DNS Comments Submitted on 10/13/98 -- Part 3

October 13, 1998

Hon. William M. Daley, Secretary

United States Department of Commerce

c/o NTIA/OIA

14^th & Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20230

Secretary Daley:

MCI WorldCom is pleased to comment on the private sector proposals for a new organization to provide the functions currently provided under U.S. Government contract by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) at USC Information Sciences Institute. This statement is in response to the Department of Commerce's September 29, 1998 press release and its notice posted at the web site of the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA: www.ntia.doc.gov).

For approximately three years, several efforts have been made to develop proposals to re-organize and re-constitute the administration of the central administrative functions required for the proper operation

of the Internet. For the most part, these proposals have revolved around the establishment of a private sector, non-profit organization which would manage the allocation of Internet Protocol addresses, top level

domain names, the population of root domain name server databases and the registration and documentation of identifiers needed for the operation of the Internet Protocol Suite.

MCI WorldCom believes that any organization set up to perform these vital functions must be international in character, in the private and non-profit sector, and plainly mindful of the interests of the widest range of

parties interested in the well-being and continued smooth operation of the global Internet. MCI WorldCom has participated in many of the discussions concerning this matter and, as a major supplier of Internet services, believes that the transition to this new administrative organization must be undertaken with considerable care to maintain the healthy operation of the Internet during the period of organizational change.

MCI WorldCom believes that the proposal for the establishment of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) submitted of behalf of the existing IANA on October 2, 1998, in its fifth draft form, represents the most workable plan for the new administrative organization. Although we

believe that improvements could be made in some provisions in the proposed By-Laws, perhaps as instruments executed by the Board of Directors for the new organization, it is MCI WorldCom's position that this proposal enjoys the support of the vast majority of affected parties and would serve these

many stakeholders and the users of the Internet better than any alternative proposed thus far.

MCI WorldCom has already made commitments to support the new organization in all ways it deems reasonable, including short-term financial support if this is needed, and encourages all other interested parties to join with many others in the Internet Community who have expressed similar support. Together, we can assure the survival and continued healthy growth of the Internet on a global basis.

Sincerely,

Vinton G. Cerf

Senior Vice President

Internet Architecture & Technology

MCI WorldCom, Inc.

CC: Karen Rose

####

From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@Bunyip.Com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/13/98 4:01pm

Subject: Management of Internet Names and Addresses - Comments

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

Subject: Management of Internet Names and Addresses - Comments

Dear Secretary Daley:

I am writing to express my comments on the several drafts which have

been submitted in response to the White Paper process.

Background:

I am President of Bunyip Information Systems Inc, a Montreal-based

developer of Internet applications and technologies. I have been

involved in the Internet since 1987, when I led the group that

established the first Internet link from the United States to

Eastern Canada. Bunyip was founded in 1991, and since that time the

company has been responsible for Archie(tm), the first automatically

maintained search engine service, as well as a number of other

research and technology firsts. The company today focuses on

Internet-based information publishing solutions.

I have been involved with the IETF, both personally and through

Bunyip, for a number of years and as a company we are committed to

supporting open systems development and standards. Bunyip currently

has no plans to participate in the DNS industry as other than a

user, both for ourselves and our own customers, but believe that a

satisfactory resolution of this process, which successfully

addresses the current perception of instability and uncertainty, is

in the long term interests of all stakeholders of the Internet.

My Involvement with the IFWP Process:

I became personally involved in the White Paper process about four

months ago, when I started tracking the issues being debated in the

public forums established as part of the IFWP initiative. During the

past three months I have attempted to remain neutral during the

sometimes acrimonious debate, while seeking to provide whatever

input I could as an single individual who wished to see a common

consensus position emerge that would be acceptable to the maximum

number of stakeholders. I have done this primarily through the

debates on the "ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org" mailing list, although

I also participated for a short period in the discussions help by the

founders of ORSC, and have had private conversations with a number of

industry stakeholders with whom I have worked in the past.

