From: Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/14/98 11:57am

Subject: New Domain Name Corporation

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:

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the recent proposals for a new corporation to manage Internet system functions. I am engaged in PhD research at the University of Miami's School of International Studies, where I have been studying this controversy for the last 18 months. A web page relevant to my research can be found at http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html.

*****

I am very much in agreement with individuals who have expressed disappointment with the ICANN proposal, but who are willing to accept it contingently rather than attempt to block it.

Regrettably, consensus has been declared, but not forged.

I share the concerns of those who say that the proposed bylaws do far too little to ensure that publicly open and accountable processes will be followed by the new corporation in the future. The document drafting and board selection processes which led to the ICANN proposal were not nearly as open and transparent as they needed to be in order to support a broad claim of legitimacy.

There are many other significant flaws stemming from the ICANN proposal. These include the lack of Latin American and African representation among the at large members on the proposed Interim Board, and an all too vague conception of what the organization intends to achieve and what membership it serves.

You may recall that this controversy began as an effort to manage the addition of new Top Level Domains [TLDs] to the Internet's name space. After years of argument nothing has been resolved. Many contentious, difficult questions such as the question of proprietary versus shared TLDs have simply been put off, while vexing issues such as membership qualifications and IP address allocation have been added to the mix.

 One imagines that things could have turned out differently under more politically adept leadership. Unfortunately, no one was equal to the task of steering the process through punctuating events like drafting congresses and a ratification meeting. Such an approach would have increased the likelihood that the final product would have been more responsive to the Internet community. It also would have helped foster a public perception of progress and closure as it proceeded through different phases of the process.

IANA's director, Jon Postel, was not predisposed to take on such an outgoing political role, while the IFWP process was too diverse and disorganized to put forward individuals with the authority and respect to offer a strong alternative. Moreover, Ira Magaziner, representing the interests of the US government in this matter, eschewed decisive action, preferring instead to let the controversy among the "stakeholders" take its own course within loosely defined bounds.

Despite these problems, the ICANN proposal does at least provide a tangible hope for a way out of this enduring controversy. Presuming that ICANN is formally accepted by the US government, it will then be abundantly clear who is officially sanctioned to engage in DNS policymaking. Despite its many shortcomings, ICANN is not fatally flawed. More is to be gained by moving the process forward than by returning the debate back to square one.

It will be up to the new interim board to redeem itself by behaving in an accessible and accountable manner, and then acting immediately to amend the ICANN bylaws to guarantee open processes in the future. Therefore, the interim board should take the specific amendments to the bylaws offered by EFF, OPEN-RSC, and the Boston Group under serious consideration. These are not fringe groups; they reflect the concerns of articulate observers.

If the members of the interim board wish to hear from an intelligent cross section of the community which has been active in online discourse, I suggest they consult with Jim Dixon, Karl Auerbach, Eric Weisberg, Harold Feld, Carl Oppedahl, Ellen Rony, Tony Rutkowski, Scott Bradner, and Kent Crispin.

*****

Let me conclude with a philosophical comment. Milton Mueller has written that this controversy is not about some mythical process of industry self-organization, but privatization. That observation deserves repeating, especially in light of Lawrence Lessig's and Rhonda Hauben's heartfelt critiques of the modern thrust toward privatization and the flight from public governance. In my view, the formal establishment of an organization to serve as the authoritative focal point for DNS management does indeed constitute a model of Internet governance, in practice if not in name. That is why I think moving forward with a flawed ICANN is an acceptable risk. I prefer to see the responsibility for the stewardship of these new global resources placed in identifiable expert hands rather than abandoned to the ebb and flow of chaotic happenstance.

We will know within a short time whether the members of ICANN's interim board have risen to the challenge of creating an open and responsive policymaking organization. If they fail, at least it will be clear who must be overturned.

Thank you,

Craig Simon

cls@flywheel.com

####

From: core <core@EUROTEL.DE>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/14/98 2:35am

Subject: Comment on the ICAAN proposal

Eurotel strongly supports the proposal submitted by the Internet Corporation for the Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). It reflects its vast knowledge of the processes and needs of the Internet as well as the great amount of work and experience having been invested into the draft of the New Domain Name System.

We think that the new cooporation should be implemented according to the bylaws of ICAAN. This should be done as soon as possible, so that the new corporation (ICAAN) can work on issues that still need to be addressed. In particulary, these items are: International scope as a base for the bottom-up consensus building, introduction of new GTLDs, introducing sound competition and fair and equal conditions.

