From: Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy),NTIADC40.SMTP40("commnets@i...
Date: 10/6/98 11:44pm
Subject: FCR Supports IANA's Fifth Draft Bylaws

FCR (Fundacio' Catalan per a la Recerca; Catalan Research Foundation) wishes to expressely support the 5th iteration of the Draft bylaws as proposed by IANA.

FCR has actively participated in all relevant fora discussing the DNS issue, and Internet governance, including the gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body, the EU "Panel of Participants" and the IFWP. We feel that the current draft reflects adequately the majoritiarian positions in all those groups/processes.

Indeed we would have been happier if the geographical distribution of the Board members had included a better difinitio of the regions, and most specially if the ceiling for each single region had been lowered from 50% to 33%. We would also had welcomed that at least a member of the Board came form a non-OECD country, preferably from Latin America.

We will keep asking these changes and refinements for the future, especially as new Borad members will need to be selected.

We have nevertheless a request for a specific modification of the current proposal to be implemented at this stage. We strongly urge the reconsideration of the name of the new entity. For historical, practical and symbolic reasons nothing would be more appropriate than keeping the name of IANA. But few names would be more unfortunate that ICANN, with its hopefully unintended vizarre prononciation and, most importantly, its strange use of the rem Corporation.

Taking all this into acount we urge the NTIA to accept and endorse the current IANA/ICANN proposal and have the new entity up and running as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Amadeu Abril i Abril
Legal & Policy Adviser; Internet Affairs
Fundacio' Catalana per a la Recerca (FCR)
http://www.fcr.es

###

From: Erica Roberts <ERoberts@dca.gov.au>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy),NTIADC40.SMTP40("iana@iana....
Date: 10/7/98 5:32pm
Subject: Paul Twomey

Please remove Paul Twomey, National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE), from the list of people who have endorsed the establishment of ICANN.

Comments from NOIE were made in reference to the third iteration and do not constitute an endorsement of the 5th iteration. It is misleading to  include them on this page.

Dr Erica Roberts
National Office for the Information Economy
voice: 61 2 62838212
fax: 61 2 62838222
email: eroberts@dca.gov.au
CC: "ptwomey@TPG.com.au"

###

From: "Grote, Henning" <Henning.Grote@telekom.de>
To: "'iana@iana.org'" <iana@iana.org>
Date: 10/7/98 4:49am
Subject: Deutsche Telekom endorsing IANA

Dear Dr. Postel, ladies and gentlemen,

please find attached our brief statement with which we want to express our endorsement for the submitted proposal as of Oct. 2. It is a MS Word 97 file.

With best regards,

Henning Grote

__________________________________

Dipl.-Ing. Henning Grote
CTO NIC
Deutsche Telekom AG
Center for Datacommunication
D-26119 Oldenburg
Germany
Phone: +49 441 234-5667
Fax: +49 441 27463
Mobile: +49 171 497 8112
eMail: henning.grote@telekom.de

__________________________________

Ladies and gentlemen,

Deutsche Telekom AG believes in a fair and open competition on a global marketplace that constantly leads to the development of new products and services for the good of both: consumer and business.

Concerning internet-related issues this is a major force which drives Deutsche Telekom to continue to emphatically support internet self-governance.

We think that the most international focus and the diversity of the contributing parties in the recent processes that led to the submitted proposal of Dr Jon Postel showed impressively the ability of the private sector to act purposefully on a global basis.

Beside the fact that we are not completely satisfied with every single detail of the proposal we found that most of the open questions can be dealt with by the interim board or other operational entities of due-to-found ICANN.

Of course, we are aware of the extreme care that has to be taken when altering this global system - as it was customary up to now. But nevertheless: there is a need to proceed now to preserve the momentum and the spirit of cooperation we have these days.

Hence, we explicitly want to support the IANA proposal as submitted on October 2, 1998 by Dr Jon Postel. We recognize it as a stable and trustworthy basis and a sound starting point for our future work.
 
