FYI Jim Stewart ***************************************************************** Internet OldBoys - Australian Internet and Tech News Weekly: http://202.180.226.8/ttalkra/IOB.ram Daily: http://202.180.226.8/ttalkra/IOB_daily.ram NetBoat - The worlds first netradio comedy serial http://202.180.226.8/ttalkra/nb/nb.ram http://www.ttalk.com ICQ 7886979 mailto:jim§ttalk.com ***************************************************************** -----Original Message----- From: J. William Semich (NIC JWS7) <bsemich§users.org> To: pab§gtld-mou.org <pab§gtld-mou.org> Date: Friday, 9 October 1998 22:23 Subject: PAB Another NewCo Proposal to NTIA >FYI, here is Proposal Number Four for a New Co to replace IANA, >submitted to the US Government last night by Einer Stefferud....this >copy came from the wwtld list. > >Bill Semich >bsemich§mail.nu >.NU Domain >http://whats.nu > >Original-From: "William X. Walsh" <william§tjns.tj> >Original-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:49:36 -0700 (PDT) > > > >Today, the Open Root Server Confederation presented its proposal to >Secretary Daley, as an alternative to the IANA Proposal. (I have pasted >it below my own message) > >The ORSC Proposal and Bylaws take into account and incorporate much of >what was done in the IFWP process, and the work of The Boston Group to >date. > >We at the .TJ TLD have serious concerns over the current IANA Proposal, >and ask that all ccTLD managers and organization review this alternative >proposal as a serious option in this process, and to make your opinions >and comments known. > >The US Gov White Paper called for a "Consensus" document, the IANA >Proposal as it stands now has discarded much of what was done in the >consensus gathering processes. Does it still represent the interests of >the broad base of stakeholders who hold an interest in this issue? > >Review the IANA Proposal, and the ORSC proposals, and any other >proposals that are out there, and make sure your comments and >impressions are heard. > >Consensus should not be reached by silence, and silence should not infer >that a consensus has been reached. > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >William X. Walsh (WXW7/WW1506) | TJ Network Services - The .TJ NIC >Network Operations | http://tjns.tj / http://nic.tj >william§tjns.tj / william§nic.tj | Domain Names/DNS/Email Services >+1-(209)-493-6144 | >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Personal Opinions Only >Date: 08-Oct-98 / Time: 22:47:30 > > > >-----FW: <17009.907910425§nma.com>----- > >Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:20:25 -0700 >Sender: owner-domain-policy§open-rsc.org >From: Einar Stefferud <stef§nma.com> >To: dnspolicy§ntia.doc.gov >Subject: ORSC proposal to NTIA for Management of Internet Names and >Addresses >Cc: (for The Hon William M Daley) <krose§ntia.doc.gov>, >webmaster§ntia.doc.gov, > domain-policy§open-rsc.org, Ruediger Grimm <grimm§darmstadt.gmd.de> > > October 8, 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. > >While some may claim to have reached that goal, the members of the >Open Root Server Confederation (Open-RSC) believe that the process has >gone astray. To highlight our concerns, we refer you to the press >release issued June 5, 1998 titled "COMMERCE DEPARTMENT RELEASES >POLICY STATEMENT ON THE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM." In that >release, Becky Burr said: > >" . . . the policy statement describes a process whereby a new, >not-for-profit corporation formed by the private sector would assume >various responsibilities for DNS administration that are now performed >by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, or by third parties under >agreements with the U.S. Government. We invite Internet stakeholders >from around the world to work together to form this new entity." > >She also said: "We are looking for a globally and functionally >representative organization, operated on the basis of sound and >transparent processes that protect against capture by self-interested >factions, and that provides robust, professional management. The new >entity's processes need to be fair, open, and pro-competitive. And the >new entity needs to have a mechanism for evolving to reflect changes >in the constituency of Internet stakeholders." > >In response to these comments, a sectorally and geographically diverse >group of Internet stakeholders came together under the IFWP banner >(The International Forum on the White Paper). These stakeholders met >at assorted venues throughout the world, and the result was a series >of consensus points for the new