One of the prime motivations I have had for becoming involved in

this debate has been the belief that there was far more common

ground among the various positions being expressed than was

perceived by the various players most actively engaged in the

process. In particular, I believe that there are many excellent

elements in the ICANN draft prepared by Jon Postel and his staff and

believe that if the levels of mistrust and misunderstanding in Jon's

handling of this dossier (which has been expressed by some players)

could be stripped away, there is in fact a strong basis for a

compromise solution. Not one that will be acceptable to all

perhaps, but one that would be acceptable to most.

Sadly, I believe that the methodology used by IANA, in particular a

document drafting process in which others were encouraged to submit

suggestions to IANA, but with all drafting being done in private,

was a mistake. Not because of the quality of the draft developed,

but because I believe it was an inappropriate mechanism for building

consensus and acceptance among those players who had already

developed a serious level of distrust in Mr. Postel's political

processes and abilities.

As I expressed it in another context on the IFWP list, it's not just

what you do, but what you are perceived to do that matters in a

political context and in this case Mr. Postel's actions were

perceived by some as inappropriate. This has been enough to cause

considerable resistance to ideas which, if presented in an

alternative forum, would have been acceptable to a far wider

audience.

Note, this comment is not meant as a criticism of Jon Postel, whom I

hold in high regard for his distinguished contributions to building

the Internet infrastructure, nor for his draft, for which I have

expressed admiration as a good starting point in seeking a final

resolution. It is intended to underline what I feel is still the

single biggest problem facing the stakeholders in this process, and

in particular your department, as it seeks to reach a final consensus

and resolution.

In my opinion, the heat of the debating process has interfered with

the needed analysis of the IANA draft. If we are to ensure the

needed stability for future administration of the Internet, the final

resolution process needs to have a certain amount of effort expended

to address this yawning gap in perceptions.

The Role of BWG in Building Bridges:

Although not a participant, I was very encouraged to see the outcome

of the so-called Boston Working Group meeting. This group took as a

starting point IANA's draft, and proposed what I feel are a number

of significant improvements. In particular I welcomed the addition

of a Statement of Principles and changes to the role of SOs. I was

particularly concerned about this aspect of the IANA draft as it

left the new organization open to the perception that it might be

hijacked by industry interests. I strongly endorse the BWG's efforts

to extend the IANA draft in constructive ways and believe their

strong focus on the role of individuals in the process is a key

element in reestablishing the trust needed to make this process

work.

I would encourage your department to consider mechanisms to

successfully merge the BWG changes and the original IANA draft while

addressing the perception that the decision to do so would be

something left in the hands of Jon Postel. I believe if this

misperception is successfully addressed, a successful final outcome

would be assured. I also believe that doing so would address several

real shortcomings in the IANA draft. This is a case where perception

should be brought into line with reality.

I also wish to commend the BWG team for not responding to Jon

Postel's creation of a registered corporation by rushing to create

their own organization as part of a "complete offering". To have

presented the government with multiple fully functional organizations

is, in my mind, a distraction from the high level of commonality

without adding particular value, since the government has not

indicated any clear legal reasons or guidelines as to the most

appropriate form such an organization should take (as but one

example, there has been considerable debate over the merits of

California versus Delaware law on this issue. It behooves the

government to clarify its own requirements, if any, in this area

rather than simply using the existence of one of more corporate

shells to resolve this debate).

The ORSC Proposal:

I have taken note of the proposal submitted by ORSC, as yet another

set of changes which seek to build upon both the IANA and BWG

drafts. I regard some of their changes as significant improvements

and, in so far as their proposal exists as additional extensions to

the BWG document, I welcome it. Their draft document deserves to be

considered by any final merging and resolution process.

I was somewhat dismayed when I realized that ORSC, in addition to

preparing changes to the IANA/BWG collection of text, also took

steps to register its Bylaws as part of an existing corporation

which that the organization had originally prepared as part of its

own efforts to develop ORSC as an industry support organization. I

believed this to be unwise both for the perception it might leave

other players as to ORSC's intent, and because of the effect on the

process this might have if the U.S. government were to interpret the

situation today as forcing it to choose between one of several

competing proposals.