 

Henning Grote
CTO NIC
Deutsche Telekom AG
Center for Datacommunication
D-26119 Oldenburg
Germany

###

October 7, 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 International Trademark Association (INTA) recommends to the United States Department of Commerce that it accept Dr. Jon Postel's proposed by-laws of October 2, 1998 for a not-for-profit corporation to administer policy for the Internet name and address system (hereafter referred to as "ICANN" - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). Dr. Postel and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) have taken the laboring oar in developing an entity which will chart the course for the Internet's future. While the ICANN proposal is by no means a panacea, we believe that it is the most comprehensive of all the plans developed and has the backing of the vast majority in the Internet community. Dr. Postel and his team should be commended for their efforts.

While INTA recommends that the proposed ICANN by-laws be adopted, we cannot endorse the prepared list of interim Board members. First, we direct your attention to the discussion of the "Incorporation" of the new corporation in the "White Paper," which states:

We anticipate that the new corporation's organizers will include representatives of regional Internet number registries, Internet engineers and computer scientists, domain name registries, domain name registrars, commercial and noncommercial users, Internet service providers, international trademark holders (emphasis added) and Internet experts highly respected throughout the international Internet community. These incorporators should include substantial representation from around the world.

In our opinion, the proposed list of interim Board members does not meet the "international trademark holder" threshold which was established in the "White Paper." Based on the resumes provided in Dr. Postel's October 2 letter, it appears that none of the nine members listed has a measurable background regarding the important role of brand identity in the global marketplace. We feel strongly that without such expertise on the interim Board, the concerns of trademark owners will be vastly overshadowed by technical matters during the initial stages of the corporation's development. There is even a possibility that important trademark issues such as the addition of new generic top level domain names (gTLDs) and the proper manner for resolving trademark/domain name disputes, will be neglected as a result of the omission.

Second, the "White Paper" states that the United States Government supports "mechanisms that would ensure international input into the management of the domain name system," (see comments on the "Global Perspective"). We note that the proposed list of interim Board members falls short in this area by omitting representatives from two key geographical regions: Latin America and Africa. If the new corporation is to be truly representative of the Internet, then the interim Board must have representatives from these areas of the world.

In conclusion, INTA would like to once again recommend that you accept the ICANN by-laws. However, we urge that the list of interim Board members be revisited so that it meets the expectations of the "White Paper."

Thank you for considering our submission.
 

Sincerely,
 

Alan C. Drewsen
Executive Director

cc: Ira C. Magaziner

###

From: Ruby Sinreich <ruby@ncjustice.org>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)
Date: 10/7/98 1:59pm
Subject: Don't give the Internet away!

I am opposed to giving private corporations control over DNS or other important Internet systems. The government is the best representative of the interests of it's citizens. Any sustainable businesses' primary interest is making money. Profit should not drive important decisions about such an important international resource.

Therefore, I support the Hauben proposal. In addition, we much keep in mind the global nature of the Internet and not make assumptions about American control.

Finally, I would like to point out that this comment process is very diffcult to understand, even for the average technically-inclined citizen. This seems likely to sway participation toward large corporate interests and away from grassroots users who need access to online resources the most.

Thanks you for taking the time to read my comments.

= Ruby Sinreich
305 Pritchard Avenue
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
ruby@ncjustice.org

###
 

Ref.: IANA PROPOSAL
 

On Friday evening we received a copy of a presentation from Jon Postel, addressed to the Secretary of Commerce, William M. Daley, and titled "Re:Management of Internet Names and Addresses."
 

This document contains a list of nominees to the Interim Board, who have agreed to serve on the initial board. It does not include any of the candidates submitted by various entities in Latin America.

Throughout the process known as the IFWP, CABASE actively participated in the Steering Committee, convinced, as we were, that the objectives of the White Paper called for worldwide stakeholder  representation in the new entity.

