- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

FW: Public trust & IANA?
by nlockett＠Sidley.com 01 Oct '98

01 Oct '98

> -----Original Message----- > Sent: 01 October 1998 13:17 > To: 'govt-role at worldnames.net' > Subject: RE: Public trust & IANA? > > > > If IANA has made secret rule changes without going through the same > process of rule-making consensus as 1591 did, then whoever makes these > secret rule changes is working in breach of the public trust. > > > If acting in breach of trust the actions are probably void, I wonder > whether the public trust status may mean that the beneficiaries can > enforce local law? > > Does that breach also mean that IANA are open to a challenge that they are > unfit under RFC 1591?? <grin> > > Does that breach carry over with the obligations and liabilities > transferred to IANA2?? > <deep in thought> > > Regards > Nick Lockett > E-Mail: <mailto:NLOCKETT at sidley.com> > Private E-mail: <mailto:netlaw at netlaw.co.uk> > This message is the personal opinion of Nick Lockett. Where this message > contains legal issues, then no liability is accepted. -------- Logged at Thu Oct 1 17:13:09 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Public trust & IANA?
by Sean＠Jackson.TC 30 Sep '98

30 Sep '98

Domain naming is subject to the public trust, says RFC1591. Given the all inclusive language in '1591 this must apply to the operation of the dot (root) domain as well as the gTLDS and ccTLDs. If IANA has made secret rule changes without going through the same process of rule-making consensus as 1591 did, then whoever makes these secret rule changes is working in breach of the public trust. Therefore introducing a rule which was dreamed up 'since RFC1591 was published' cannot be valid, and therefore Postel/IANA would be in breach of the public trust if they do anything except follow published RFC1591, and not any secretly amended versions God Bless You, Sean Sean Jackson, 3 Adams Road, Cambridge, CB3 9AD, United Kingdom. Tel: 01223 464 800 Fax: 0171 681 1268 -------- Logged at Thu Oct 1 17:13:50 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