This is especially important considering the actual situation with the extension of a contract supporting a monopoly and lobsided power and oversight of one Government.

Regards

EUROTEL GmbH New Media

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Johannes-Kepler-Straße 4-6

D - 71083 Herrenberg

http://www.Eurotel.net

http://www.Internom.com

Registrar of CORE

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("core@corenic.org")

####

From: "Francisco Framil" <francis@tropicweb.net>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/14/98 1:12pm

Subject: domain name

actually how I should proceed to register a domain name.

Thanks!

####

From: George Michaelson <ggm@dstc.edu.au>

To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("iana@iana.org")

Date: 10/14/98 2:57am

Subject: Personal Endorsement for the proposal

Although undoubtedly flawed (and what substantive act of creation isn't?) the problems are not sufficient to detract from a workable act  of establishment, and I believe the current IANA proposal is a viable basis for progression, and should be endorsed.

Undoubtedly IANA and the Internet at large will find a way to adjust itself in the light of experience and real-world requirements.

I ask that in considering the various competing views on this process, people keep in mind a wider international context, one where many bodies who have *operational duty of care* for part of the Internet see merit in this proposal, despite its shortcomings. I see their endorsement as proof of the basic viability of the scheme.

cheers

-George

[ISOC member, ISOC-AU (ISOC Australian Chapter) founder- and board- member]

George Michaelson | DSTC Pty Ltd

Email: ggm@dstc.edu.au | University of Qld 4072

Phone: +61 7 3365 4310 | Australia

Fax: +61 7 3365 4311 | http://www.dstc.edu.au

CC: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

####

From: Javier SOLA <jsola@aui.es>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/13/98 9:29pm

Subject: Support for IANA DNS Proposal

Honorable William M. Daley

Secretary of Commerce

c/o Karen Rose

Office of International Affairs

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

United States Department of Commerce

Dear Secretary Daley:

The Spanish Internet Users Association supports the ICANN proposal submitted to you by Professor Jon Postel. We consider it the only workable proposal of all those presented, and the only one that can assure the stability of the Internet.

Thank you,

Javier Sola

Director

Spanish Internet Users Association

####

From: Javier SOLA <jsola@aui.es>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/13/98 9:27pm

Subject: DNS Proposals

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

Dear Secretary Daley:

The European Internet Business Association would like to add its voice to the rest of the Internet Community to endorse and support the ICANN proposal submitted to you by Professor Jon Postel.

The proposal is the result of a long period of consultation with the technical and legal Internet Communities and reflects the desires of such stakeholders. We think that it is the only one that can assure the future stability of the Internet

Thank you,

Javier Sola

President

European Internet Business Association

####

From: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/14/98 8:30pm

Subject: ICANN proposals, NSI contract extenions.

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

Dear Sir or Madam:

This letter is written in support of the formation of ICANN under the fifth iteration of its by-laws.

The process leading to this (hopefully) final *acceptable* draft has been open and inclusive. All known stakeholders have been able to be heard and have had the democratic opportunity to influence the consensus.

Regarding the so called "amendment" to the contract with NSI, I visited Becky Burr in D.C. on or about 12 August 1997. She told me NSI's contract ended 31 March 1998, but advised me that there was a provision for a six month "ramp down" to the end of September 1998. She assured me that there would be no further extensions of their contract. In my opinion, it is totally unacceptable to protect this blatant monopoly until the year 2000.

As a matter of fact, the only plan that makes sense is for the NSI Registry to be severed from the NSI Registration business; for the former to be incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation; and for other qualified firms to be given an equal status as registrars for the not-for-profit registry. Anything short of that will inevitably lead to anti-trust challenges to the DoC/NTIA proposal.

Still further, all Registries should be bound by the same rules, e.g. 1. WIPO or other administrative domain name challenge procedures, 2. prohibition of warehousing by registrars for the purpose of trafficking in gTLDs, 3. collecting valid data on the names of registrants, their reasons for registering a particular name, a certification that they know of no established trademark, trade name, service mark or brand name, etc.

Quick buck registrants should be prevented from "shopping the market" for the *least* restrictive rules of business ethics.

Sincerely yours,

PSI-Japan, Inc.

by Robert F. Connelly

President

------------------------------------------------~

Robert F. Connelly

Procurement Services International, Inc.

Sales Agent for: Official Publications of the European Union.

