1825 I Street, NW, Suite 400

PO Box 65782

Washington, DC 20035-5782

Tel +1 202 955 8091

Fax +1 202 955 8081

Email ia@internetalliance.org

Web www.internetalliance.org

October 13, 1998

The 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 IA believes that the United States Department of Commerce should accept Dr. Jon Postel's proposed bylaws of October 2, 1998 for a not-for-profit corporation to administer policy for the Internet name and address system ("ICANN" -- the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). Obviously, not every member of the Internet Alliance agrees with every aspect of the proposal, however, with the workable set of bylaws proposed we are confident that many pending areas of dispute will be resolved in developing this new institution.

The Internet Alliance commends the significant effort that the Department of Commerce and the National Telecommunications Information Administration have allocated to this critical process. In addition, the IA wishes to extend our thanks to Dr. Postel for his hard work in shepherding this process through the international landscape.

The Internet Alliance the leading association devoted to promoting and developing online and Internet services worldwide. Through public policy, advocacy, consumer outreach and strategic alliances, the IA is building the confidence and trust necessary for the Internet to become the global mass market medium of the 21st century. The IA's members fundamentally believe that open competition is good not only for business but also for the Internet online consumer.

The IA has consistently supported Internet self-governance and we support the IANA proposal as submitted on October 2, 1998 by Dr Jon Postel of the IANA. This proposal is firm footing from which the Internet online industry can work toward the future.

Sincerely,

Jeff B. Richards

Executive Director

####

From: Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>

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

Date: 10/15/98 7:51am

Subject: A MOTION

I speak for myself.

Here are two natural questions which may be asked of all parties, but is directed to only one:

What can the BWG

a. agree upon (BE in consensus WITH); or

b. submit to (accept without rebellion)?

There is one key concern which can not be negotiated--FAIR REPRESENTATION OF ALL SIGNIFICANT STAKE HOLDER INTERESTS.

It is bad enough for one party to dictate a structure which creates (as would ANY structure) a set of biases from which we will never recover. But it is even more objectionable for that party to also dictate who will speak for the other stake holders in things to come. This is not acceptable. For me, (S)election of the INTERIM BOARD is the line in the sand.

The BWG has a proposal on the table which addresses that concern--an election by the IFWP. IANA proposes the antithesis. So, what do we do? Accept IANA's failure to address the issue as the answer--i.e. conclude that it can not be done? Or do we address the issue OURSELVES, in some rational manner. I suggest rationality. It gives us the best hope at what we seek, an acceptable resolution.

The discussion must begin with a proposal. Since there is apparently none other, we must START with the BWG's suggestion, WHICH I SO MOVE. Do I have a second?

The next step is the offer of an amendment to the BWG proposal or a plug in replacement.

Then, we can hold a vote on this list. The USG can take it for whatever they think it is worth.

Respectfully,

Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel

Internet Texoma

CC: Ira Magaziner

####

From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>

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

Date: 10/15/98 6:08pm

Subject: Re: [ifwp] A MOTION

Hi Eric --

Let's look at the alternatives implicit in your motion.

1. ICANN Articles + Bylaws and ICANN Board Selection.

2. ORSC Articles + Bylaws and the ICANN Board.

3. ORSC Articles + Bylaws, and a new Board to be selected.

4. ICANN Articles + Bylaws, and a new Board to be selected.

In what order of preference would you rank these alternatives?

We have to be very practical here in our choices, as the train is about to leave the station.

Which of these do you think the NTIA might be considering seriously?

My take is that #3 is the best choice, BUT I will accept #2 on the basis that the bylaws are vastly more important than the board membership.

This is especially so when the articles and bylaws contain important safeguards in the areas of Fiscal Responbility, Due Process, Membership Requirements to Elect the Permanent Board, Fair Hearing Panels, Incorporation in Delaware, etc...

These things are all designed to protect the community from a self perpetuating board that is short on oversight provisions. They are also ingredients for generating very broad consensus, which is certainly one thing I would seek if I were NTIA.

I suggest that you carefully analyse this framework and then decide what you want to do about the current situation.

Cheers...\Stef

From your message Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:51:20 +0000:

}

}I speak for myself.

}

}Here are two natural questions which may be asked of

}all parties, but is directed to only one:

}

}What can the BWG

}

}a. agree upon (BE in consensus WITH); or

}

}b. submit to (accept without rebellion)?

}

}There is one key concern which can not be

}negotiated--FAIR REPRESENTATION OF ALL SIGNIFICANT

}STAKE HOLDER INTERESTS.

}

}It is bad enough for one party to dictate a structure

}which creates (as would ANY structure) a set of biases

}from which we will never recover. But it is even more

}objectionable for that party to also dictate who will

}speak for the other stake holders in things to come.

}This is not acceptable. For me, (S)election of the

}INTERIM BOARD is the line in the sand.