The New IANA Needs Fiscal Controls
by bsemich＠mail.nu 30 Sep '98

30 Sep '98

The New IANA Bylaws: Who Controls the Money? By J. William Semich President and CFO .NU Domain Ltd http://whats.nu bsemich at mail.nu The latest set of proposed bylaws (version 5) for the New IANA Corporation (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority), released on September 29 at IANA's Web Site at http://www.iana.org/bylaws5.html, is seriously flawed by its lack of fiscal accountability to all of us who will use its services and pay its fees. If the bylaws are approved unchanged by the White House as the basis for the Internet's first independent governance mechanism, the new Internet Authority would be able to set a wide range of Internet-related fees of any amount without constraint, float bonds of any amount which must be funded by future revenues, as well as collect additional fees of any amount to invest for undefined possible future needs, all such to be paid for by you, me and our children, the Internet's users of today and tomorrow, without their review, approval or control. The new version of the proposed bylaws for the new Internet Authority will likely be submitted today to Ira Magaziner of the White House, under the terms of the White House "White Paper" released last January, to create the replacement for the US Government's current contractual arrangement for management of the Internet, which is set to expire today ( Sept. 30, 1998). But the new bylaws are completely devoid of any provisions to create any type of fiscal accountability for this, the Internet's first all-powerful, government-sanctioned independent Authority. Although the new bylaws make it clear that the source of the new Internet Authority's revenues will be the Internet's end users and service providers, it leaves all spending, borrowing, investment and other financial decision-making solely in the hands of the Corporation's board of directors, who's members specifically "have the duty to act in ... the best interests of the Corporation and not as representatives of their Supporting Organizations, employers or any other organizations or constituencies." (Article V, Section 8) Nowhere in the bylaws is the Board of Directors required to consult with any outside groups, experts, or other interested parties on how best to set its fees or plan its budget. Nowhere in the bylaws is there any provision for any kind of independent budget review or hearing mechanism or approval process for the budget, borrowing, or any other fiscal decisions; And nowhere in the bylaws is there any provision for any kind of independent fee-setting review process or approval mechanism, either by those who must pay the fees (the Supporting Organizations, who represent the consumers of the services to be provided by the new Corporation) or by any independent body of fiscal experts. All these fiscal decisions are made solely by the new Internet Authority's own Board of Directors. The relevant language in the proposed new bylaws makes this absolute power of the Board clear: FIRST, it gives the board absolute control over any spending or borrowing decisions: "Article IV, Section 1 (a) "the powers of the Corporation will be exercised, its property controlled and its business and affairs conducted by or under the direction of the Board." SECOND, it gives the board absolute control over the fee setting decisions: "Article IV, Section 2. FEES AND CHARGES The Board shall set fees and charges for the services, rights and benefits provided by the Corporation to the Supporting Organizations and others, with the goal of fully recovering the reasonable costs of the operation of the Corporation and establishing reasonable reserves for future expenses and contingencies reasonably related to the legitimate activities of the Corporation." And THIRD, it gives the Board the sole authority and absolute control over setting its annual budget, with no requirement that it actually meet that budget or that the budget pass any kind of review process, all this in one simple line of the new Bylaws: "Article V, Section 25. ANNUAL BUDGET The Board shall prepare an annual budget, which shall be published on the Web Site." These three phrases are the total extent of any language in the new bylaws that might be construed as setting ANY spending, fee setting and raising, budgeting, borrowing, investing or any other fiscal constraints on the board of the new Internet Authority which will be the primary manager of the single most important communications resource in the world. Such an all-powerful and fiscally unaccountable organization as would be created by the new bylaws is a classic textbook "Public Authority" in its structure, and that is the crux of my problem with the fifth set of IANA bylaws released on Sept. 29. Look closely at any publicly-funded independent Authority in the US and you will find a self-perpetuating, quasi-governmental organization whose spending decisions cannot be challenged, who spends the public's money like water, who has absolute power over its particular area of activity, but no accountability to the public. In the present case of the bylaws for the new Internet Authority, there is minimal accountability for its policy decisions, and that is cause enough for concern. But there is NO accountability for its borrowing, spending and fee-setting structure. There needs to be some kind of mechanism in the new entity that will create a counter-force to the typical Public Authority's inevitable desire to grow and to spend more and more money and increase its sway in the world. The counter-force to spending increases could be a Budget Review Committee solely comprised of the groups that will fund the new Internet Authority. Or it could be a Finance Committee made up of independent, world-renowned fiscal experts who have no vested interest in the new Internet Authority or the Internet per se. Or it could be a committee of government finance experts with experience bringing public spending into line. Or it could be some combination of the above. It would be a real tragedy if, in its first efforts at self-government, the Internet community were to hand over management of the Internet to yet another quasi-public Authority, who's essence is perhaps best defined in an article I co-authored nearly ten years ago: "Authorities constitute a permanent, expansionist government, collecting and spending more and more public money, running up more and more public debt, and making more and more critical decisions on the public's behalf with each passing day. And because authorities do all this out of site - and beyond the control - of the general public, they constitute, finally, a Shadow Government." "Inside the Shadow Government," by John Strahinich and J. William Semich, cover article, Boston Magazine, November, 1989. About J. William Semich: Currently: President and Chief Financial Officer .NU Domain Ltd http://whats.nu "One of the top 20 Top Level Domain Name Registries in the World" (Source: Http://www.domainstats.com/iso.cfm) Formerly: - Director of Financial Analysis for the City of Boston - Chairman, Finance Committee, Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Advisory Board (The MBTA's Budget Review and Approval body) - Financial Adviser to the Mayor of Boston for Tax Policy and Planning - Assistant to Collector-Treasurer, City of Boston - Deputy Director and Executive Secretary to the Board, Boston Economic Development and Industrial Commission Achievements: - Co-author, "Inside the Shadow Government," Boston Magazine, November, 1989, selected as one of the "Top 10 Magazine Investigations of 1989," by Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. (IRE); - Lead investigator and financial consultant, WBZ-TV Boston's "I-Team," in-depth 1995 investigative report on the Mass. Turnpike Authority's actions over a ten year period to extend it's life using fiscal manipulations; - Co-author, "The Money Pit," Boston Magazine, September, 1986, investigative article on abuses by the Mass. Convention Center Authority in its redevelopment of the Hynes Convention Center -------- Logged at Thu Oct 1 17:12:56 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

