From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: Karen Rose
Date: 4/23/98 1:10pm
Subject: Iperdome's ex parte Summary

Yesterday, I spoke to Ira Magaziner on an ex parte
phone call about the current Green Paper process.
I have used my notes of our conversation to complete
this ex parte summary for posting at the NTIA site:

===================================================

Our conversation started with my acknowledging that
I am new to Washington and rule making proceedings,
and that I wasn't quite sure where we were in the
process.

Ira responded with the following:
- this is an ex parte phone call, and that I
should take notes for posting at the NTIA site.
- they are still on track for issuing a ruling,
probably within the next two weeks.
He also indicated that, after reading the multiple
submissions, they found consensus in most areas except:
- registry status (profit vs. non-profit)
- new TLD selection and entry

The rest of the conversation was to discuss Iperdome's
position as detailed below . . .

Profit vs. Non-Profit Registries

In addition to all of the typical arguements used to
support FOR-Profit registries:
- Better service and pricing for Netizens
- Non-profit status doesn't eliminate price inflation
- Non-profit status makes it hard to raise money
to meet the strict infrastructure requirements.
I also suggested that it becomes much harder to recruit
and retain qualified technical people without stock options.
I used ARIN's current struggles as an example.

New TLD Selection and Entry

Without action to select and enter new TLDs, this
would likely postpone new TLDs until *after* the new,
non-profit was organized and operational.

Iperdome suggested that this would benefit the current
monopoly situation, and would be unfair to *all* of the
new registries (free market, CORE, etc.).

We then discussed the possibility of further actions of
the Justice Department for the past activities that have
resulted in the current situation, including the business
failure of many new registries waiting to compete in this
new industry.

Finally, I reiterated that *should* this decision be
postponed, it was extremely important that representation
for the board of the new, non-profit be structured to
prevent the current technocracy from assuming control
of the new organization.

Representational Issues

Iperdome reiterated our opinion that representational issues
are the most important factor in the future success of the
new, non-profit. I referred to one of my recent postings
titled "Global Representation" that outlined a way to balance
the interests of Internet users with the controllers of the
network infrastructure.

We then talked about the similarities and the differences
of this approach with that as described in the Green Paper.
Specifically, the GP was using the three regional IP registries
to represent the controllers of the network infrastructure,
while I suggested expanding this to include other /8 owners.

We discussed how the combined IP address space allocated to
ARIN, RIPE and APNIC represented a small portion of the entire
address space (only about 30 /8s). A large portion of the IP
address space has been allocated directly to some large,
independent organizations, and a large portion remains
available to the IANA for future allocations.

I suggested that the other /8's should have as much of a say
in selecting board members as the regional IPs, if not more so.
I also suggested that, just like America was founded because
of taxation without representation, the opposite rule should
apply to these legacy allocations. Specifically, if a legacy
allocation wants to be represented in the new, non-profit,
they would *voluntarily* agree to a standard annual fee
for their allocation, just like the current policies of
the regional IP registries.

This approach solves two problems:

1) Broadening representation in this way would effectively
address Iperdome's concern of a continuation of the existing
technocracy. Instead of the current IANA/ISOC/IAB etc.
operating as an informal cartel, the base of power would
be broadened to included some of the largest educational
and corporate organizations in the world.

2) It provides a market mechanism and incentive to more
effectively utilize IPv4 address space. As these legacy
allocation owners opt for representation, these assets
then become a cost center. This provides an incentive
for effective utilization of this space.

Power and Control Issues

Finally, we spoke about the IANA "test", and the subsequent
comments made by Vint Cerf. Iperdome expressed concern that
these posturings would influence the GP process in a way
that was *not* in the best interests of the Internet.

We also spoke about ARINs proposal for GAR, and how it
might be used as another way to circumvent U.S. policy.
Specifically, if IANA was planning on transferring the
remaining un-allocated IP address space to GAR, then the
new, non-profit would be left as an empty shell with
little real influence.

We concluded with a discussion of another Iperdome posting
titled "U.S. Goals, Global Values". Specifically, that the U.S.
Government has to break the existing cartel's control over the
Internet now. At the same time, it must have a consensus for
the Ruling and Order to work. Without consensus, one of the
other options would be the likely result.

I thanked Mr. Magaziner for his time, and expressed my
appreciation for the very difficult process he had
undertaken.

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-policy@open-rsc.org")