Subject: Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 7:27:51 JST

Vint;

> I hope it will prove possible for us to step back from
> the temptation, often so hard to resist, to engage in
> ad hominem ("personal" for the latin-impaired) exchanges
> and to focus our collective energy on the very important
> effort to achieve rough consensus on the new IANA 
> organization. 

Agreed.

But, I think meetings called for "the WP" is just closed private
meetings of people who happened to be interested in a private
opinion of USG that we should have "a US local IANA corporation"
and are not a part of the open discussion on "the new IANA
organization", which is not "a US local IANA corporation".

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 19:25:27 -0400

Masataka,

my impression is that the WP was pretty open about the
leadership/oversight of the new IANA and only recommended
that the organization be incorporated in the US. 

Is the site of incorporation an issue in your view?

v

>organization", which is not "a US local IANA corporation".
=================================================================
If you are using any email address other than [email-masked],
please change your address book to use that address exclusively.

See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24,July 98 http://www.isoc.org/inet98/

http://www.mci.com/aboutyou/interests/technology/ontech/cerf.shtml

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 98 8:03:41 JST

Vint;

> that the organization be incorporated in the US. 

The WP is fuzzy to allow various implementations including that
described in the GP. However, the exception is that, it explicitely
says:

	As these functions are now performed in the United States, by
	U.S. residents, and to ensure stability, the new corporation
	should be headquartered in the United States, and incorporated
	in the U.S. as a not-for-profit corporation. 

> Is the site of incorporation an issue in your view?

Why do you say "incorporation"?

Is it already determined in your view that there should be incorporation?

In my view, *IF* incorporation is necessary, the site of incorporation
is not so much an issue, unless the site is located in a country
hostile to the development of the Internet.

Now, let's see the reality.

US courts make it impossible to stably administrate DNS name space.

Worse, through the GP and WP activity, USG has demonstrated its will
and capability to influence over the action of US local organizations
such as ISI to interfere the healthy development of the international
Internet.

A statement by USG in the WP:

	Moreover, incorporation in the United States is not intended
	to supplant or displace the laws of other countries where
	applicable.

is meaningless.

Such a statement can be valid with certain stability only when US
supreme court judges so, but only until special laws are created by US
congress against the judgement.

And, remember, USG keeps saying that US congress can do it worse than
the GP.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: mueller <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:33:33 -0400

Mr. Ohta:
These comments demonstrate the kind of confusion about ISI and IANA that are
prevalent around the world. The view that the US government is "interfering"
with ISI's activities or the development of the Internet is very strange,
almost incomprehensible. ISI's involvement with the Internet is purely a
product of US Government funding. IANA is nothing but a government contract
with the US Defense Department. Do you want the US Defense Department to be
responsible for the basic coordinating functions of the global Internet? I
suspect your answer would be "NO." If so, then it is absolutely necessary for
these functions to be moved into an entirely new structure, outside of US
government control, in the private sector, and subject to global input.

It may be true that ISI, Jon Postel, or other members of "IANA" have
developed close personal and professional relationships with people around
the world like you. Undoubtedly they, and people like you, have helped to
establish the Internet in other countries in its earlier stages of
development. These personal relationships are, quite literally, not relevant
to the task at hand. The Internet has become a global medium for commerce and
communication upon which billions of dollars of investment and business and
social activity rest. What matters now is the legal and institutional basis
for the coordinating functions that IANA provided in the past.

For this reason it is also a mistake, and a serious one, to think that we are
now creating a "new IANA." As a figure of speech, it is acceptable, because
whatever new organization is created will subsume the functions of IANA.
However, it is dangerous to use this term, because it obscures the
fundamental fact that the Internet's coordinating functions are undergoing a
radical mutation, making a sharp and irrevocable break with the past. The new
Entity will be a global organization, not a US government contractor; it will
not be dominated by one person but more of an impersonal institution, with
its own rules, and subject to much more formalized checks and balances. This
is not a "new IANA." It is an entirely new world for the Internet.

Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 98 10:30:20 JST

Mueller;

> ISI's involvement with the Internet is purely a
> responsible for the basic coordinating functions of the global Internet?

According to your strange theory, the international activity of
iAHC was initiated under the administration of USG that it was
too late that Ira complained about it. PERIOD.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: mueller <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 22:02:54 -0400

No, sir, the facts are more like this:
IANA, along with NSF, ISOC, and others, participated in international
negotiations about the future of the Internet root servers (via IAHC) when they
had absolutely no legal authority to do so. IANA and ISOC somehow managed to
convince themselves that they "owned" the root. They did not. That is precisely
why the USG stepped in.

But this argument is unproductive. We have moved beyond IAHC.

--MM

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:05:19 +0100

Masataka,

Speaking as a non-US citizen and non-US resident:

I too had doubts about whether the new legal entity protecting the
IANA should be a non-profit corporation under US law. 

However I am a pragmatist and I think most of us here are pragmatists.
We all agree that it is *above all* important to have technical
continuity and leave the technical staff of the IANA in peace to
do their work. There is, given the time available before September 30,
only one way to achieve this: a non-profit corporation in California.

There is no practical alternative, so let us concentrate on the only
real issue left, which is getting an initial Board of Directors with
sufficient honour and neutrality. 

  Brian Carpenter

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 98 18:08:46 JST

Brian;

> Speaking as a non-US citizen and non-US resident:

Thank you.

> However I am a pragmatist and I think most of us here are pragmatists.

As a pragmatist, I don't have much doubt that IANA corporation
under US law can operate stably.

> do their work.

Incorporation is, by no means, technical.

> There is, given the time available before September 30,

Why do you think new corporation necessary?

If we don't have time, IANA can be a department of ISOC, which is
already incorporated. For the stability, then, ISOC itself should be
relocated to, say, Geneve, as soon as possible.

> sufficient honour and neutrality. 

What's wrong with ISOC BoT?

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 07:48:49 -0700

>only one way to achieve this: a non-profit corporation in California.

Whoops! I am in California as I write this.  Just think of why 80% of US
corps are Delaware corps. Even Netscape is a Delaware corp. Sacramento
flies the "Jolly Roger", right under the bear. Even if you operate here,
you DON'T want to incorporate here. It costs almost four times as much.
(and I hope the California Department of Commerce reads this).

>sufficient honour and neutrality. 

_________________________________________________ 
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. 
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC 
(RM993) 
President and CEO. 
e-mail:        <mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked] 
Web-pages:    <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer 
Web-site:        <http://www.mhsc.com>http://www.mhsc.com 
Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA 
-----------------------------------------(legal notice)-------- 
Note: Statements made in this message do not 
         necessarily reflect the  position of MHSC. All 
         forcasts and projections are to be considered 
         as forward-looking and presume conditions which 
         may not be referenced herein. 
-----------------------------------------(/legal notice)-------

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:39:08 +0100

Roeland and all,

> (and I hope the California Department of Commerce reads this).

  I must concur with Roeland here as we too are incorporated out of
Delaware as well and the cost is far less than in California.  I don't know
what people are thinking here but reciprocity from Deleware is nearly
universal and it cost far less to incorporate out of Delaware as well as
other protections.  Whomever would think of California as the place
or incorporation is just simply not financially well versed.

> >sufficient honour and neutrality.

 regards,

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

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:01:16 -0400 (EDT)

> (and I hope the California Department of Commerce reads this).

Not true.  The IANA would be a nonprofit corporation and there are
no significant advantages to Delaware over California in the case of
a tax-exempt corporation with no shareholders.  There are minor 
differences in incorporation fees and the like, but over the long haul
it doesn't matter.

Carl

---

From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:09:37 -0400

Also speaking as a non-US citizen and non US-resident and as
someone who has never worked for the US government in any
capacity (but reserves the right to do so in the future), I
have a few comments to add.

> Incorporation is, by no means, technical.

Agreed.  However it is necessary to assure a platform for
the technical continuity we all desire, just as it is
useless in an IT shop to attempt to tune a database if the
server is crashing and/or might be moved to a different
department.
> relocated to, say, Geneve, as soon as possible.