3:63 NL (NETHERLANDS)
by JimFleming＠unety.net 29 Sep '98

29 Sep '98

It looks like we can file this under G3 S63 for future reference... 3:63 NL (NETHERLANDS) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com 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: name.space <pgp at pgmedia.net> To: IFWP Discussion List <list at ifwp.org> Cc: postel at isi.edu <postel at isi.edu> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 2:50 PM Subject: [ifwp] Nomination: M.J. van der Peijl >Nomination: Marcel J. van der Peijl <m.j.van.der.peijl at eurorscg.nl> >Country: Netherlands >Region: European Union > > >ir. M.J. van der Peijl (ir is for 'ingenieur' = engineer = university >degree which you get after finishing your 4-year program but without >having the additional 4 years of writing a dissertation) > >Short history: > >Eindhoven University of Technology degree in compter sciences >('information systems') > >6 years digicash, of which 3 years as ecash team leader >author of ISpy WebCam software > >heavy into programming _anything_ (windows, dos, unix, smartcards, >embedded systems) in most languages > >current position: head of system architecture at EuroRSCG interactive, a >40-people internet development/design company which is part of a large >international organization of advertising agencies 'EuroRSCG' which >operates in 60 countries. > >http://www.eurorscg-interactive.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 at lists.interactivehq.org > >To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: >subscribe-IFWP at lists.interactivehq.org > >To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: >unsubscribe-ifwp at lists.interactivehq.org > >Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy at interactivehq.org. >___END____________________________________________ > > -------- Logged at Wed Sep 30 16:55:24 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Fw: minutes RIPE31
by JimFleming＠unety.net 29 Sep '98

