor to the restructuring of the

new IANA, and believes that the consensus views developed in several

recent related meetings are suitably reflected in Professor Postel's

proposal.

The POC is aware that some other stakeholders in the process have

expressed concerns about Professor Postel's proposal. The POC believes,

however, that the proposal offers sufficient protection for the public

interest and sufficient flexibility to deal with some of the hypothetical

problems envisaged by others to merit full support now. With its high

profile internationally, the new corporation will be constantly under

scrutiny by all the stakeholders and the POC believes that it will take

their views into account. Further delay can only compound the

uncertainties for the industry.

The POC believes that the proposal defines the basic framework

for an institution which will provide stability, transparency, a balance

of representation of legitimate interests of stakeholders, yet still

providing for innovation and further evolution of the Internet, as more

fully explained in Professor Postel's letter of October 2.

Respectfully submitted

Policy Oversight Committee

October 12th 1998

To: NTIA and Secretary Mr. Daley

From: Several ISP-organisations, by way of Alfred Eisner (pres./CEO of NLIP Dutch ISPA)

Subject: ICANN

With regard to the published DNSPOLICY we would like to draw your attention to what we think is a major shortcoming in the rules for and the board of ICANN. This flaw seriously threatens the effect and working conditions of ICANN.

"We" in this case are ISP's almost worldwide. Representatives of ISP-organisations of EU, US, Canada, and others. We met in Ottawa oct. 8th. in the margin of the OECD-conference, and we all expressed our deeply felt worries concerning this matter.

Notwithstanding the fact that a lot of good work has been done to reach some kind of consensus, the result is not completely satisfactory and does in its present form NOT guarantee quality and continuity. The shortcoming we are referring to is the fact that, where the issueing and control of domainnames and ip-addresses is of crucial importance to the correct functioning of the Internet as being delivered to the public by ISP's, there is no direct influence of those ISP's in running and controlling ICANN.

Since ICANN's policy and operational decisions are to be implemented by us (ISP's) in the worldwide DNS's, and are largely to be paid for by us (and indirectly by our customers), this complete lack of say in these matters is unacceptable. And, just for the record: we are not and feel not in any way represented by people from telco's, networkoperators or large computer or software companies. One might even say: on the contrary. They are not ISP's.

To put it more abstractly: Industry-selfregulation without the crucial sector of industry being represented, is a strange idea in itself. It is definitely not industry selfregulation.

We are unable to discover valid reasons which could justify the exclusion of ISP's from direct

representation in the Interim Board (now) and the final board (later). If this oversight is not duly corrected, the conclusion will have to be that the Interim and final Board do not constitute a valid industry self regulation.

To solve this we propose that you allow one more change in the bylaws, leading to the effect that ISP's are directly and adequately represented. Adequately will mean a substantive part of the board. To repair the situation at hand as soon as possible, we ask also that the interim board acts accordingly in their future appointments from the beginning.

With kind regards,

yours truly,

A. Eisner (Netherlands), M. Langford (Canada), M. Schneider (Germany). CIX (USA) is also with us, but will send their reaction separately.

From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>

To: "dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov" <dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov>

Date: 10/12/98 1:55am

Subject: Stay tuned, we should know shortly . . .

The more things change . . .

. . . the more they stay the same !

From: Jay@Iperdome.com

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:58:34 -0500

To: com-priv@lists.psi.com

Subject: EEKs, SIPs, and the DNS

Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org

It's been a couple of weeks since it happened . . . that's when

I saw a presentation by Dr. Grove (Chairman and CEO of Intel)

to a meeting of the Economic Club of Detroit. While I already

understood the concept of Strategic Inflection Points (SIPs),

I was about to gain some insight into the current battle

regarding the Domain Name System (DNS).

Over the last many months, a huge battle has been raging

over the very future of the Internet. It has been cloaked

in discussions about domain names, but the implications for

the decisions that are about to be made are far reaching

and long lasting.

According to recent press reports, November is the month

that these issues may finally be resolved. That's when the

Commerce Department is expected to issue their recommendations

on how to transition the administration of the Internet to the

private sector.

My involvement started back in January, an eternity ago in

Internet time. That's when I started Iperdome, a company

formed to offer Personal Domain Name services under the

.per(sm) name and Top Level Domain. My idea was to provide

Netizens with a permanent address on the Internet, one that

does not change when they change jobs, schools, Internet

Service Providers (ISPs), or email addresses.

Almost immediately after I started, a group known as the

Internet Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) put forward their "final

draft" proposal for expanding the name space. While their

plan had some nice features, there were many problems with

their proposal:

- they wanted to assume authority over the name space,

- they wanted to confiscate existing properties like .com,

.web, and .arts,

- they wanted to prevent the implementation of other

solutions like .per(sm),

all while they had no authority to make these decisions in

the first place.