Asahi Sanbancho Plaza #206;

7-1 Sanban-cho, Chiyoda-ku

Tokyo 102-0075, JAPAN

"rconnell@psi-japan.com"; "connelly@alumni.caltech.edu"

FAX: +81-3-3234-6915; voice: +81-3-3234-6921

Residence: +81-3-3262-1729

US Toll Free Voice or FAX to +1-888-828-4177; Press "5" for FAX.

http://www.psi-japan.com http://www.psi-japan.co.jp

http://www.web-domains.io http://www.psi.io

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

FaxSav Stamp:

KaTmag

####

From: Ronda Hauben <rh120@columbia.edu>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/14/98 12:16am

Subject: Submission on Proposals

About the Public Interest and the Future of the Essential

Functions of the Internet

Ronda Hauben

ronda@panix.com

With regard to this problem I am surprised to have seen no apparent consideration by the Executive or other branches of the U.S.  Government of the NSF Inspector General's Report on the Administration of  Internet Addresses.

Though the report doesn't solve the problem, and is far less thorough in examining it than a similar report issued about the NSFNET by the OIG in 1993, the current 1997 report does do something that makes a significant contribution to the problem.

It identifies the fact that continued research to meet the  needs of the Internet is a responsibility for government.  And it describes that there is a public obligation of the Government with regard to ensuring the protection of the public interest in the resource represented by the Internet. The report says this in different ways at different places throughout but  at the end it says:

"The current federal oversight of name and number internet  addresses is the natural consequence of federal financial  support of internet development. Continued federal oversight of this unique public resource is required by the nation's increasing dependence on the internet, which is being fostered by additional federal investments in this technology. NSF's history of  involvement with the internet, its technical expertise, and its continuing investments in related research programs uniquely qualify it to perform that oversight role. NSF's oversight  would ensure the protection of the public interest in the resource, the availability of funds to support future network related basic research, service, and development, fairness to  the internet community, and fairness to the taxpayers."

(from page 16 of Office of Inspector General Report: The  Administration of Internet Addresses 7 Feb. 1997)

The Report also identifies the significant amount of money that the $50 a year maintenance fee in domain names has given to  NSI.

The Report suggests using part of the fee to support continued  needed networking research. (I feel there would have to be serious questions raised about whether this is appropriate, but it is important to examine this recommendation.)

In any case this suggestion (which I have to think about) clarifies that those who administer the Internet also have an obligation to support the kind of research needed to help the Internet to scale.

And the Report identifies the potential of charging for IP numbers and the great amount of revenue that this could potentially yield. (And raises for me the question of the enormous power that will be put in the hands of any private entity that is given control over the allocation of IP numbers and domain  names.)

The Report also notes that policy issues which are issues of  control need to be kept in Government hands, not given over to private hands.

The OIG report discusses how it might be possible to move  administrative functions out of government hands, but that it must be clear these are not policy functions.

The proposed privatization of the DNS and other essential Internet functions would be moving policy functions out of the  control of government and putting them into unaccountable hands.

The whole result of this is a very dangerous one both for the public around the world and for the Internet. The reason is that the private entity has no public obligation or the tools or functions to enable it to sift through the opposing interests with regard to policy. The private entity (and I have seen this in all the efforts I have been made to be part of the International Forum on the White Paper activity) has no concern for the  public interest. The issue is never raised and can't be.

There is a reason government has been created and that  governments exist around the world. There is a broad interest  that is more long range than what an individual corporation is able to consider or act in favor of.

After reading the Inspector General's Report, I thought for a few minutes about the fact that over 2 billion IP numbers have already been allocated and that there are 2.3 billion more.

I thought about the tremendous power and wealth that this could represent as well as the harm that would come to the Internet if this power and control falls into the wrong hands.

If the new private entity decides to charge just $50 a year as an annual maintainance fee for each IP number, then that  gives it a yearly income of 100 billion dollars.

If it makes a decision on who can buy IP numbers and who can't, then this limits access to the Internet to those whom this private entity deems should have access.

Thinking about this potential being put into the hands of a private entity with no expertise to deal with it  and more importantly, no social obligation toward either the  Internet or the public, left me recognizing in a new way how the development and spread of the Internet is due to  the fact that the policies involing its development had a  public purpose and responsibility.

To transfer this great potential public treasure into private hands who consider it a "gold mine" represents a very very  great disregard of the public trust and public obligation.

I have heard that there are those willing to pay to get these resources and that they are upset that they are being given away free.

That person didn't recognize the public and social obligation that is at stake in all this, but he did recognize that  this is a case of the U.S. Government giving away something that has very very great value (either private value if it falls into private hands) or social value if it is kept in public hands.

So this is the issue that hasn't been discussed and yet this is a very significant public question.