29 Sep '98

Bob, Your IFWP group may want to review these meeting notes. David Kessens is from USC/ISI which is in the U.S. despite the fact that RIPE is mostly in Europe. You might note that the "assumption" is made that RIPE, ARIN and APNIC will be the monopoly distributors with no pricing changes. The IANA is assumed to be at the top of the MLM structure. While people are focused on domain name debates, the "land" in cyberspace is being divided up for sale or lease. IANA supporters never seem to be concerned about these monopoly arrangements. Why is that ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -----Original Message----- From: David Kessens <davidk at ISI.EDU> To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net <ipv6-wg at ripe.net> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 1:36 PM Subject: minutes RIPE31 > >Hi, > >Below follow the preliminary minutes of the IPv6 wg. > >I would like to thank Sabrina Waschke of the RIPE NCC for taking the >minutes. > >The minutes will be regarded final and I will forward them to the RIPE >NCC if I don't receive comments within one week from now. > >Thank you all for attending the meeting, > >David K. >--- > >Minutes of IPv6 Working Group, 24th of Sept. 1998 > >1. Administrative stuff: > >Chair: David Kessens (Thomas Trede apologised) >Minutes: Sabrina Waschke ># Attendees: 81 > >2. Reports > >Report - 6Bone by David Kessens >- Status report > there are now about 300 IPv6 connected sites on the 6bone > the trend is to connect natively instead of using tunnels > (slides will be available at http://www.ripe.net/meeting/ripe/ripe31/pres/) >- Information on the 6bone can be found at: > see <http://www.6bone.net> > >3. Current status of RIPE regarding address assignments in IPv6 by >Paula Caslav > >- RIPE NCC is in process of discussing the documentation, finding > guidelines and procedures, by taking the IETF draft, looking at the > criteria, what documentation will we need, working on details with > other regional registries and will have a meeting with them, send than > a draft to the relevant working groups and the RIPE community, final > version will be published - Hopefully ready in January 1999 > >Question by: David Kessens: >Could you give more detail in the time scale ? > >Paula Caslav: >November 1998: first draft of procedures document ready to be discussed >among the regional registries and RIPE >January 1999: start allocating IPv6 addresses >(depends on IANA to be ready to allocate to the regional registries >and on the registries to get their databases and procedures compliant) >All regional registries will start allocating at the same time. > >There will be no change in the fee structure for the next year. > >Question by David Kessens: >Do you have any comments what will be different in the assignment >guidelines for the TLA's in the IETF draft and yours ? > >Paula Caslav: >We might do a slow start mechanism in meaning of allocating a sub TLA >first. > >Mirjam Kuehne: >We also need to define still how to determine if an organisation is a >transit provider. Many details are still under discussion. > >Comment by the audience: >It might be useful to have a document in this Working Group as soon as >possible. > >Mirjam Kuehne: >We are in the process of collecting input and will discuss it with the >other Working Groups. >We receive requests for IPv6 addresses, some are detailed, some are >just general. >We will see how we can implement this in the operations and >procedures. > >Paula Caslav: >If you have any ideas send them to us or the mailing list of this >Working Group. > > >2.3. News about manufacturers implementation >- input from the audience > >Bernhard Tuy showed an overview of all vendors and what they >currently support. For details see: >http://www.phoebe.urec.fr/G6 >http://www.ipv6.urec.fr/G6 > > >4. General Input from other Working Groups > >Routing WG presented by Joachim Schmitz >(slides will be available at http://www.ripe.net/meeting/ripe/ripe31/pres/) > >Do we need an IRR for IPv6 ? > >Need for an IPv6 IRR: >- due to the benefits: YES >- plus: manage interface ipv4 _> ipv6 >- time to early: NO > >We need an IPv6 routing registry ! > ><general acceptence without taking over any concrete initiative by >the audience> > >Joachim Schmitz: >Call for participation. >He expects a gradual move over, requirements in the beginning are not >very high, so one registry might be enough to start with. > >David Kessens: >The regional registries also need to think about assignment policies >for AS numbers, they might be different. > >David K: >There are several ways to go to a IPv6 routing registry: >1. just replace IPv4 with IPv6 addresses in RPSL, > and add IPv6 specific support later on >2. a special RPSLv6 draft with all bells and whistles that are > required to do IPv6 routing registries > >What is better ? > >Joachim Schmitz: >Both are needed, because RPSL took some time to be developed and we >need something running soon. >That's not sufficient but better than nothing. > > >David Kessens: >Coming out with an RPSL IPv6 version would make sense. > > >5. AOB: > >David Kessens: Keep this Working Group and move on because of the >large interest (81 attendees). Discuss the allocation and assignment >process in more detail. > >Action points: > >31.1 RIPE NCC will start allocating IPv6 addresses by the next RIPE > meeting in January. > -------- Logged at Wed Sep 30 16:53:10 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

RIPE statement on new IANA draft 4 bylaws
by k13＠nikhef.nl 28 Sep '98

28 Sep '98

RIPE Statement on the Draft Articles and Bylaws for the new IANA as published on September 17th 1998 Edinburgh, 25 September 1998 RIPE is the organisation which has provided the framework for Internet co-operation in Europe since 1989. At the 31st RIPE meeting, held in Edinburgh from 23 until 25 September 1998, 253 participants from the European Internet industry discussed the fourth draft of the Bylaws of the New IANA, published on 17 September by IANA, and decided unanimously to express the following concerns. - We find it inappropriate that provision is made in the Bylaws (Article IV, Section 1.d) which binds the new IANA to agreements to be made between third parties, whose terms are not yet announced. - We need to understand and consider the material consequences of Article IV, Section 1.e in order to determine whether we can accept this section. - We are concerned about the room for interpretation in Article V, Section 6 and would like to see a stronger requirement of diversity than to allow 50% of the board to be from one region. - We are concerned about the far-reaching repercussions of codifying, at this stage, aspects of a possible membership structure that previously were left for the Initial Board to define and implement. We do not understand the reason for the fact that the board members nominated by the supporting organisations have no say at all in how the membership structure is implemented (V.4.a.iv, V.9.c). - We need to understand the reasons for and the material consequences of the weakening of the language in Section VI.1.c which now speaks of recommendations by the supporting organisations to the board. - It appears that the change in wording of Article III.2 may now imply that minutes of supporting organisation bodies have to be approved by the Board of the new IANA. We find this inappropriate. - We are anxious about the possible consequences of the changes made to the requirements for supporting organisations, especially in Article VI, Sections 2 and 3.b. In the area of the address supporting organisation the participation of individuals and individual organisations currently happens at the local and regional levels. Many European ccTLD registries already operate similar processes; others have begun working along these lines. We need to understand whether the Bylaws allow for this practice to continue or if they constrain the supporting organisations sufficiently to require changes in these structures. We stress that we have no difficulty with the added openness requirements. We are willing to work to resolve the remaining issues with all parties concerned as soon as possible, and hope that this statement, expressing our concerns, will be received as a helpful contribution to the process. We urge all concerned not to proceed with the current proposal before our concerns are addressed. In the meantime the current IANA should continue to function and provide its services to us. Rob Blokzijl Chairman RIPE -------- Logged at Wed Sep 30 16:51:42 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