The White Paper clearly states: "Mechanisms should be established to ensure international participation in decision making" (Principles for a New Sytem, point 4 - Representation) and "These incorporators should include substantial representation from around the world" (Incorporation) and "It should, however, have a board of directors from around the world" (Incorporation) and "...the new corporation should: 1) appoint, on an interim basis, an initial Board of Directors (an Interim Board) consisting of individuals representing the functional and geographic diversity of the Internet Community". (Structure)

These and other statements clearly indicated the will to involve all regions of the world in this process and in the new entity.

Accordingly CABASE, at it's own risk and expense, undertook the organization of IFWP-LA&C, the fourth IFWP regional meeting, attended by 150 delegates, with simultaneous translation in three languages (English,Spanish,Portuguese), on August 20-21 in Buenos Aires. The meeting was webcast on the Internet, and the consensus achieved was widely circulated at that time under the name of Consensus of Buenos Aires .One of the consensus points called for participation of Latin America in the Board of Directors (interim and permanent).

As a consequence of this forum, various entities in Latin America agreed to form ALCI - Asociacion Latinoamerica y del Caribe para Internet, in order to establish a regional organization that would be representative of the majority of Internet stakeholders in the region. This Association is currently in the organizational stage, and initial members include entities in Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Uruguay and Mexico. Other entities within the region have been  invited to join this Association.

The list of nominees submitted by Jon Postel, although each candidate is a highly qualified individual, does not include any representation of the Latin American region. Actually the proposed nine at large members of the Interim Board add up as follows:

Europe and the U.S. have seven representatives between them Asia Pacific have two representatives Latin America have none

This composition closely follows Article V.6 of the proposed bylaws, which provide that "no more than one-half of the directors may be residents of any geographic region". Since this obviously refers to the "at large" members, it actually means that, for example, both Europe and the U.S.A. could have four members each, out of the nine, leaving the rest of the world one seat out of these nine.

The importance of geographical diversity in the composition of the Interim Board cannot be understated, since:

(a) The proposed bylaws state that the initial board "shall establish the ongoing composition formula for those Boards following the Initial Board, and the processes by which members of those Boards will be selected and removed, by amendement to these Bylaws" (Section 3 b)

(b) They also state that "At large members other than those serving on the initial Board shall be elected by a process to be determined by a majority voice of all At Large membersof the Initial Board" (Section 3b)

(c) The White Paper calls for the Corporation to "direct the Interim Board to develop policies for the addition of TLDs, and establish the qualifications for domain name registries and domain name registrars within the system".

We cannot help but ask, if Latin America has not been taken into consideration for representation within the Interim Board, why would such a board consider Latin America for representation in the permanent board ?

Also, the Interim Board is far from being a passive, merely administrative supervisor. On the contrary it is called upon to take important actions and make no less important decisions affecting the interests of stakeholders all over the world (including Argentina).

Latin America is growing rapidly, there are support problems on ARIN's side for the region, and conflicts involving trademark legislation which in Latin America differ from other regions, and, unless the region is represented on the Interim and subsequent Boards, we see no guarantee that the structure of the new entity will facilitate our activities.

Consequently we must state the following:

1) Article V.6 of the proposed bylaws is unacceptable, since, although it may have been included as a well meaning safeguard, Jon Postel's Interim Board proposal demonstrates the result of taking this clause to the limit, and thus limiting geographical representation to three regions, whereas the same proposal recognizes the existence of five regions.

2) In view of all the above, we are unable to discover valid reasons which could justify the exclusion of Latin America from representation in the Interim Board. If this oversight is not duly corrected, the conclusion will be that the Interim Board does not constitute a valid geographical representation.

In summary, CABASE cannot endorse Jon Postel's proposal as it stands today, since it excludes a whole geographical region from being represented within the at large members of the Initial Board, and establishes a clause in the bylaws that guarantees this oversight can be permanent and legitimate, thus violating the principles stated in
 

Regards
 

Tony Harris
Secretary - CABASE
www.cabase.org.ar
Tel/Fax 54-1-326-0777

###

From: Luis G de Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)
Date: 10/7/98 2:07pm
Subject: Against Privatization of the Internet

Dear Sir/Ladies: I am in favor of Ronda Hauben's proposal and against the privatization of the Internet. The Internet belongs to we, the people and privatization would gradually remove us from it, making room in it for just the priviledged and the wealthy.