When I was asked to submit questions to Congress by  the staffer I spoke with, I submitted the question of by what authority is the U.S. Government giving away the cooperative development that is represented by the Internet. I have read RFC's like RFC 1917 which says about the Internet "It is the largest public data network in the world." And later  on it defines the Global Internet as "the mesh of interconnected  public networks (autonomous systems) which has its origins in the U.S.  National Science Foundation (NSF) backbone, other national networks, and  commercial enterprises."

So it defines the Internet as "public" *not* private.

And yet the U.S. Government is claiming it is considering giving  to a private entity the essential functions that are at the  heart of this Global public network of networks.

The attempt to transfer vital public resources out of the  protection of the public sector into an entity that allows their fundamental nature and purpose to be changed, is  something that represents a strategic problem for all sectors  of society in both the U.S. and around the world.

If U.S. government officials can at least understand the problem  that this represents, perhaps they can find a way to do something  to be helpful toward the public purpose that government makes it  possible to serve.

When I was at the Congresssional hearing held October 8, 1998 before the subcommittee on basic research and the subcommitee on technology, the head of the IFWP steering committee spoke about her vision of  having private corporate entities take over the power and control  that government has had.

This helped me to understand that the question of governance is being substituted for the question of what is the proper role of government in the administration of important and strategic public resources like the Internet.

The OIG Report mentions two ways to protect the public  interest with regard to public resources. The first is to keep them under public ownership and control (I have to check how they word this).

The second is to follow "procedures for facilitating public  participation and open decision making."

They recommend that with regard to this responsibility  the "NSF should disseminate the draft policies and requests for comments broadly, on the internet as well as via traditional means, and NSF should accept comments via the  Internet." (pg 12)

They also mention that when the NSFNET was privatized the  NSF went through a public process. But we have three chapters of our book "Netizens" describing how that public process broke down. (See chapters 11, 12 and 14 of "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ )

But perhaps this problem now shows that the public processes are not functioning, which is some of what my proposal is geared toward working on both as research and as the effort to create a working prototype to facilitate public processes both via the Internet and via open processes and procedures.

I welcome any thoughts on all this. I recognize that these  issues are not easy for those in government, but the momentous importance they have to our society requires the most skillful  and considered measures.

When I met Fernando Corbato at MIT and asked him about Project MAC, he told me to read the book "Management and  the Future of the Computer" edited by Martin Greenberger.

It was about the 1961 conference at MIT on what should be the future of the computer. Many of the pioneers who had created the computer or were working on forefront computer research had gathered to celebrate the centennial of MIT. They invited C.P. Snow from England to speak.

(He had recently spoken at Harvard). His topic was "Scientists and Decision Making". And he spoke about how strategic decisions, especially those concerning computer technology, would be made by government officials. But that it was crucial that those officials had the needed advice from  people who understood the technology and the consequences to society of their decisions.

Also he spoke about the need to involve the broadest possible number of people in these decisions. C.P. Snow gave the  example of when strategic decisions involving too few people were made in England and how the decisions led to harmful social results (he cited the decision to do the strategic bombing of German civilian populations and he told how that decision prolonged the war, rather than shortening it as intended.)

And he spoke about how decisions involving a large number of  people had more of a chance of being socially beneficial decisions.

My proposal attempts to find a way to involve the online community in the work of the prototype international  collaborative research group to be set up.

This prototype is an actual working cooperative group and also is creating the collaboration that will make possible the  future international cooperative research group to administer  and support the DNS and other related functions and also  the further development of the Internet.

Ronda Hauben

ronda@panix.com

Netizens: On the History and Impact

of Usenet and the Internet

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook

also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6

####

From: steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>

To: Ira Magaziner

Date: 10/14/98 5:01pm

Subject: Comments to the Submission of the ORSC Proposal

October 14, 1998

TO: Ira Magaziner

Senior Adviser to the President,

Policy Development

Old Executive Office Building,

Room 216

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20502

CC: The Honorable Charles Pickering

Chairman, Subcommittee on Basic Research

U.S. House of Representatives

FROM: Stephen J. Page, Individual Respondee to DNSpolicy@NTIA.DOC.GOV

RE: Comments to the Submission of the ORSC Proposal

Dear Mssrs. Magaziner and Pickering,

As an ORSC particant, as well as an independent person, below are my comments regarding the ORSC proposal submitted by Einar Stefferud and the ORSC team below:

Text:

>This is a separate proposal to the NTIA from ORSC. It has been

>published as a proposal on the NTIA website. The significant

>differences between proposals submitted so far and ours are:

>

>1. Membership structure is defined in the bylaws, not deferred, thus

> removing the dependence that the initial board will "do the right

> thing".