corporation. > >Several weeks ago, the IFWP process broke down as many of the original >supporters decided to negotiate directly with the IANA. The result >was the ICANN draft, a draft that is in our opinion, deficient in the >following ways: > > - The draft was finalized behind closed doors. > > - The draft does not include many of the consensus points from the > IFWP process. > > - The interim board suggested by the draft was presented without any > open nomination process or discussion. > > - It fails to meet Ira Magaziner's mandate of accountability, as the > ICANN board is only accountable to itself. > > - It fails to meet the terms as stated by Becky Burr, specifically > the desire for sound and transparent processes, protection against > capture, and fair, open and pro-competitive processes. > >The transfer of Internet assets and authority from the U.S. Government >to this New Corporation represents a major departure for the private >administration of a global resource. And if we were only talking >about Internet resources, the ICANN draft might be sufficient. The >truth of the matter is, however, that the New Corp will be making >public policy decisions as well as administrative decisions. Diverse >issues like free speech, access, and privacy will all be affected by >decision made by the New Corp. It is for these reasons that Open Root >Server Confederation, Inc. (Open-RSC) hereby and respectfully submits >our proposal for the New Corp. Our proposal is designed to be a peer >proposal to the already submitted IANA/BGW/Haubens proposals to >provide another point of view for NTIA consideration in the process of >melding all the submitted proposals into a final result. > >Open Root Server Confederation, Inc., is an existing Delaware based, >501c3 non-profit corporation. We have recently developed Bylaws based >on the IFWP consensus points as prepared by the Boston Working Group, >and adding several additional clauses that build upon the IFWP >consensus points to reflect the Internet community's response to the >ICANN draft, and to reflect some long standing Open-RSC concepts to >promote fairness and the use of open due processes. > >For example, Open-RSC has added a "fair hearing" process to give voice >to all the parties who have suffered failed expectations during and >before this White Paper process, up to the present time and including >the MoU enrollment of CORE registrars. Another group has suggested >financial accountability clauses in relation to business planning, >budgeting and fee structures, which we have adopted. > >We adopted Electronic Fronter Fondation (EFF) proposed clauses on >recognition of individual rights including due process, personal >privacy and human rights. We also added a Membership article based on >extensive discussions that occurred in the IFWP mailing list. It is >derived from a European proposal > >Enclosed by URL reference are documents reflecting these consensus >points, including copies of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws >for this new non-profit organization. These are: > > Articles of incorporation at <http://www.open-rsc.org/inc/articles/> > > Bylaws at <http://www.open-rsc.org/inc/bylaws/> > > ORSC, Inc. Document root is at: <http://www.open-rsc.org/inc/> > > **While the organization has been formally incorporated, and > it has a single temporary board member, it has not yet > elected a full interim board of directors or finalized its > name or its Bylaws, and currently intends to refrain from > doing so until the completion of your review of the enclosed > materials. By then we expect an open process for selection > of an Interim Board of Directors will be established and a > new name will have been chosen for your chosen New Corp. > >In closing, 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." > >Since our documents are based on the IFWP consensus points, and the >IFWP process included all of these groups and more, we believe our >documents to be closest to the goals as outlined by the White Paper. >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. > > Respectfully submitted, > > > Einar Stefferud > Temporary Chairman of the Board of Directors > Open Root Server Confederation, Inc. > 17301 Drey Lane > Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5615 > +1 714 842-3711 > >Enclosures > >cc (w/encs.): Ira C. Magaziner > R.J. Beckwith Burr > webmaster§ntia.doc.gov, domain-policy§open-rsc.org > > -- END -- > >--------------End of forwarded message------------------------- > > >Received on Sat Oct 10 1998 - 05:23:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC