Subject: IANA E-mail broadcast: Is the bait and switch fix in?

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 06:03:49 +0100

All,

  I don't know how many of you have been paying attention to the latest
"Moves" that the IANA is engaged in of very recently, but judging from
their latest announcement (See below), they seem to be moving towards
"Mapping" themselves, a Jim Flemming put it yesterday on an earlier
post into the WP recommendation as "THE" new non-profit corporation.
But after reading this announcement, you should judge for yourself.
Looks like the old "Bait and switch fix", hence the subject of this
thread.

  It might also be interesting to note, that the IANA web site does not
have a link to this proposal so that more folks can review it and post
comments to their comments link.  This seems to be less than a
honest approach to the openness to which Jon Postel made in his
written statement that was read at the Reston conference.  Wonder why?
Hummmmmm?

  We had suggested something somewhat different.

http://www.iana.org/comments-mail/msg00149.html

=======================The nIANA's latest proposal =======================
Subject:
        Implementation of a New IANA Organization
   Date:
        Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
   From:
        Jon Postel <[email-masked]>
     To:
        [email-masked]
    CC:
        [email-masked], [email-masked]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello:

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is pleased to welcome
you to this list of people with an interest in the formation of a new
IANA.  To help focus efforts and facilitate consensus towards the
implementation of a new organization, we will be sending you various
announcements and drafts for your review and comments.

--jon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY (IANA)

I.  Introduction

This is an expanded version of IANA's earlier discussion draft posted
on 26 June 1998 on the implementation of the new not-for-profit
Corporation referred to in the U.S Government's white paper on
"Management of Internet Names and Addresses."  This draft reflects both
a variety of input on earlier documents as well as reports from the
Reston and Brussels meetings concerning this issue.  This draft will
continue to evolve as input is received through additional
international meetings in Geneva and Singapore and from comments
received directly at IANA.

We emphasize that this paper is a compilation of ideas expressed by the
Internet community and are explicitly intended to be discussed.  We
encourage everyone to comment.  Our only request is that the comments
be substantive, and that any criticisms be accompanied by specific
suggestions for change or improvement.  Comments on any part of this
document are welcome and solicited, and can be sent via email to
[email-masked].  Comments concerning this draft will be posted at
www.iana.org (click on "New IANA", then click on "Public Comments").

II.  Purposes

The purpose of the new Corporation should be maintaining the
operational stability of the Internet by: (1) coordinating the
assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain
universal connectivity on the Internet; (2) managing and performing
functions related to the coordination of the Internet address space;
(3) managing and performing functions related to the coordination of
the Internet domain name system; and (4) overseeing operation of the
authoritative Internet root server system.

III.  Offices

Given the historical functions performed in the United States, and the
need to transition these functions to the new Corporation,
incorporation as a non-profit corporation in the United States, and
probably in California, is a logical step.  The nature and character of
the new Corporation's Board will be the true test of its ability to
represent the interests of stakeholders around the world.

There have been suggestions that point to the advantages of creating an
additional office(s) outside of the U.S.

Suggestions on the proposed responsibilities and location(s) of this
office(s) are solicited.

IV.  Scope of Activities

The Corporation should be dedicated to preserving the operational
stability of the central coordinating functions of the global Internet
for the public good.

It should operate as a not-for-profit, cost-recovery, nonpartisan
corporation for charitable and public purposes.

V.  Board

1.  Powers

The powers of the Corporation should be exercised, its property
controlled and its business and affairs conducted, by or under the
direction of the Board.  Unless otherwise provided, the Board should
act by a majority vote of Directors present at a meeting, subject to
the quorum requirements.

2.  Number and Qualification

It is critical that the Corporation's Board meet several criteria: (1)
represent the different interests of the various types of stakeholders;
(2) represent relevant interests from around the world; (3) be able to
function effectively.  The Board should be comprised as follows:

     (a)  Three (3) Directors nominated by the Address Supporting
           Organization;

     (b)  Three (3) Directors nominated by the Domain Name Supporting
           Organization;

     (c)  Three (3) Directors nominated by the Protocol Supporting
           Organization; and

     (d)  Six (6) Directors nominated by the Industry/User Supporting
           Organization.

The important condition is that the Board as ultimately constituted be
representative of the diversity of stakeholders.

A critical issue is how to ensure that the Board is truly an
international body that represents the various stakeholders around the
world.  There are a variety of ways this might be accomplished,
including (1) limiting the number of directors from any one country to
no more than a specified percentage of the directors, or (2) requiring
those persons nominated for the Board by the various nominating
organizations to be persons of diverse nationality.

Suggestions on how to ensure that the Board is truly an international
body are solicited.

Each Board member should represent the interests of the Internet
community as a whole.  Once he or she takes a Board seat, he or she
should not be the representative of a specific group, country, or
region, but rather a fiduciary for all those interested in and affected
by the operation of the Internet.

It is critical that the new Corporation be up and running sufficiently
before September 30, 1998 so that it can undertake to manage, in
conjunction with the Department of Commerce, the transition that is
scheduled to take place at that time.  Thus, the Initial Board will
almost inevitably have to be a true consensus group, arising out of the
various meetings and discussions between the various interested
stakeholders.  Such a group might consist of clearly qualified and
respected senior figures who would not participate in the governance of
this new Corporation past this initial period, and who could undertake
to both manage the initial period and to develop consensus in the
Internet community regarding further structural and operational details
of the new Corporation.

Such an Initial Board should serve for a relatively short time -- no
more than one term -- and should be responsible for recognizing the
Supporting Organizations that should be the source of regular Board
nominations.  To ensure an effective transition, and to maintain
Internet stability throughout the transition, the Initial Board should
probably not all be replaced at the same time.

Suggestions on how to create an effective transition mechanism from the
Initial Board to the Permanent Board are solicited.

Because of the limited time available for a new Corporation to be
created, and to minimize any transition difficulties, concrete
suggestions as to who might be appropriate to serve on such an Initial
Board should be made as soon as possible.

Suggestions for Initial Board candidates are solicited.

3.  Conflict of Interest

Each Director should be responsible for disclosing to the Corporation
any matter that could reasonably be perceived to make such Director an
"interested director" or any relationship or other factor that could
reasonably be perceived to be a conflict of interest.  Board members
should be required to recuse themselves from any decisions in which they
have a direct interest.

4.  Election and Term

New Directors should be installed at each annual meeting of the Board
to hold office until the end of their terms.

Except for the Initial Board, the regular term of office of a Director
elected should be three (3) years.  Any Directors should be able to
serve additional terms provided that the total years of continuous
service does not exceed six (6).

The Board should also arrange for the terms of the Directors to be
staggered by providing that of the first Permanent Board elected, five
Directors should serve an initial term of one (1) year, five Directors
should serve an initial term of two (2) years, and five Directors
should serve an initial term of three (3) years.

Suggestions on how these staggered terms should be apportioned for the
first Permanent Board are solicited.

5.  Compensation

The Directors should receive no compensation for their services as
Directors.  The Board may, however, authorize the reimbursement of
actual and necessary expenses incurred by Directors performing duties
as Directors.

VI.  Supporting Organizations

1.  Powers

The Supporting Organizations should serve as advisory bodies to the
Board and should have such powers and duties as may be prescribed by
the Board and the bylaws.  The Board should be able to add additional,
or remove existing, Supporting Organizations by a two-thirds (2/3)
majority vote of all members of the Board.  The Supporting
Organizations should be responsible for nominating Directors to the
Board and for recommending policies and procedures regarding the
governance and operation of the Corporation as well as the general
Internet infrastructure.

The Board should approve or reject policies and procedures recommended
by the Supporting Organizations subject to review for (1) compliance
with the articles and bylaws, (2) fair and open process, and (3)
absence of unresolved conflicts between Supporting Organizations.

The Supporting Organizations also should constitute the primary funding
sources for the Corporation in accordance with the policies established
by the Board.

In the interest of providing the framework for the organization before
September 30, 1998, special arrangements should be made for the
transitional period, focusing on unconditional corporate or charitable
grants, with the permanent funding mechanism to be established by the
Initial Board.

Suggestions for initial funding are solicited.

2.  Qualifications for Membership

Minimal qualifications for membership in the Supporting Organizations
should be established by the Board.  Other than those minimal
qualifications, however, each Supporting Organization should establish
its own rules consistent with maintaining inclusive membership.  The
Board should also be able to prohibit unduly restrictive membership
conditions.

3.  Description and Responsibilities

The bylaws should establish at least be the following Supporting
Organizations:

(a)  The Address Supporting Organization should be composed of
representatives from regional Internet address registries.  Until such
time as there are additional members in the Address Supporting
Organization, Directors from this Supporting Organization should
represent the American Registry for Internet Numbers ("ARIN"), the
Asia Pacific Network Information Center ("APNIC") and Reseaux IP
Europeens ("RIPE NCC").

The Address Supporting Organization should organize a committee called
the Address Council to make recommendations to the Board regarding
policies and procedures for the assignment of Internet
addresses.

(b)  The Domain Name Supporting Organization should be composed of
representatives from name registries and registrars of both
generic/global and country-code top level domains ("TLDs") and other
entities with interests in these issues (for example, entities
interested in trademark and related issues).

The Domain Name Supporting Organization should organize a
committee called the Name Council to make recommendations to the Board
regarding policies and procedures relating to top level (generic/global
and country-code) domains, including operation, assignment, and
management of the domain name system.

(c)  The Protocol Supporting Organization should be composed of
representatives from the Internet protocol organizations.  Until such
time as there are additional members in the Protocol Supporting
Organization, the Internet Architecture Board should act as the
Protocol Supporting Organization.