In reading the three proposals, it is clear that there is far more

common ground than there are areas of difference, although such

differences do exist. I strongly urge you to consider steering this

process towards a final, merging phase in which these three

proposals are considered as input, but with the overall selection

and dispute resolution mechanism not left in the hands of the

authors of the potentially competing proposals. To do so would be to

invite a continuation of the acrimonious debate, with little

prospect of a successful resolution.

The Ronda Hauben Proposal:

I have given some study to the proposal submitted by Ronda Hauben,

although I admit that not to the level of attention I have devoted

to the others. This is because it became clear, upon first reading,

that this document is a significant departure from the approach

taken by the others, calling for additional study and work before a

final draft could even be contemplated.

I believe that the White Paper process has already consumed far too

many resources to be reset in the way proposed and would encourage

its author to join into the final consensus-building process needed

to merge the IANA, BWG and ORSC drafts. Any other course of action

is, in my opinion, unacceptable given the history and potential for

future conflict that such an approach would likely engender.

Conclusion:

I would like to commend the U.S. government for its efforts to bring

successful self-regulation to the Internet, in a process which by

necessity required the forging of new ground in both

consensus-building and process development (for example, in your

successful used of Internet technologies for both soliciting input

and distributing information).

I would also caution the government not to listen to nay-saying

which, at this late date, might decry the current state of play. A

study of the three major drafts indicates that a successful merging

is possible, even though there is still considerable ill-will and

distrust still in evidence among some players.

In my opinion, what will be important for this final round is the

creation of a perception of a level playing field, and a clear

indication of the government's continued commitment to open

processes. With that, and drawing on my own experience with the

various players, in some cases dating back a number of years, I am

confident that the foundation for a successful outcome have been

laid.

Sincerely,

Peter Deutsch,

President

Contact Information:

email: peterd@bunyip.com

Bunyip Information Systems Inc.,

310 St-Catherine St. West,

suite 300,

Montreal, Quebec,

CANADA H2X 2A1.

phone: (514) 875-8611

Fax: (514) 875-8134

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Deutsch, (514) 875-8611 (phone)

Bunyip Information Systems Inc. (514) 875-8134 (fax)

<peterd@bunyip.com> http://www.bunyip.com

"The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is

not unlimited"

Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs

of War on Land, Annex to the Convention, 1907.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org","ka...

####

From: "Patrick O'Brien" <p.o.brien@domainz.net.nz>

To: "'dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov'" <dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov...

Date: 10/13/98 4:19am

Subject: NTIA -- Comments from the .NZ Registry

Dear NTIA,

Domainz manages the domain name space for the .nz ccTLD.

We have to-date supported the US Government in its goal of privatising the

administration of the Internet, and played an active role in the ongoing IFWP

process.

By way of example, New Zealand provided detailed comments following on from the

Green paper in January

http://www.domainz.net.nz/newsstand/usgovt.html

ISOCNZ (our parent) also submitted a paper. We also attended IFWP meetings in

Geneva and presented a paper on governance issues at IFWP Singapore,

http://www.domainz.net.nz/newsstand/governance.html

Finally, we were proud to be a member of the Boston Working Group in September,

whose submission you already have before you.

------------------------

Key issues of concern to the New Zealand Registry at the outset were,

1. to promote an open process;

2. to secure appropriate international representation; and,

3. to ensure that the issues of country registries were clearly articulated and

understood.

Today, we approach the closing stages of this process, and I truly believe that

most of those have been active contributors would like to see closure.

However, those legitimate concerns that we had at the outset, still remain as

issues.

Our thoughts are well tabled in the Boston Working Group submission, and my

interest/bias has been explicitly flagged to you. Notwithstanding, I would

like to take this opportunity to state what I would like to see now as the

process races towards its eventual conclusion.

1. that fair weight and consideration is given to all submissions before the US

Government for review;

2. that the adjudicating panel give fair consideration and weight to the

credentials and expertise of all those presenting their submissions; and,

3. that the collective energies, ideas and goodwill expressed through all

submissions are harnessed one more time in an open, yet focused manner, to

develop a common position that is more acceptable to the community at large.