}

}The BWG has a proposal on the table which addresses

}that concern--an election by the IFWP. IANA proposes

}the antithesis. So, what do we do? Accept IANA's

}failure to address the issue as the answer--i.e.

}conclude that it can not be done? Or do we address the

}issue OURSELVES, in some rational manner. I suggest

}rationality. It gives us the best hope at what we

}seek, an acceptable resolution.

}

}The discussion must begin with a proposal. Since there

}is apparently none other, we must START with the BWG's

}suggestion, WHICH I SO MOVE. Do I have a second?

}

}The next step is the offer of an amendment to the BWG

}proposal or a plug in replacement.

}

}Then, we can hold a vote on this list. The USG can

}take it for whatever they think it is worth.

}

}Respectfully,

}

}Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel

}Internet Texoma

}

}

}

}

}__________________________________________________

}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____________________________________________

}

CC: Ira Magaziner

####

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

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

Date: 10/15/98 2:14pm

Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: A MOTION

Patrick, Eric, Stef, and all,

Well we hope that none of the suggestions you make Stef (See below), are the NTIA are considering, in that none of them consider and Initial Individual Membership Organization and therefore do not meet the requirements of Transparency, Accountability, and a Bottom-Up structure to the ICANN or NewCo.

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Einar Stefferud wrote:

>

> > Hi Eric --

> >

> > Let's look at the alternatives implicit in your motion.

> >

> > 1. ICANN Articles + Bylaws and ICANN Board Selection.

> >

> > 2. ORSC Articles + Bylaws and the ICANN Board.

> >

> > 3. ORSC Articles + Bylaws, and a new Board to be selected.

> >

> > 4. ICANN Articles + Bylaws, and a new Board to be selected.

> >

> > In what order of preference would you rank these alternatives?

> >

> > We have to be very practical here in our choices, as the train is

> > about to leave the station.

> >

> > Which of these do you think the NTIA might be considering seriously?

> >

> > My take is that #3 is the best choice, BUT I will accept #2 on the

> > basis that the bylaws are vastly more important than the board

> > membership.

>

> Bylaws can be thrown out by the board. Are you still sure you like #2?

>

> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

> Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v

> CTO (925) 377-1212 v

> NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f

> Coming to the ISPF? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com

> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

>

> __________________________________________________

> 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,

Jeffrey A. Williams

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

Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.

E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

CC: Ira Magaziner

####

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

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

Date: 10/15/98 5:32pm

Subject: Re: [ifwp] Full text Comparison of Bylaws Proposals

Ellen and all,

Although Ellen Rony's comparison of Bylaws proposal is nice is is limited in that it does not include ALl of the proposals for bylaws that have been submitted to the NTIA  for consideration. Therefore we at INEG. INC. along with our 300+ affiliate organization and companies would wish to insure that the NTIA is aware of this shortcoming in Ellen's submittal.

Up to this juncture, we at INEG. INC. have refrained from comment on Ellen Rony's comparison proposal, however due to some overwhelming requests made to myself privately we determined that it be necessary to insure that everyone was informed of this unfortunate shortcoming in Ellen's proposal in hopes that it may be corrected or as to inform in an open and fair manner of this unfortunate shortcoming.

Our proposal which to our knowledge currently enjoys the broadest verifiable amount of Stakeholder support at this time is only one of the proposals that Ellen's Comparison of Bylaws did not include which we found rather astounding considering the breadth of that support that our proposal currently possess.

Ellen Rony wrote:

> The following message was transmitted to dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov today.

> ___________________________________________________________________

> On October 13, 1998, I submitted an html file containing a full-text,

> color-coded comparison of the three bylaws proposals submitted to the

> Department of Commerce.

>

> While I am pleased that NTIA has posted this file, I note some obvious

> errors in transmission from my computer to your site. The most glaring of

> these is that the black text, which is my default color, has been changed

> throughout to blue, thus eliminating the color-coded distinctions between

> the ICANN document in black and the Boston Working Group changes in blue.

> With the color differentiation lost in transmission, it is not clear what

> has been revised between those two documents. Furthermore, text was

> dropped out from several table cells near the end of the file.

>

> Although the comment deadline has passed, I hope to prevail upon your

> interest in accuracy and request that you replace the file now posted at

> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/comments/10-13-98b.ht

> m> wit the html file attached to this message <comp-bylaws3.html>. If the

> transmission errors are repeated, would you please download the comparison

> tables from http://www.domainhandbook.com/comp-bylaws.html.

>

> Many people have expressed interest in this text-specific comparison, and I

> appreciate your assistance in asssuring that accuracy is maintained on the

> NTIA Comments site.

>

> Regards,

>

> Ellen Rony

> Co-author, The Domain Name Handbook:

> High Stakes and Strategies in Cyberspace (R&D Books) 1998

>

> Tiburon, California

> erony@marin.k12.ca.us

>

> __________________________________________________

> 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____________________________________________

Kindest regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams

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

Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.

E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

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

####