The Protocol Supporting  Organization should organize a committee
called the Protocol Council to make recommendations regarding policies
and procedures regarding the management of protocol numbers, port
numbers, and other technical parameters.

(d)  The Industry/User Supporting Organization should be composed of
representatives of organizations that represent Internet users.

The Industry/User Committee should organize a committee called the
Industry/User Council to make recommendations regarding the
advancement of the purposes and capabilities of the Internet, the
needs of Internet users, and other matters concerning the use of
the Internet.

Suggestions on how the Industry/User Supporting Organization could be
constituted, and whether it would be preferable to divide this
Supporting Organization into two or more separate entities are
solicited.

VII.  Officers

The initial officers of the Corporation should be a Chairperson of the
Board, a Chief Technology Officer (CTO), a President or Chief Executive
Officer (CEO), and a Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer.  The Board
should be free to add additional officers as needed.

VIII.  Indemnification

The Directors and staff of the Corporation should be indemnified by the
Corporation from any personal liability or expense from developing,
promulgating, or implementing the policies adopted by the Board.

IX.  Public Process

The Corporation should engage independent auditors on an ongoing
basis.

The Corporation should operate to the maximum extent possible in an
open and transparent manner at all levels.  Board and Supporting
Organization meetings should be open to the public, unless and except
to the extent that executive sessions are expressly instituted for
stated reasons, and minutes and other materials should be published and
available on the Internet.

X.  Bylaws

Any bylaws adopted by the Corporation should be altered, amended, or
repealed and new bylaws adopted only upon action by two-thirds (2/3)
majority vote of all members of the Board.

The initial bylaws of the Corporation should be transitional in nature
and aid in the initial governance of the Corporation.  Consistent with
this purpose, the initial bylaws should be reviewed and replaced as
deemed necessary or appropriate by the Permanent Board within one (1)
year after it is elected.  However, the initial bylaws should remain in
full force and effect until such time as they are amended or replaced.

====================End of the nIANA's latest proposal======================

regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]

---

From: Jason Hendeles <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:55:47 -0400

Jason Hendeles wrote:

Charging registration fees and concerns about registrars and registries becoming
insolvent have and will likely continue to be heavily contested.  On one side of
the coin, 'abuse of power comes as no suprise',  there will always be the desire
to raise rates with a hostage group of clients.  However, proposing no renewal
fees or inadequate renewal fees may restrict the ability of registries and
registrars to compete and more importantly survive; especially over the long
term.

Some important points to consider:

A better way to solve this is to build a 'competent' service level agreements
which may include the following:

1.    Automatic 2 year + renewal periods.
2.    Strong terms and conditions for use and responsibilities.
3.    Maximum increases per annum of say a set index tied to inflation + x%.
4.    Terms relating to the transition of a domain name.

As there are already a wide variety of attorney's present on these lists, I'm
sure
they could make suggestions as to a strong 'licensing' agreement that would
protect the interests of the licensee and licensor.

In the end, when DNS becomes an industry, it will set its own guidelines and
practices to follow, similar to every other industry like the insurance, mutual
fund and telecommunications industry.  That group will define policy and
practices to be followed.  If you want DNS services, you will want a provider
that is a member.  Alternatively, you can expect to suffer the consequences.
Customers will seek to choose from a variety of DNS providers.

Buyer beware!  It is their responsibility to diligently ensure that their
service is protected.  There are a wide variety of legal clauses that could be
drafted to protect them.  The industry should begin the process with
constructive suggestions.

Issue 2:    Insolvency.

I believe the second richest man in the world, Warren Buffet has a solution to
this particular problem.  It is called 're-insurance'.  A third party
organization or
even NSI could offer itself as a reinsurer or backup service provider in the
event of insolvency or technical problems.

Jason Hendeles
A Technology Company, Inc.

_________________________________________________________________
Jason Hendeles Business Architect  A Technology Company, Inc.
Telephone 416-484-4735 Fax 416-485-4251 Email [email-masked]
__________________________________________________________________

---

From: Marc Hurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 20:57:59 -0400 (EDT)

> registrars to compete and more importantly survive; especially over the long

The actual act of supporting a DNS registry is not that expensive. 
Bandwidth and hardware costs are decreasing. With dilution of the 
namespace I'd expect the prices to be driven downward. The controls are 
fine and dandy but I believe the emphasis must be placed on proprietor 
protection from delinquent accounts walking to other registries. If you 
make these suckers too portable a lot of people will push the limits of 
rotating credit and virtual nic handles to the absolute limit.

> 4.    Terms relating to the transition of a domain name.

No. 4 must be bullet proof.

> event of insolvency or technical problems.

This is what eDNS and ORSC had ALWAYS pledged. Resources are negligable 
unless NSI were to go south... as if.