If it were as easy as this, there would have been no need
for a White Paper, Green Paper, terabytes of e-mail,
lawsuits, meetings, media campaigns, etc.  Like it or not,
the US govt. has authority over certain assets.  

Like it or not, (see Karl Auerbach's analysis at 
http://www.cavebear.com/nsf-dns/ ) has given credence to the
notion that the .com database is proprietary information.

It is important to remember that the net is edge-controlled,
although the phenomena of inertia gives it the appearance of
central control.  If there is not a broad movement towards
consensus, those unhappy with the result will assert edge
control, file lawsuits, petition congress to block the
transfer of assets, etc.  I think most participants would
rather keep the net edge-controlled with the appearance of
central control.  It would be a pain for everyone to have to
make decisions on the their root cache.  Or we could all
undo the past few years work and go back to editing
hosts.txt <g>.

There is nothing we can do to prevent any of the above from
happening.  However, we *can* make it apparent through
working openly towards consensus that those who choose to be
left out are marginal uncooperative interests.  If we don't,
then...
> What's wrong with ISOC BoT?

Dan Steinberg
MBA LLB BSc		

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
Box 532, RR1		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0			e-mail:[email-masked]

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:38:25 -0700 (PDT)

> only one way to achieve this: a non-profit corporation in California.

Please do not pre-judge the legal structure or fall into the belief that
the word "non-profit" is a talisman that one waves and all kinds of good
things automatically happen.

There are many reasons why other legal forms, perhaps in other states of
the US may prove vastly superior to a California non-profit corporation.
(For example, a California non-profit public benefit corporation has been
suggested as a superior alternative.  And there are reasons to consider
a for-profit structure.)

In Reston we found that this was an issue that transcended most of our
knowledge; we recognized the need to call upon people with specialized
expertise in this area.

We also realized that the choice of legal form tended to channel the ways
in which we can structure the powers of the new entity.

As a result of the Reston meeting I am organizing a group of legal experts
to try to come up with some suggestions on the narrow question of legal
form and site of incorporation.  These will, of course, be merely
suggestions.  (I'm not an expert in this area myself; it's my intention to
be essentially a facilitator and translator between Internet-ese and
legal-ese.)

The hard work will, of course, hanging all the policies and detailed
structures onto whatever legal skeletal form is used.

		--karl--

---

From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:44:39 -0400

> differences in incorporation fees and the like, but over the long haul

This is only true if the eventual structure is a standard
501(c) non-profit.  One of the reasons to bring in Professor
Frankel was to have expertise on-site in case other
structures were deemed preferable. At this point, nothing
precludes other structures, although the list of
possibilities is limited.  I believe Karl Auerbach was going
to lead a team researching the possibilities and report
back.

Dan Steinberg
MBA LLB BSc

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:48:16 -0700 (PDT)

> notion that the .com database is proprietary information.

Before that gets taken out of context -- What those web pages discuss (as
does my submission to the Green Paper) is the fact that in response to
claims under both the US Privacy Act (5 USC 552a) and the Freedom of
Information Act (5 USC 552) regarding the domain name database (i.e. what
we think of as the whois database, apart from the raw .com/.net/.edu/...
TLD zone files).

The reason that NSF rejected the claims is that NSF asserts that it has no
control over this information, that instead, that database is the sole and
exclusive private property of Network Solutions.

In other words, NSF has put its foot into things and made a royal mess by
establishing a precedent that NSI owns the contact database.  Some have
said that this may not create an estoppel because the person who answered
the PA and FOIA claims had not right to bind the agency and USG in other
areas.  But it certainly does create an obstacle to implementation of the
White Paper.

There is, of course, a similar problem in that at the instant the US
government manages to compel NSI to disgorge the database, the data in
that database will clearly be subject to the privacy act which
specifically disallows transfers of databases containing personally
identifiable information to non-governmental agencies (absent a contract
imposing privacy constraints) without specific Congressional
authorization.

