Karl and all,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> Since there is no proposed agenda from any party, I'll post my own.
>
> I've suggested these topics to the chairman and other organizers, but have
> not received any reply.
>
> Overall I have two overall concerns:
>
> 1. To meet everyone.
>
> 2. To explore the Consitutional and Statutory legal basis upon which
> the WP could be implemented in the United States.  (For my own part,
> I find that considerations of the corporate structure of the proposed
> organization to be as premature as picking the paint color for a
> house for which no plans have yet been drawn, no site located, and no
> building permits obtained.)

  Good point here Karl.  These are some specifics that should be discussed
and a plan for determining should be established at both INET98 and the IFWP
conferences.

>
>
> My goal is to have us agree upon a plan for a legal foundation which
> we can take to what I believe is the only source of authority,
> SOA[*], that can turn the White Paper's policies into a legal
> institution - the Congress.

  It seems to me that most of this was encompassed in the 1996
Telecommunications
Act Karl.  However there are some point of detail that may indeed require some
special acts by congress to provide.

>
>
> [*] SOA -- if you don't get the pun, you shouldn't be discussing DNS policy.
>
> As for procedure:
>
> There will issues we agree on and issues we don't.  (I'm great at
> tautologies!)
>
> And there will be areas in between.  For these, I simply do not trust
> consensus taking.

  Good point and I hope well taken.  Consensus is fine on some rather
non-essential
areas or points, but a vote of the stakeholders and the Internet community
World wide is necessary for the Board Seats and for most of the Policies that
that
Board may suggest.

>
>
> Here's a more concrete statement of agenda:
>
> Here's mine (created as I'm typing...)
>
> I. Hello
>
> II. Adopt Rules (need proposed rules)
>
> III.  Resolutions:
>
> A. This body is acting to produce a specific plan of recommendations to
> the Congress and Executive of the United States for the fair, open,
> non-monopolistic governance of the Internet, and in particular, the Domain
> Name System and Address Allocation systems, within the United States.

  So far so good Karl!  >;)

>
>
> B. This body recognizes that the United States is but one nation on the
> planet and that the Internet is a world-wide infrastructure which in many
> senses transcends traditional national boundaries and as such presents
> unique problems for sovereign national governments.
>
> C. This body recognizes that it is unlikely that a satisfactory and
> consistent worldwide Internet governence regime will be accomplished
> without considerable exploration of alternative modes of governence by the
> various nations of the world, acting individually or in conjunction with
> one another.

  We would agree to most of this.  I would replace some of the language with
leaving out "Acting Individually" with respect to nations.  This must be done
"IN Conjunction" of ALL nations that participate or will participate at a later
date or time.  And that ALL policies that have a direct impact on the
Domain Name System (DNS) and the IP Address space allocation system
should and must be approved by vote (Proxy or individually) from the
stakeholders
and the Internet community (Users).

>
>
> D. As such, the recommendations that this body are making to the United
> States should be construed as such an exploration of alternatives and are
> not intended to prejudice or curtail any similar acts in other nations.

  This must be struck all together as we see it Karl if this is truly to be an
International effort and encompass International stakeholders and Internet
Users.

>
>
> E. This body calls for the creation of a inter-national organization to be
> organized by the various nations, for the discussion of, and creation of,
> a worldwide Internet governance regime.

  Well said.

>
>
> IV. United States -- Questions of Authority
>
> A. Discussion:  On what specific authority do which agencies of the United
> States have power to act to implement the policies described in the White
> Paper?

  A good question to answer indeed.  We would assume, that the Office of the
President, NTIA, and the Commerce department would be those agencies
within the US that have this authority.  The US congress has or should have
empowered these agencies to do so.

>
>
> B. Discussion: What additional statutory authority is required for the
> United States to implement the White Paper?

  Good question as well.  We would venture to say that the 1996
Telecommunications
Act provides for most of this.  Other Trade agreements such as the GATT and
Nafta agreements also come to mind.

>
>
> C. Based on the statutory authority:
>
> 1. What legal structure should "The Corporation" take?

  Non-profit 506 c and /or b Under US law and similar such statutes under
International
Law.

>
>
> 2. How should the "agreeement" between "the Corporation" and the United
> States be formed?  What would be the governing law?  How would continued
> performance be monitored?  What if some other contender to be "the
> Corporation" should arise?

  All good questions that need to be discussed at these proposed IFWP and the
INET98 conference.

>
>
> etc etc...
>
>                 --karl--
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1§ix.netcom.com