You need to understand that ccTLD's like New Zealand hold John Postel in high

regard -- we acknowledge that the IANA v5 submission has a number of merits.

The fact that we, and others, took the time and trouble (not stressing the

considerable expense) to contribute to the Boston proposal should alert you to

the seriousness of underlying issues.

John posits a clearly held view in his submission that he has embraced

consensus from within the industry. Clearly that is not the perception held in

many corners of the globe, and that issue needs to be addressed.

US Government signaled at the start that this was to be a truly open process.

Questions remain, and we seek your re-assurance that the notion of openness

extends, to and through *all* closing stages in order to get those open

questions that remain, finally closed.

My regards,

PATRICK J O'BRIEN

CEO Domainz

Fax: (04) 473-4569

Voice: (04) 473-4567

Mail: P.O.BRIEN@DOMAINZ.NET.NZ

Web: http://www.DOMAINZ.NET.NZ

####

From: Roxanne Loveday <rloveday@ispc.org>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/13/98 2:43pm

Subject: Comments from ISP/C

The attached document is in Word 6.0 format from the ISP/C (Internet

Service Providers' Consortium).

Thank You,

Roxanna Loveday,

President, ISP/C

ISPs CALL FOR OPENNESS IN NEW INTERNET GOVERNANCE ORGANIZATION

Contact: Patrick Greenwell, ISP/C Board Member

(925) 377-1212

patrick@namesecure.com

Los Angeles, Ca. Oct 9, 1998 -- The Internet Service Providers'

Consortium(ISP/C), the largest trade association of small to mid size ISPs in

the world, today joined with numerous other members of the Internet community

in urging the Department of Commerce not to transfer US government control

and assets related to the Domain Name System(DNS) to any organization until

it meets the criteria outlined in the so-called "White Paper."

The White Paper, a US Government document, outlines the creation of a new

non-profit organization created by the private sector to take over the

management functions of the DNS currently performed under US Government

contract by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA).

Kevin Crocker, MBA and CFO of The Internet Consortium Corporation offered:

"The proposed DNS organization appears to be a monopoly in both literal

and financial senses. There are no checks and balances to ensure proper

financial control, review and reporting. One decision by the new

organiztion to raise the rates on a single service could easily send

shockwaves through the entire internet industry, raising the cost of

services for Internet users everywhere."

Roxanne Loveday, President of the ISP/C had this to say:

"The White Paper calls for private bottom-up coordination, openness,

and transparency. These features are present in the documents produced by

the Boston Working Group. Their work reflects the views and consensus

reached by many of the countless participants in the International Forum

on the White Paper."

The International Forum on the White Paper, a non-partisan, all volunteer

effort, held a series of meetings worldwide to bring all interested

parties together for the purpose of discussing the White Paper, and to

attempt to arrive at consensus regarding the structure and function of the

new organization.

"The Boston Working Group's documents correct many of the most serious

deficiencies of the IANA Draft V proposal in the areas of openness,

accountability, and fiscal responsibility" said Deb Howard, Executive

Director of the ISP/C.

The Boston Working Group(BWG), a group comprised of several participants

within the IFWP process, has outlined a set of proposed changes to the current

draft documents for the creation of the new organization offered by IANA, and

has submitted them to the Department of Commerce for review, and public

comment. The original documents and the proposed changes are available on the

Department of Commerce's Internet Website at:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm

Charles Smith, the Chair of the Board of the ISP/C stated:

"IANA has repeatedly refused to participate in open negotiations with

other interested and affected stakeholders to create the documents, and to

select the Interim Board for the new organization. The documents, and the

proposed board members are the product of IANA and those that have chosen

to engage in private negotiations for their own private advantage. Anyone

that has chosen not to, or has not been asked to engage in such

negotiations has effectively been denied a voice in the creation of the

new organization, which is contrary to the most fundamental principles

outlined in the White Paper."

About the ISP/C

The Internet Service Providers' Consortium is a not-for-profit

corporation with over 230 members in the ISP industry. With its business

office located in Venice, CA, USA, the ISP/C's international membership

extends across North America, Europe, Central America, South America and Asia.

As the largest trade association of small and mid-size ISPs, the ISP/C

welcomes inquiries and support from all interested parties. For further

information, look up its website located at http://www.ispc.org

####

From: Roberto Gaetano <Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/13/98 3:56pm

Subject: ETSI comment on the Private Sector Proposals for a New Corporatio n to Manage Internet Domain Name System Functions

ETSI, the European Telecommunication Standards Institute, endorses the

Proposal for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

(ICANN), available at the NTIA Web site as

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/icann/icann.html.

ETSI has been active since the beginning in the process of incorporation of

the "new IANA", providing comments to the "Green Paper", participating in

the IFWP (our Institute was represented in the Steering Committee and

attended three of the four IFWP Conferences), playing a role in the "Panel

of Participants" coordinated by the European Commission, providing also in

several instances our comments and concerns directly to IANA.

We believe that the IANA draft is the best possible compromise in the

current situation. Besides our endorsement, it has by far more international

support than any of the other competing proposals.

Indeed, there is still room for improvement of the IANA proposal.

For instance, the international representativity of the Board can be

enhanced: it is clear that the presence of 4 Directors from a single country

while the whole Latin America and Caribbean Region is currently not

represented is a situation that we are looking forward to see corrected.

The possibility of adopting a Membership model for funding and long term

strategy decision is another interesting element of debate that may be

discussed in the future.

Also, we are unhappy that the name itself of IANA, that has marked the

history of the Internet, is being abandoned.

These are all tasks that the first Board of Directors may consider worth

addressing, but we think that we cannot further delay the incorporation and

empowerment of IANA/ICANN. Striving for a perfect solution when we already

have one that is fit for the purpose cannot be considered a good business

attitude.

Let us remind that the origin of this debate was the need for enhancement of

the Internet Domain Name space, and the need for introduction of a higher

degree of competition in the gTLD registration. The debate continued for

months, with the focus shifting from the original problem to wider and

broader issues, eventually ending up in questioning the existing structure

and functions of IANA, that on the other hand is providing services to its

users without major complaints. The result of being willing to change things

in more depth has led to the situation in which nothing is being changed.

In fact, after years of discussions, after the IAHC, after the Green and

White Papers, after the different proposals for incorporation of the new

IANA, and, last but not least, hundreds of thousands of dollars of

investments and expenses, we are still at square one for the resolution of

the initial problem, that was, and still is, the introduction of new generic

Top Level Domains in a way that allows competition in the Internet Domain

Name space.

While we discuss about details on the transformation of IANA, that nobody

thought as a priority just a couple of years ago, time passes and the

cooperative agreement between US Government and NSI has been renewed,

allowing the situation of de-facto monopoly to continue.

Therefore, we ask that a decision will be taken for rapid incorporation of

the IANA/ICANN, not allowing additional rounds of discussions, that would

inevitably end up in bringing further delays.

We hope that this Administration will be remembered in the history of the

Internet as the one that allowed industry self-regulation to be started, not

as the one that, looking after perfection, allowed things to remain

unchanged.

Roberto Gaetano

ETSI

####

From: <silvana@cabase.satlink.net>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy),NTIADC40.SMTP40("silvana@ca...

Date: 10/13/98 3:53pm

Subject: (Fwd) New Internet Domain Name Corporation

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

From: Self <silvana>

To: dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov

Subject: New Internet Domain Name Corporation

Reply-to: info@cabase.org.ar

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:51:12 ARG

Buenos Aires, October 9, 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,

CABASE - Argentine Chamber of Databanks and Online Services, has a

membership composed of Internet Service Providers, Telecoms Carriers,

Value-Added Carriers, Content Providers, and Hardware & Software

Companies providing Internet solutions, in Argentina, and was

incorporated in 1989 as a non-profit Association.

Our entity operates a NAP which interconnects the Internet Service

Providers who service more than 90% of the Internet users in this

country, and which is physically installed on CABASE premises.

CABASE, as a member of the IFWP steering committee, participated in

all four regional meetings, and hosted the fourth meeting (IFWP LA&C)

held in Buenos Aires.

On Tuesday, October 6th., we forwarded our initial reaction to the

IANA proposal on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses. This

clearly pointed out a fundamental oversight in the proposed list of

nominees for the Interim Board, namely, that Latin America was not

represented therein.

We fully understand the problems involved in establishing a board with

international geographical representation, with only nine at-large

members seats to be alloted, and thus propose that these 9 seats be

expanded to 11, thus allowing our region to be adequately represented

with two nominees, without disrupting a board which we presume has

been carefully selected.

In accordance with the request for comments on the proposals which are

being submitted on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses, we

would be willing to endorse Jon Postel's proposal on condition that

the following modifications to his proposal be made:

ARTICLE V. STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Section 1. INITIAL BOARD

Comment.

With nine At Large members nominated to the board it has proved

impossible to ensure a broad international representation, as can be

seen from Jon Postel's list of nominees.

Proposed ammendment of text:

The initial Board of Directors of the Corporation ("Initial Board")

shall consist of eleven At Large members, ....

Section 6. INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION

Comment.

We consider that to ensure a broad international representation, more

equitable rules must be set.

Proposed ammendment of text: In order to

ensure broad international representation on the Board, no more than

forty per cent (40 %) of the total number of At Large Directors

serving at any given time shall be residents of any one Geographic

Region and all regions should be represented.....

If the above modifications to Jon Postel's proposal are implemented,

CABASE will then be able to endorse this proposal.

We would also point out that we consider that the issues of membership

and accountability, should be awarded primary consideration in the

organizational process of the corporation, and recommend the following

ammendments be considered.

Article II : MEMBERSHIP

We agree with the Boston Group comments to this article, namely:

"The Board should proceed with all due rapidity to establish a

membership organization which shall be the beneficiaries and the

ultimate source of authority for Board activities."

ARTICLE V. STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Section 9. ELECTION AND TERM

Paragraph (c)

Proposed ammendment of text: As proposed by the Boston

Group the following text should be eliminated: "Unless a majority of

the At Large members of the Initial Board determines that it is not

posible to create a workable membership structure, such process shall

call for election of At Large directors by one or more categories of

members of the Corporation admitted pursuant to qualifications

established by majority vote of the At Large member of the Initial

Board. "

In closing we would express our hopes that due consensus may be

achieved very shortly, and the legitimate concerns of all Internet

stakeholders be contemplated in the final bylaws.

Yours truly,

Tony Harris

Secretary

CABASE -Argentina

www.cabase.org.ar

Tel/Fax 54-1-326-0777

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("ira_c._magaziner@opd.eop.gov")

####

Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) respectfully submits its comments to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on the current proposals for a private sector corporate initiative for Internet administration. Network Solutions, having just concluded its negotiations with the NTIA, resulting in Amendment 11 to its Cooperative Agreement, remains a proponent for the development of a new corporation (Newco) to oversee the administration of the Internet. Network Solutions views this private sector led initiative as the next step in the natural evolution of private sector leadership that began in 1992 with Network Solutions' Cooperative Agreement award for the development and management of the domain name system.

In this spirit, Network Solutions has commented on the set of drafts before the NTIA in an attempt to point out certain areas where these drafts could be strengthened by key provisions. These comments are made solely in an attempt to improve upon the proposals which we believe meet the key points of the Management of Internet Names and Addresses (White Paper, June 5 ,1998) policy statement. Network Solutions' intent is to provide constructive criticism to further the development of Newco, providing leadership as needed for the private sector and assisting the NTIA in any way possible to expedite the process.

1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

All of the existing proposals addresses the creation of a private-sector organization for the administration of Internet domain names, Internet protocol numbers and Internet protocols. (Ref. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm#1)

The proposals of Jon Postel and the Boston Working Group (Karl Auerbach et al.; hereafter referred to as the Postel and BWG proposals, respectively) contain slightly different versions of Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws for a non-profit corporation entitled the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The Postel proposal additionally lists nine proposed initial ICANN directors, while the BWG proposal contains detailed analysis and explanations that includes an open process for selecting the initial directors.