		--karl--

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 2:27:31 JST

Dan;

> lawsuits, meetings, media campaigns, etc.

Yes. Exactly. The GP and WP has never necessary. They instead
are the sources of problems.

> Like it or not,

Locally within US, sure. But, that's all.

> notion that the .com database is proprietary information.

.com database with contact information in SOA is not proprietary
to NSI nor USG and can be zone-transfered to everywhere.

> central control.

That why the WP must be ignored.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:06:31 +0800

Milton,

>product of US Government funding. IANA is nothing but a government contract

I'm sorry to have to say this, and to say it this way, but statements like
the above demonstrate the kind of confusion about ISI and IANA that are
prevalent around the world, particularly among those with no experience in
Internet development or operations.  The reality of IANA's position has
been stated and restated many times, yet that reality continues to be
ignored.  The fact that the US government's Green and White papers go to
some lengths to substantiate the basis for your view does not make that
view correct.

IANA gets its authority from the Internet operations and development
community.  It always has.  And it has always worked collaboratively with
that community.  Having been part of that community, I speak from
first-hand knowledge.  If you have first-hand data which runs contrary to
my own, direct experience about IANA's activities -- independent of its
funding -- please provide it.

One more time:  IANA funding has come from the US government.  It's
authority has come from the Internet community.

No amount of legalistic logic-games can change this very real and very
basic fact.  And if you want the current discussions to be productive, it
is best not to get bogged down in those games, since the current efforts
are oriented towards community consensus, rather than having a primary
concern about making Ira Magaziner happy.  Yes, it will be best if he is
comfortable with the outcome.  However, if it comes down to a broad and
strong community consensus which happens to differ from Magaziner's
preferences, there is no question which will prevail.

(I say this with considerable comfort, because Mr. Magaziner is certain to
accede to the wishes of such a consensus.)

>government control, in the private sector, and subject to global input.

The US DoD has not been a primary controller of IANA's decisions for quite
a long time, so that is not the real issue here.  The issue is evolving an
existing operation to adjust to an expanded Internet.  Such adjustments are
entirely normal with such growth and need not be viewed in the adversarial,
or fear-based, light you suggest, with fear of US government or, worse yet,
military, control.  That control doesn't exist now and isn't going to
exist.  What is at issue are simply the details of an evolution that was
already underway to the formal structure for IANA.  This is quite similar
to the evolution that took place with the creation of ISOC, to provide some
formal/legal enhancement to the position of the IETF, some years ago.  

>development. These personal relationships are, quite literally, not relevant

Indeed you are correct.  IANA has functioned as a formal entity for many
years and it is IANA, not Jon Postel, that should be the subject of
discussion.  It is IANA that has a position in the Internet operations and
development community.

>now creating a "new IANA." As a figure of speech, it is acceptable, because

Ahh, thank you for including a point that I can agree with wholly.

>Entity will be a global organization, not a US government contractor; it will

And it is a shame you had to follow with a statement that is plainly wrong,
in terms of the existing IANA's operational basis.  IANA has always been a
global organization.  It has always dealt with the Internet as a global
entity, rather than a US plaything.

>its own rules, and subject to much more formalized checks and balances. This

I must say that it is amusing to hear someone speak apparently in favor of
impersonal and mechanical organization behavior.  It suggests lack of
familiarity with many of IANA's actions, which have become increasingly
'mechanical' over the years, and it suggests a failure to appreciate the
need for ALL organizations to have a human touch.

>convince themselves that they "owned" the root. They did not. That is
precisely

Milton, I hadn't realized that among your many talents you counted
expertise in the appropriate areas of law, permitting you to make these
assertions so firmly.  As a non-attorney, I can argue the operational and
historical facts, but merely "suspect" their status within law.  Not
surprisingly, my suspicions are that you are quite wrong.

Further, you really should take more cognizance of established practise.
I'm told it has considerable force in legal disputes lacking clear and
applicable statute or case law.  In this case, established practise is that
IANA has 15 years of authority over these activities.  NSF has fewer years
but more formal involvement... and dollars.  Further it was not just NSF
that was involved from the US government but, rather, the Federal
Networking Council.  If you choose to learn a bit about the FNC's
activities for the years preceding this debate, you will discover that they
exercised quite a bit of authority, from time to time.  To dismiss NSF and
the FNC so glibly is really quite inappropriate.

So we have substantial US government involvement DIRECTLY in the IAHC
process, as well as on-going discussions with various other US government
staffers, including Mr. Magaziner, none of whom indicated any intent to
pull the rug out from under the activity.  Quite the contrary, they were
extremely encouraging.  These are facts, albeit ones which do not jibe with
your own assertions.

Further, you should be more careful about assertions concerning ISOC.  It
took the organizational initiative to get the IAHC going, but the authority
for the work came from IANA.  We were quite explicit about this.

And as you note, it isn't productive to pursue these points.  So please
stop.  It is taking quite a bit of time to constantly correct your
mis-statements.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                         USA:                 +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                                   675 Spruce Drive
                                                  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
fax: +1 408 273 6464                 Malaysia:            +60 19 329 9445
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                     Post Office Box 296, UPM
<mailto:[email-masked]>              Serdang, Selangor 43400 MY

---

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:27:25 -0700

Hold on there!

>That why the WP must be ignored.

I thought *I* was the renegade here <grin>

Were you a lurker on the DOMAIN-POLICY lists? It doesn't appear so. During
the last few months, I believe that most of us here, and on the open-rsc
list, sort of came to the understanding that, for DNS entries, we needed a
clearing house. A single point of reference where we could check for name
conflicts. If you want, I could go into the entire line of reasoning here,
but it is also available on the open-rsc archives and the DOMAIN-POLICY
archives. 

This is the main reason that MHSC is participating in these discussions and
why we want to see a reasonable outcome. Of course, our definition of
reasonable is our own opinion <grin>. 

The gist of it is;

1) Completely open TLD registrations. No more restrictions!

2) Distributed root-servers, a la GRS. Each TLD owner being directly
responsible for their own root-server for that TLD. The Entity would then
only have to carry references to the TLD root-servers. No, you don't have
to go back to hosts files <hmph>.

3) The Entity maintains a whois server for all TLDs and an API that allows
a TLD registry to check for duplication/conflicts.

4) Become a central negotiator/mediator for TLD conflicts.

5) All TLDs should be paid-up at time of activation, no credit.
(anti-piracy policy)

6) If SLD registry for the TLD, along with an active charter, is not
operational within 90 days, the TLD is deactivated. (another anti-piracy
policy, use it or lose it, no refunds)

MHSC would be happy to pay reasonable fees ($100US/year plus 10% of SLD
registry fees?) for such a service. We would even contribute working code.
We might even open-source code for such a SLD registry. Then again, maybe
we'll sell it <grin>.

After many years, and goal-posts that moved so much we thought they were
soccer-forwards, we're a little tired of waiting. We see a business need
for some additional TLDs. No, we are not in the mood to share our complete
business plans. The TLD's we need will work fine if semi-private. Our
customers will simply be told to use our name-servers and GRS-roots. After
all, they only have to find each other. MHSC.NET will resolve them to the
Internet. Since this would be a secure system, such an architecture works
out better anyway.

However, we would rather do this openly, and straight-forward. There is
value-add if this new TLD were visible by the rest of the Internet, via the
Entity's root-servers. We think there is value-add, to the Internet at
large, for the (above mentioned) six features were added to the Entity.

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:28:43 +0100

Roeland and all,

> large, for the (above mentioned) six features were added to the Entity.

  Well Masataka san and all, I think Roeland makes a pretty good case here.

  What might be added would be a USER and/or Stakeholder ownership on
a shared basis.  Many models could be conceived of here and it would
benefit everyone and every organization or company tremendously.  You would
have a built in trust model in doing so.

  The other thing that Roeland doesn't mention is that even the nIANA is
attempting to steal or take direct control of IP and DNS systems.  Have you
seen their latest conclusions and proposal?