"You have 0 day(s) remaining to provide comments."
by JimFleming＠unety.net 28 Sep '98

28 Sep '98

This sort of says it all... @@@@ http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/CommitteeDisplay/CSTB-L-97-05-A?OpenDocument "You have 0 day(s) remaining to provide comments." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 28 12:16:26 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

regarding potential new IANA initial board members
by JimFleming＠unety.net 27 Sep '98

27 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Jon Postel <postel at ISI.EDU> To: ietf at ietf.org <ietf at ietf.org> Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 1:30 PM Subject: regarding potential new IANA initial board members > >Hello. > >There has been some discussion of candidates for the initial board for >the new IANA organization. While the current suggestions being >circulated are appreciated, i don't think they provide the kind of >board that would be most desireable. > >A key responsibility of the new IANA board is to see that policies and >procedures are developed in a fair and open manner, not to rehash all >the arguments and positions that go into developing those policies and >procedures. > Greetings from ::83C9:209.224.171.1 I assume that you are referring to the IPv4 (0:0) address space and therefore the .ARPA TLD. Obviously, other people on Earth will be managing address spaces and TLDs with different criteria and value systems from you and your high-school friends and ISOC associates. 0:0 .ARPA http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt Assuming that the Board is bounded by .ARPA and 0:0.X.X.X.X I suggest that the current Internet Architecture BOARD (IAB) http://www.iab.org/iab/ be used to create an interim Board to get your U.S. corporation started. That will allow you to easily meet the U.S. Government deadlines. It will also provide the IAB with a legal structure, similar to the ISOC. As for the other address spaces and TLDs, in my opinion the exit of the U.S. Government on October 1st and availability of new TLDs and IPv8 address spaces will pave the way for privatization to rapidly occur. This expansion will depend for some period of time on the .ARPA 0:0.X.X.X.X legacy transport network. How that network is governed on a day to day basis does not have to impact the rest of the free world, from a long-term point of view. As with most aspects of the Internet, people can now route around the legacy 0:0 Internet if they so desire. The technology is readily available (http://www.bsdi.com) and the will of the "everday people" on planet Earth is still strong. I look forward to working with those people in the future. Good luck with .ARPA and 0:0.X.X.X.X, it is just one of many... Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 28 12:27:18 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Why we are looking at a fait accompli with the new IANA
by JimFleming＠unety.net 27 Sep '98

27 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker at brandenburg.com> <snip> > >One would think that, by now, the difference between ccTLDs which align >naturally with national borders (or the equivalent) and gTLDs which do not >align with any natural organization, would be quite clear. > How many "flavors" of TLDs are there ? .IO - Indian Ocean Territory - Based in England ? .CD - Audio CDs ? .IS - http://this.is .TV - Television ? .TM - http://www.nic.tm - Trademarks ? .FM - http://www.dot.fm - FM Radio Stations .TO - http://www.nic.to - "Second Chance for the Domain Name You Want" Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 28 12:14:37 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

"strong request by CENTRE"
by JimFleming＠unety.net 27 Sep '98

27 Sep '98

Bill, What is this "strong request by CENTRE" ? @@@@ http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00313.html "But it is *not* clear "that a DNSO must be formed very quickly," in light of the recent strong request by CENTRE that the process be slowed down, and I do not agree with that part of the statement." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 28 12:14:38 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0