>

>2. Supporting Organizations do not elect the board, the members do.

>

>3. Significantly enhanced due process considerations, thus decreasing

> dependence on the State Attorney General for relief.

>

>4. Incorporation in Delaware.

>

>5. Clauses requiring greater fiscal responsibility.

>

>6. Clauses for "fair hearing panels" providing greater access and an

> alternative to the count system for redress.

>

>7. Enhanced respect for human rights.

Comments:

From the perspective of priorities which reflect the values which the American system holds dear, I would have liked to see the elements listed in the order which reflects the longer term viewpoint that this entire DNS management effort must first focus protecting the rights of individuals to use language freely, and for the future management system to be based upon a body of laws which has been shown to be flexible enough to accommodate future innovations and change, such as the U.S. Constitution.

With these principles in mind, I would have placed item #7 (above) in the first position (below), especially in this symbolic year of the 50th anniversary of the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights.

1. Enhanced respect for human rights.

Secondly, I would have placed #3 (above) in the second position (below)

2. Significantly enhanced *due process* considerations, thus decreasing

dependence on the State Attorney General for relief.

because without due process, the management structure will be too powerful and tending toward unaccountability to individual human beings' rights and freedoms.

Next, with the democratic principles of member-elections flowing from the respect for human rights (#1), the principles of directly elected representation, and therefore accountability to the constituents would follow, moving #1,2 (above) to the #3,4 positions.

3.Membership structure is defined in the bylaws, not deferred, thus removing the dependence that the initial board will "do the right thing".

4. Supporting Organizations do not elect the board, the members do.

After that, #6 (above) would be moved into the number 5 position (below)

5. Clauses for "fair hearing panels" providing greater access and an alternative to the count system for redress.

because this follows along with the principles of fairness, which also flow from the new #1.

Finally, #4,5 would be moved to positions #6,7, reflecting the common sense approach of applying fiscal responsibility to whatever is done, and incorporating in the location which makes most sense for the successful scalability of the management system for the future.

6. Incorporation in Delaware.

7. Clauses requiring greater fiscal responsibility.

Viewed in the light of such a prioritized, values-based structure, one which is based upon a system of values, and not merely administrative, operational, or political expediency, we lay another series of bricks into the foundation of a solid system, upon which a more scalable internetwork system can result.

Respectfully,

Stephen J. Page

OD MBA

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Stephen Page is an independent researcher, former Regular Army Officer, U.S. Army, a recognized business network architecture designer as a project manager for a DARPA funded Network Architecture grant in 1994, and practicing optometrist. He is 41 years old, resides and practices Northern California, a graduate of University of Santa Clara (bachelor), University of California Berkeley, (doctorate) and Boston University (masters degree in Business Administration).  He is a participant in the IFWP as a Virtual Attendee submitting comments via email, as well as a participant with the Open Root Server Consortium (ORSC), representing Internet .a(sm)-.z(sm) Name Registry, a California Corporation.

(c) Copyright, 1998. Stephen J. Page.

CC: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy),NTIADC40.SMTP40("usdh@ccnet...

####

From: <Wellgord@aol.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(DNSPolicy)

Date: 10/14/98 5:00pm

Subject: Re: BWG

Gentleman:

We want to be counten in support of, "The Boston Working Group Proposal".

Very Truly,

Gordon & Dorothy Wellens

####

From: <W.R.J.L.vantHof@minez.nl>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/14/98 3:52pm

Subject: ICANN

Dear Sir,

On October 8, the US embassy in The Hague asked us (the Dutch Ministry of  Economic Affairs) to react on the proposal to create an Internet Corporation  for Assigned Name and Numbers (ICANN) to undertake the future management of  DNS functions.

In general we would like to remark that we see the process by which the  proposal was developed as a typical example of the concensus building that has  always characterized the Internet. We therefore feel that the current proposal  represents a workable and viable solution that should be implemented as soon  as possible and in consultation with all parties concerned. In that respect we  also feel that the tasks that are currently with NSI should be handed over to  ICANN as soon as possible so that ICANN can manage every aspect of the DNS  functions.

So, in general we would like to say that we support the proposal for the  creation of ICANN, including its interim Board of Directors.

Yours sincerely,

Heleen de Brabander

deputy head Information Policy Unit

Wim van 't Hof

manager Information Superhighway Program

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("H.H.Brabander-Ypes@minez.nl")

####