Sincerely,

Lou De Quesada
Columbia University
Health Sciences Library
701 W.168 St. RmLL1-23
N.Y.N.Y.10032

###

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 11:57:56 -0400

To: list@ifwp.org

From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>

Subject: Iperdome Calls for Accountability
 
 

Iperdome Calls for Accountability in Internet Governance

ATLANTA, Oct 07 /PRNewswire/ -- Iperdome, Inc., the company offering Personal Domain Name services under the .per(sm) name and Top Level Domain (TLD), has asked Congress to ensure accountability for the Board of the new, not-for-profit corporation (Newco). In written testimony submitted yesterday, company founder and president Jay Fenello described how the current process had broken down, and how the leading proposal is unacceptable due to the lack of accountability of the Board.

According to Mr. Fenello, "The transfer of Internet assets and authority from the U.S. Government to this Newco represents a major departure for the private administration of a global resource. If we were only talking about Internet resources, the leading draft might be sufficient. The truth of the matter is, however, that the Newco will be making public policy decisions as well as administrative decisions. Diverse issues like free speech, access, and privacy will all be affected by decision made by the Newco. It is for these reasons that the Newco Board must be made accountable to the Internet stakeholders in some way, shape, or form."

On June 5, 1998, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") of the United States Department of Commerce issued a policy statement, commonly known as 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.

In response to the White Paper, a sectorally and geographically diverse group of Internet stakeholders came together under the IFWP banner (The International Forum on the White Paper). These stakeholders met at assorted venues throughout the world, and the result was a series of consensus points for the new corporation.

Several weeks ago, the IFWP process broke down as many of the original supporters decided to negotiate directly with the IANA. The result was the ICANN draft, a draft that is deficient in the following ways:

- The draft was finalized behind closed doors.

- The draft does not include many of the consensus points from the IFWP process.

- The interim board suggested by the draft was presented without any open nomination process or discussion.

- It fails to meet Ira Magaziner's mandate of accountability, as the ICANN board is only accountable to itself.

- It fails to meet the terms as stated by Becky Burr, specifically the desire for sound and transparent processes, protection against capture, and fair, open and pro-competitive processes.

While two other proposals have been submitted, and at least one other proposal is in the works, none of the drafts are likely to be considered acceptable to all of the diverse stakeholders of the Internet community. "The issues being addressed in these documents are broad, complicated, and have long lasting implications" said Fenello. "We simply do not have all of the answers at this time."

It is for these reasons that Iperdome has taken such a strong position on accountability. While there are many changes we would suggest with any of the drafts submitted, having a Board that is accountable to Internet stakeholders ensures that any mistakes made in the base documents can be fixed over time. Trusting this process to a Board that is only accountable to itself is a formula for disaster.

Mr. Fenello ended his Congressional testimony with a call for the U.S. Government to retain oversight unless and until accountability is built into the Board of the Newco. His entire testimony can be seen at http://www.iperdome.com/congress3.txt.
 

SOURCE Iperdome, Inc.

CONTACT: Jay Fenello, President, Iperdome, Inc., 404-250-3242

Web Site: http://www.iperdome.com
FONT>

###
 
 

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

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

Date: 10/7/98 8:14am

Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: NSI Agreement
 
 

Milton and all,
 
 

Milton Mueller wrote:
 
 

> Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:

>

> > And if we are talking about the

> > cost of developing a shared registry system, should a company really get a

> > return on investment above cost to comply with a government request that it

> > not be a monopolist?

>

> The applicable model here seems to be utility regulation. Apparently, USG

> conceives of the registry function as a "natural monopoly" which it licenses to a

> single firm while imposing cost of service regulation on the underlying wholesale

> rate. In this model, a "fair" rate of return is always built into the regulated

> price.

>

> The question Schwimmer asks above is falsely conceived, in that the current

> extension of the contract is intended to end monopoly over registration, but not

> over the registry function.

>

> Let me hasten to add that I do not necessarily agree with this model, I am simply

> trying to make sense of what's being done.

>

> One problem with this approach is that NSI insists upon asserting that it has a

> "first amendment right" to censor domain names that it considers inappropriate.

> But only private publishers of content in open, unregulated markets have such

> first amendment rights. In other words, if ".com" was simply one of many

> competing, proprietary TLDs then NSI would have a legitimate claim to a right to

> censor the SLD space under .com, because users who did not like those policies

> could go elsewhere. On the other hand, if NSI is a public trustee, like a

> broadcaster, its controls on content must be developed through law and regulation,

> not unilaterally by NSI. The same could be said for its trademark policy.

>

> Another problem with this approach is that the registry function is not a natural

> monopoly. There are now many alternative registries. It is only NSI's (or IANA's

> or NSF's) control of the authoritative root zone file that prevents these

> alternative registries from being fully part of the Internet.
 
 

Yes indeed, and this has been debated in many different ways for several years now.

NSI/NSF/IANA have by their actions restricted other TLD's from other registries to be entered into a.root.server and it has been argued that this is in effect a violation of the First amendment. Not only that it could be argued that this action  is also a Restraint of Trade issue as well. Hence the need, in part for the Privatization of the Internet.
 
 

Now however with the recent event of the NSI agreement being extended and some modification to that extension agreement, which Bob Allisat has pointed out nicely, that seems to allow for additional gTLD's to be entered into various Root Servers or even additional Root servers to be added. Food for thought here?
 
 

>

>

> --MM

>

> __________________________________________________

> 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 <Ira_C._Magaziner@oa.eop.gov>
 
 

###
 
 
 
 
 
 

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

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

Date: 10/7/98 10:08am

Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: NSI Agreement
 
 

Milton and all,
 
 

Milton Mueller wrote:
 
 

> Pete:

>

> Pete Farmer wrote:

>

> > Yes, but... my understanding is that the contract is also intended to

> > put into action the *phase out* of NSI's monopoly over the registry

> > function for .com, .org, and .net.

>

> That really depends on NewCo, as I understand it. As Chris Ambler said in

> reaction to this message of yours, USG's renegotiation of NSI's contract

> demonstrates that it has now, and has always had, the ability to end or

> phase out NSI's monopoly. It has not used this power, deferring instead to

> the results of the White Paper process.

>

> > >Another problem with this approach is that the registry

> > >function is not a natural monopoly. There are now many

> > >alternative registries. It is only NSI's (or IANA's

> > >or NSF's) control of the authoritative root zone file

> > >that prevents these alternative registries from being

> > >fully part of the Internet.

> >

> > The reason this hasn't happened is, in part, because lines of authority

> > for making this happen were muddy. Today there is no established,

> > coherent process for creating and recognizing new gTLDs. The White

> > Paper process is an attempt to clarify issues of responsibility and

> > authority and make way for the addition of new gTLDs.

>

> In fact, all the White Paper did was defer those issues to the NewCo, which

> is in turn deferring them to a Names Council. The Names Council will have

> to fight the same battles we have all been watching for the past three

> years.
 
 

We believe that this is the correct assessment. It has been our assessment for sometime now as I have stated several times on this list. It is precisely for this reason that a Membership Organization must exist initially in order to have a truly Stakeholer represented NewCo. That Membership Organization, as we have outlined in our Draft would insure that not party or Parties would be disenfranchised by the SO's or the Initial Board of the NewCo, in that the Initial Membership Organization would be inclusive of ALL of the stakeholders/usres and would require that the Initial Board is an Elected body, that the SO Directors were Elected by the Initial Membership Organization, and that any and all Committee members were also Elected by the Initial Membership Organization by Majority Vote.

> __________________________________________________

> 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 <Ira_C._Magaziner@oa.eop.gov>

###