Since that time, the battle has been raging. On one side of

this debate are entrepreneurial companies, trade organizations,

governments, and Network Solutions, the current registrar for

.com, .net, and .org.

On the other, a small group composed of the Internet old guard,

and some regulatory agencies of the United Nations. Collectively,

they go under an assortment of names like gTLD-MoU/POC/PAB/CORE/etc.

Their goal is to preserve their long-term status on the Internet.

In the middle is the U.S. Government. They have been responsible

for much of the infrastructure that the Internet is built upon,

and for funding many of the administrative tasks that are required

to keep it functioning properly.

While it is clear that all sides in this issue have their self

interests at play -- that's to be expected -- there is something

different about this debate. Specifically, the resolution to this

battle will have profound and long lasting implications for the

future of the Internet:

- Who will govern the Internet?

- Who will have a say in this governance?

- Will there be any kind of due process?

- What business model will be supported?

(competitive or bureaucratic)?

This is a classic Strategic Inflection Point, not only for the

factions named above, but for the entity we collectively call the

Internet. That's because this change will be so powerful that it

will fundamentally change the structure, control and function of

the Internet. And because the Internet has the potential to

profoundly change our global society, these decisions will

also change our collective future.

While I believe this to be true, it is often difficult to predict

when you are in the middle of SIP. But in this case, it is pretty

obvious: it matches the definition of an SIP, and it displays the

three warning signs as described by Dr. Grove in his speech.

The third warning sign is particularly insightful. It describes

how people start fighting vehemently, how they no longer understand

one another, and how they appear to be "losing it" all around. And

it is a perfect description of our current situation.

I have often wondered how my beliefs about the DNS could be

so far off from members of the Internet old guard. This was

especially true when I met them one on one, or exchanged private

email with them. As rational as they seemed, we were still 180

degrees apart on the DNS issue.

Recent revelations show that even within our own government,

there is some disagreement about what should be done. Thanks

to Dr. Grove, we can all appreciate that this is to be expected,

given the implications of the decisions we are about to make.

With so much at stake, it is also easy to understand how someone

like Eugene Kashpureff (EEK) could be so passionate in his beliefs

that he deliberately took some actions that were sure to draw

attention to this debate. Today he sits in a Canadian jail where

he will remain until the first week in December, at the earliest.

[While I don't condone what Eugene has done, I don't believe that

his actions warrant this kind of treatment!]

As we all anxiously await the U.S. Government's announcement,

there are some encouraging signs. A few weeks ago, one of the

IAHC organizations held a press conference where they backed off

of their claims to ownership over the entire DNS system. They

also backed off of their claims to .com.

In addition, last week Mr. Magaziner got involved in the DNS

fracas. He reportedly said "there are lots of discussions

going on among lots people both inside and outside of government.

There is a lot more discussion and consultation that has to take

place before any decisions are made."

So, that brings us up-to-date. Will the Internet be saved from

a despotic future? Will the registries that were in this business

first be treated fairly? Will the U.S. Government transfer the

administration of the Internet to a small group that is

accountable to no-one?

Stay tuned, we should know shortly . . .

Copyright (c) 1997 Jay Fenello -- All rights reserved

Regards,

Jay Fenello

President, Iperdome, Inc.

404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("list@ifwp.org","Ira_C._Magaziner@...

From: <laina@singnet.com.sg>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/12/98 7:16pm

Subject: Comments regarding the various proposals

Submission by Laina Raveendran Greene, as her personal opinion.

(Managing Director of GetIT Pte Ltd, Chair of APPLe, Advisory

Panel member of APIA, International Advisory member of PECC

Telecom Forum, Panel of Experts member of WIPO Process)

*TRULY AN OPEN PROCESS OR NOT?- THAT IS THE REAL QUESTION.*

I would like to acknowledge the US Department of Commerce for

its open process, since July 1997 regarding this issue. The

opportunity to comment on such a significant issue is much

appreciated. I certainly hope, that by putting all four

proposals on your web site, indicates that the Department of

Commerce does not pre-judge the application of one over the

other. All have their merits, and its their key elements, and

not the totality of their format that should be reviewed.

However, there is concern, based on feedback of recent events

in the US, regarding the weightage you may give to comments

coming from outside of the United States. Of late, your actions

to take consultations behind closed doors have been of great

concern.

The International Forum for the White Paper process, which you

seemingly supported, seems to have been sidelined and stronger

US lobbying interests seem to have taken precedent. While it is

recognised that you are accountable only to your domestic

constituents, since this is a global issue, the US government

should act on behalf of the good of the global Internet

community, not only the US commercial community.

If your actions tend to support only US commercial concerns,

then I tend to agree with the comments of Ronda Haueben that

these kinds of functions should be held on public trust and not

run as commercial activities. However in such as case I would

prefer to see the involvement of an inter-governmental

organisation, over the US government alone. That is not to say,

I support this as THE solution, but that it would be preferable

to handing over the resources of the global Internet to a

select group of individuals and entities to control and manage

for monetary gains, etc.

There are many of us, especially from the international

community, who believed in your support of the IFWP process and

incurred great expense and time to follow the various

international consultation on the matter. Yet the recent turn

of events, is VERY disappointing. For example,I am troubled by

the fact that you have not included a more representative slate

of Interim Board members, and have no Latin American

representative as well. Or for that matter, there is slate of

candidates that have not gone through some level of public

review.

*WEAKNESSES OF THE WHITE PAPER WHICH MERELY CAUSED MUCH OF THE

PROBLEMS*

You had from March 1998 to make these pronouncements, and yet

you waited till June 5th to make the pronouncements and then

gave industry only the summer to come up with solutions.

Imagine how many of us had to make changes to our summer plans

and to support you in the attempt to do global industry

self-regulation. It now appears to be a un sincere attempt to

get true global participation, but rather to use the process to

support any proposals you may choose to adopt. Rather than

give industry more time, and ensure global input, you seem to

have opted in favour of US Congressional Hearings and closed

door negotiations. All this is VERY disturbing indeed.

The White Paper was weak in that it merely pronounced that

private sector was going to create the new entity. Who this

private sector was, how they were to form this entity, how you

would recognise the entity etc were never stated. This left a

black hole, and since the announcement of the White Paper, many

entities began the self-proclaim themselves as part of this

effort, and announced meetings. That is why, it was very

reassuring to have the IFWP process as a means to coordinate

these various efforts, and the US government, IANA, NSI's

seeming support of this process, made people rally their effort

behind it at their own expense. It was only after it became

clear that perhaps NSI and IANA with the US government were the

real players, that the IFWP process broke down and people began

positioning themselves. I am glad that there is at least some

proposals on the table from people who have been involved in

that process.

By not having a clear procedure in place, you have actually

given it the opposite effect of lack of due process, not to

mention wasting everyone else's time and money. I do hope the

US government will take cognisance of their own mistakes, and

give industry a little more time to solve the issues. I am not

suggesting that we wait until we have the ideal solution, but

that there should be a little more time, and some clearer

indication on what would be accepted and by whom. Even now, it

is unclear what the impact of the other proposals would be,

given that there has been clear and open support for the ICANN

proposal by the UD Department of Commerce during the

Congressional Hearings.

It would have been preferable to have some of these proposals

on the table, while the IFWP process was going on, rather than

leaving everything now to online discussions without a clear

mandate, indication of what will be done with the comments,

etc. I almost feel that I would be wasting my time again, which

is why I declined to give detailed comments as I have done in

the past. Given also great government involvement in amny

spheres of economic activity, it is important that their input

also be sought and the relevant UN agencies such as UNDP/APDIP

for the Asia Pacific region be used to ensure government

awareness and endorsements.

*SOME BRIEF COMMENTS REGARDING THE VARIOUS PROPOSALS*

INTERIM BOARD-

While I tend to agree that it is hard to come up with a slate

of people that EVERYONe agrees with, it would have been better

to have some procedure of endorsing these candidates or having

other candidates proposed as well, through a more open fashion.

This way, we can ensure greater trust in the Board by the

greater Internet community. Without this trust, there will be

greater hesitations to their scope of duties and decisions, and

we can expect more litigation if there are outcomes people do

not like.

BOARD-

Both the Interim Board and Board should have some mechanism of

being vetted by the Internet community at large, since they are

after all custodians of a global Internet resource. There

should also be some accountability and transparency mechanism

to the greater Internet community (membership or otherwise)

If the Board does not seem representative nor are there clear

accountability measures, then I will have even greater problem

with them being nominated by the Supporting Organisations for

future Boards. It will become self-perpetuating Boards

(especially since according to the Bylaws of ICANN aRT 5

SECTION 9, the Board elects themselves at the Annual Meeting of

the Board).

It becomes easy for the Supporting Organisations therefore to

be more than just advisory entities, since now they can stack

up the Board and ensure that their policies get rubber-stamped.

Where then are the people who protect the interests of the

greater Internet community?

In other words, the Board should be elected by at-large

community, with or without a membership structure.

