Fw: IANA Proposal to NTIA
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fw: IANA Proposal to NTIA
Fred,
The IETF may want to follow along with the recent developments.
With the recent events, people may want to consider
the American Indian Model to better understand what
is going on. Imagine that ALL active users of the
Internet are like American Indians. We now see that
well meaning people are going to enter the scene to
care for the netizens and make sure they are herded
into reservations. I do not think that netizens (Indians)
can expect that any of the people called upon to oversee
these reservations will be drawn from the Indian
population. These people obviously think that we are
too stupid to manage ourselves and the world we live in.
I bet that most of them have never been on a "reservation"
or slept in a teepee. It will be interesting to see them
display their arrogance to tell everyone how to manage
the Internet. Why not sit back and enjoy the show ?
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
0:201 .COM
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC
http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority <iana at ISI.EDU>
To: iana-announce at ISI.EDU <iana-announce at ISI.EDU>
Cc: iana at ISI.EDU <iana at ISI.EDU>
Date: Friday, October 02, 1998 7:48 PM
Subject: IANA Proposal to NTIA
>
>Hi.
>
>IANA submitted the following proposal to NTIA today. The supporting
>documents can be found on the IANA web site.
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>
> October 2, 1998
>
>
>
>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 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.
>Since that time, people all over the world have been working diligently to
>meet NTIA's challenge, and I believe we have now reached that goal. This
>accomplishment is the result of an extensive process of discussions and
>negotiations among a large number of interested people and organizations.
>The process has included meetings, conferences, and most appropriately for
>this purpose, extensive use of the Internet. I am very pleased to say that
>we have reached a successful conclusion. Enclosed are documents reflecting
>this consensus, including copies of the Articles of Incorporation and
>proposed Bylaws for this new non-profit organization, which has been
>incorporated in California.**While the organization has been formally
>incorporated, it has not yet elected a board of directors or adopted
>bylaws, and currently intends to refrain from doing so until the completion
>of your review of the enclosed materials. These 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 organization that these documents will create is fully responsive
>to the criteria and specific recommendations set forth in the White Paper.
>In particular:
>
> Global Internet Stakeholder Consensus. The White Paper urged
>that the new corporation's organizers 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 and Internet experts highly respected throughout the international
>Internet community." All of those and more have participated in this
>process, and achieving consensus among such a broad group has proven to be
>both an exciting and difficult task. While there is probably no one who is
>entirely satisfied with the enclosed documents, including myself, the
>essence of consensus is compromise, and it is in that spirit that almost
>all participants in this process have labored. IANA's role in this has
>primarily been as the scribe, recording to the best of our ability what we
>understood to be the community consensus as it developed. There have been
>five iterations of draft documents, each more refined and benefitting from
>comments and suggestions from throughout the community. These final
>documents are the cumulative reflection of those efforts, and we believe
>that they do in fact command the support of a broad consensus of Internet
>stakeholders, private and public.
>
> Interim Board. The White Paper proposed the appointment, on an
> interim basis, of a diverse Initial Board of Directors who would
> serve for a short period of time, and then could not again serve
> on the Board for a fixed period following the election of the
> first permanent Board. As was the case with respect to the
> organizational documents that are attached to this submission,
> recommendations and suggestions for Initial Board members have
> been received from around the world. The following persons, who
> bring a range of skills and experience that will be invaluable in
> continuing the work of creating this global consensus
> organization, have agreed to serve on the Initial Board:
>
> -- Geraldine Capdeboscq, Executive Vice President for
> Strategy, Technology and Partnerships, BULL. Mrs.
> Capdeboscq has been with BULL since 1988, serving
> previously as President of the Smartcards, Terminals
> and Securization Division.
>
> -- George H. Conrades, Partner, Polaris Venture Partners.
> Mr. Conrades is the former Chief Executive Officer of
> BBN Corporation, and most recently GTE Executive Vice
> President and President, GTE Internetworking, since the
> acquisition of BBN by GTE in July 1997. He is a
> director of several companies, and a trustee of The
> Scripps Research Institute and the Committee for
> Economic Development.
>
> -- Gregory L. Crew, Chairman, Australian Communications
> Industry Forum Ltd. Mr. Crew is the former Chief
> Executive Officer of Mercury Communications Ltd.,
> Chairman of the Australian Information Technology
> Engineering Centre Ltd., and a Fellow of the
> Institution of Electrical Engineers. The ACIF is the
> organization established by the communications industry
> in Australia to manage its self-regulatory processes.
>
> -- Esther Dyson, Chairman, EDventure Holdings. Ms. Dyson
> co-chaired the United States National Information
> Infrastructure Advisory Council Information Privacy and
> Intellectual Property subcommittee, sits on the boards
> of several business organizations, is a member of the
> board of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, the Santa
> Fe Institute and the Institute for East-West Studies,
> and serves on the advisory board of the Software
> Entrepreneurs Forum and the Poynter Institute for Media
> Studies. She is the author of Release 2.0: A design
> for living in the digital age.
>
> -- Frank Fitzsimmons, Senior Vice President-Global
> Marketing, Dun & Bradstreet Corporation. Mr.
> Fitzsimmons has been with Dun & Bradstreet since 1987,
> and is currently responsible for the implementation of
> new global marketing initiatives in the areas of access
> systems, software, Internet applications and electronic
> commerce.
>
> -- Hans Kraaijenbrink, Chairman of the Executive Board,
> ETNO (Association of European Public Telecommunications
> Network Operators). Mr. Kraaijenbrink is Manager,
> European Policy and Regulation for Royal KPV N.V.,
> responsible for European and international regulatory
> strategic affairs.
>
> -- Jun Murai, Professor, Faculty of Environmental
> Information, Keio University. Professor Murai is also
> the General Chairperson of the WIDE Project (an
> Internet research consortium), President of Japan
> Network Information Centre (JPNIC), an Adjunct
> Professor at the Institute of Advanced Studies, United
> Nations University, and a member of the Board of
> Trustees of the Internet Society.
>
> -- Dr. Eugenio Triana, Internet Management Consultant.
> Dr. Triana was formerly Secretary General of Industrial
> Promotion and Technology in the Spanish Ministry of
> Industry and Energy, and President of the Licensing
> Executive Society (LES-Spain). He recently left the
> European Commission staff, where he was Deputy Director
> General of DG XIII, responsible for the Commission's
> relations with information and communications
> technology user interests and for coordinating policy
> for space and satellite development.
>
> -- Linda S. Wilson, President, Radcliffe College. Dr.
> Wilson was previously Vice President for Research at
> the University of Michigan, and is a charter member of
> the National Academy of Sciences'
> Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable.
> She is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the
> National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the
> American Association for the Advancement of Science.
>
> This distinguished group of individuals is both geographically
> diverse and possesses the mixture of technical expertise,
> management experience and consensus-building skills called for by
> the White Paper and required to move this process forward.
> Additional biographical information for each of the proposed
> Initial Board members is attached to this submission. Finally,
> in response to the White Paper, Article V.1 of the Bylaws
> provides that the members of the Initial Board may not serve
> again on the Board until two years have elapsed following the end
> of their terms.
>
> Supporting Organizations. The White Paper suggested that the new
> corporation could rely on "separate, diverse, and robust name and
> number councils responsible for developing, reviewing, and
> recommending for the Board's approval policy related to matters
> within each council's competence." Article VI of the Bylaws
> accomplishes this objective by creating three Supporting
> Organizations -- for Addresses, Protocols, and Domain Names --
> which are delegated the primary responsibility for developing and
> recommending substantive policies and procedures regarding those
> matters within their individual scope.
>
> Bottom-up Governance. The White Paper recommended a system for
> electing the permanent Board of Directors that preserves, as much
> as possible, the tradition of bottom-up governance of the
> Internet. To this end, Article V.4 of the Bylaws provides for a
> Board that will have a total of nineteen members: three to be
> selected by the Address Supporting Organization; three to be
> selected by the Domain Name Supporting Organization; three to be
> selected by the Protocol Supporting Organization; nine to be
> elected "At Large"; and the president of the corporation. Each
> of the Supporting Organizations is required by the Bylaws to be
> an open, inclusive and transparent organization, and to allow
> broad participation in both its substantive activities and in the
> process for choosing the directors that will be selected by that
> Supporting Organization. At Large Board members will be elected
> through a process that will rely on nominations from Internet
> users and other participants. Thus, the Board will be entirely
> made up of individuals selected by the persons that operate and
> use the Internet, fully reflecting the policies advanced by the
> White Paper.
>
> Geographic and Functional Diversity. The White Paper suggested
> that the Initial Board be directed "to establish a system for
> electing a Board of Directors for the new corporation that
> insures that the new corporation's Board of Directors reflects
> the geographical and functional diversity of the Internet, and is
> sufficiently flexible to permit evolution to reflect changes in
> the constituency of Internet stakeholders." As described above,
> directors will be elected by a combination of specialized
> Supporting Organizations and directly by an at large membership;
> this structure is directly responsive to the White Paper's call
> for functional diversity and evolutionary flexibility. With
> respect to geographical diversity, Article V.6 of the Bylaws
> provides that no more than one-half of the directors may be
> residents of any one geographic region, and no more than two of
> the directors nominated by each Supporting Organization may be
> residents of any one geographic region. To ensure that the Board
> reflects the likely evolution of the Internet, Article V.6 also
> requires the Board to revisit this issue at least every three
> years so as to preserve the principle of geographic diversity.
>
> Transparent Decision-Making. The White Paper urged that the new
> corporation should be governed on the basis of a "sound and
> transparent decision-making process, which protects against
> capture by a self-interested faction." In response, Article 4 of
> the Articles of Incorporation requires that the corporation
> "operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole,"
> and also contains a broad commitment of the corporation to "open
> and transparent processes." Article III of the Bylaws, entitled
> "Transparency and Procedures," adds to this commitment with a
> requirement that the corporation and its subordinate entities
> "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
> transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to
> ensure fairness." In addition, Article III requires that the
> activities of the corporation be broadly disclosed and widely
> publicized on the Internet and otherwise, including the prompt
> publication of minutes of all meetings. In addition, prior to
> the adoption of any policies that substantially affect the
> operation of the Internet or third parties, the Board will
> provide public notice on its Web site explaining the nature of,
> and inviting comment on, the proposed policies, and is required
> to publish the reasons supporting any such action that it takes.
>
> Governmental Participation. The White Paper stated that official
> government representation on the Board of Directors should be
> restricted without precluding governments and intergovernmental
> organizations from participating. Accordingly, Article V.5 of
> the Bylaws precludes officials of national governments or
> multinational entities from serving as directors; however,
> Article 7.3 provides for a Governmental Advisory Committee that
> will consist of representatives of governments and multinational
> entities and will have the ability to consider, and provide
> advice to the Board concerning, activities of the corporation as
> they relate to concerns of governments.
>
> Location and Continuity. The White Paper proposed that the new
> corporation be headquartered and incorporated in the United
> States as a not-for-profit corporation, with arrangements made
> with current IANA staff to provide continuity and expertise over
> the course of the transition. In order to maintain the stability
> of the Internet, the new corporation has been established as a
> California not-for-profit corporation with its principal office
> in Los Angeles, although the Bylaws contemplate that offices
> might be opened outside the United States in the future.
> Arrangements are in place with current IANA staff to provide for
> the transition, and discussions are underway with the University
> of Southern California, where the IANA function has been located,
> that would facilitate that transition and maintain the stability
> of current operations.
>
> New Substantive Policies. Consistent with the White Paper's
> recommendations, these incorporating documents do not attempt to
> make policy with respect to the controversial issues that
> prompted the issuance of the White Paper in the first instance.
> For example, issues such as creating new generic top-level
> domains, establishing a competitive registrar system, and
> addressing trademark controversies are deferred for consideration
> by the new corporation.
>
> This organization will be unique in the world -- a
> non-governmental organization with significant
> responsibilities for administering what is becoming an
> important global resource. This is fully in keeping with
> the historical roots and character of the Internet, but it
> obviously presents real challenges if it is to function
> effectively. The experience of creating these
> organizational documents, which required an extremely
> diverse group of stakeholders to put aside their
> differences and concentrate on the job at hand -- recognizing
> that debate over those differences was merely being
> postponed -- is instructive and encouraging. The success
> of this effort is something about which all who were involved
> can be proud, but more importantly it bodes well for the
> future work that must yet take place before this
> organization is fully functional. There are many
> challenges left for the days and years to come, but the
> consensus that developed around these documents provides
> considerable promise that those challenges can also be
> overcome.
>
> Should you agree that the enclosed materials satisfy the
> conditions set forth in the White Paper, as I am confident
> you will, I would welcome the opportunity to facilitate
> contacts between your office and the new organization to
> discuss the beginning of the transition process.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
> Jon Postel
>
>
>
>
>Enclosures
>
>cc (w/encs.): Ira C. Magaziner
> R.J. Beckwith Burr
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>
>
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions
of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