Meanwhile, the deletion of the President as a member of the

Board, is also support (see Boston Working Group draft). The

President should be allowed to attend the meetings (provided

Board approval is given) and advise the Board, but should not

be counted in as a member nor should have voting rights. This

will ensure greater accountability to the Board, without the

right to influence the decisions. It would seem strange that as

officer of the Corporation, the President for example, can vote

and decide on his own salary.

ACCOUNTABILITY-

There should be as open an accountability as possible. Section

2, Art 3 of the ICANN draft for example, excludes disclosure of

reimbursements of expenses. This should be deleted. (see

improvements made in Boston Working Group Draft)

Section 2 also allows the Corporation not to disclose matters

if it contravenes a contract. This is not acceptable, since it

would be easy for the Corporation to enter into a contract and

put it into the provisions to prohibit disclosure, thereby

concealing its affairs. (see improvements in Boston Working

Group draft)

The Boston Working draft also has provision for appeals (Art 5,

section26), and for the case of conflict of interest,

declaration of such interest not just to the Board but for

public record as well (Art 5, section 7).

The Boston Working Draft also includes the concept of having an

open annual business plan. This could be another idea to ensure

some level of accountability and efficiency. This is provided

both in art 5 section 25)

ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS- ART 5- SECTION 5 OF ICANN

While I can see the rational behind excluding government

participation, exceptions should be made for entities wholly

owned by the government. This is the case for some national

NICs, which are run by a private entity wholly owned by the

government. This is the culture of much of the Asia Pacific

region, for example, and ruling these individuals out would

limit the participation of some individuals from the region.

These people are not civil servants as such, but rather

accountable to the Board and run the entity just as any other

commercial entity does.

Some room for exceptions should be made, or the definition

should be narrowed to national, regional or international civil

servants.

INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION- ARTICLE 5-SECTION 6 OF ICANN

I am also disturbed by the limitation of participation to

residents of a region, rather than nationals of a region. If it

applies to residents, this could still mean that nationals of a

country or region, dominate the Board just because they live

around the world. Likewise, there could be a good candidate,

national of a region that is disqualified just because he is

living in a region that already has 1/2 Directors on the Board.

BTW, Australia is a country not a region. It should read

Australasia and not Australia.

MEMBERSHIP ISSUE

While I see some value of having the membership defined and

election process clarified in the ORSC proposal, I have no

clear views either way. If there are mechanisms to get some

accountability and elected Board from the Internet community as

a whole, then there may be no need for members as such. On the

other hand, if the at-large community is hard to define and

reach out too, then membership may be the way. More thought

needs to be put into this, to ensure that we do not have a

membership structure that also allows for capture by a small

minority.

Here are some quick observations, and I would like to end by

quoting the White Paper. I sincerely hope that the US

Government will practice the words it uses in the White Paper,

to ensure

Stability- should not disrupt current operations or create

competing root systems

Competition- market mechanisms that support competition and

consumer choice

Private bottom-Up coordination- private sector action is

preferable to government control

Representation- should have functional and geographic diversity

in its decision making

Please do not give this lip service. YOu are talking about

resources which affect the whole global Internet community, and

it is your responsibility to carry this function responsibly, I

do hope you will consider giving the process a little more

time, for general endorsements, inputs etc. Please do not rush

into unnecessary decisions, which will only backfire and not

provide stability. Please ensure true global participation and

input into the process.

Regards,

Laina Raveendran Greene

-------------------------------------

Name: Laina Raveendran Greene

E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg

Date: 12/10/98

Time: 19:16:12

This message was sent by Chameleon

-------------------------------------

From: Werner Staub <werner@axone.ch>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/12/98 10:01am

Subject: Support for ICANN proposal

To whom it may concern:

Axone Services & Développement SA wishes to state its support

for the ICANN proposal submitted to NTIA by IANA.

While there are many issues - such as balanced international

representation - remaining to be addressed, we feel that they

cannot be resolved in a process centered around the US government.

The incorporation of ICANN without further delays is the only

workable basis for the international consensus building process

from now on.

Non-US stakeholders find it intolerable that the future of the

Internet primarily should depend on political lobbying in the US.

We are particularly concerned about well-funded lobbying campaign

by NSI, the beneficiary of the current gTLD monopoly, to further

delay the introduction of competition.

We are equally concerned about the de facto extension of NSI's

monopoly along with the imposition upon the Internet community

of technical instruments (such as a proprietary protocol) likely

to consolidate and to perpetuate NSI's stranglehold in the long

term.

Our company (http://axone.ch) is a signatory of the gTLD-MoU and

a member of CORE. It has actively participated in the meetings and

discussions on new top-level domains, including the PAB (Policy

Advisor Body), CORE, the EC Panel of Participants and the IFWP.

Yours truly,

Werner Staub