The proposal of Rhonda Hauben is a letter calling for a "research project or institute�to establish a set of principles and recommendations on how to create an international cooperative collaboration�[including] a proposal for�further administration [of Internet names and numbers]�." Ms. Hauben's letter again raises many of the same questions and issues posed as part of the NTIA's proceedings in this matter over the past 15 months, and calls for further independent study. As such, although it may be important, it seems not to provide a fully developed solution as contemplated in the June 5, White Paper, and will not be discussed further in these comments.

The Open Root Server Confederation, Inc. (ORSC) has also submitted a separate proposal to the NTIA. The ORSC proposal calls for significant changes from the ICANN proposal, including:

1. Membership structure defined in the By-Laws, not deferred, thus removing the dependence that the initial Board will be fully entrusted to "do the right thing;"

2. Supporting Organizations do not elect the Board, the members do;

3. Significantly enhanced due process considerations;

4. Incorporation in Delaware instead of California;

5. Clauses requiring greater fiscal responsibility;

6. Clauses for "fair hearing panels" providing greater access and an alternative to the court system for redress; and,

7. Explicit recognition of freedom of speech interests.

B. Comments by Subject

1. Place and form of incorporation

Industry organizations, such as that being created here (Newco), are commonly formed as Delaware non-profit corporations. Because of this, there is well-established law relating to these corporations that provide the means for organization members and other interested parties to effect openness and accountability. Creation of such a corporation in California is unusual, and the applicable statutory law is somewhat rigid - including potential intervention by the California Attorney General as the means of effecting accountability under the corporation's basic instruments. We understand the initial desire for California's incorporation but suggest that further analysis could recommend Delaware.

As proposed, ICANN may not be held to be a charitable, scientific research or educational organization - which are the required characteristics of a Section 501(c)(3) corporation under IRS regulations. It falls more clearly under Section 501(c)(6). Additionally, any contribution given by a 501( c )(3) organization to ICANN, if its 501(c)(3) status is denied, would be illegal. Any contribution by other organizations, considered "charitable contributions" and therefore deductible as such, would then be denied deductibility, causing the necessity for amended tax returns by the contributor(s). Further, the California non-profit corporate law does not permit absolute immunity for corporate directors and officers. Instead, it requires alternate insurance coverage and the immunity does not apply to suits brought by the Attorney General. Beginning with such potential problems, we suggest, may decrease ICANN's chances for a smooth start.

2. Purposes

The purposes articulated in the Articles of Incorporation are comparable under the proposals submitted. A Preamble and Statement of Purpose (as in the BWG Proposal) seems to identify the mission of the organization more clearly.

3. Specific Protections

We feel that the protections established in the Articles should be unalterable except by a super majority of the Board of Directors. Coupling this with a definition of a membership also required to approve amendments to the Articles would provide additional necessary protection necessary to avoid possible capture of the entity by special interests or control by such a small number of individuals.

4. Membership

The proposals do not yet define a workable approach toward an open membership organization and leave this to be considered by the Board of Directors. We believe that Delaware incorporation would provide a significant step in this direction, since it would necessitate defining initial membership classes.

5. Access to Information

Public disclosure of Newco's expenses is important to promote greater fiscal transparency. This could include the prompt publication of minutes.

6. Notice and Comment

The proposals provide substantial notice and comment provisions.

7. Board Reconsideration and Appeal

We would support a provision that specifies that the Board adopt policies and procedures through which a party affected by an action of the Newco can seek reconsideration of that action by the Board. We believe that any affected party, including employees, should have specific rights of appeal to a neutral body.

8. Voting on Record

We would support a recommendation that every matter before the Board would be decided using a roll call in which the vote cast by each director shall be recorded in the minutes. Transparency and accountability require that the membership know how Newco is run. To that end, we suggest that it is desirable that all votes be on the record and that each Director's position on each issue voted upon be known.

9. Powers

We believe that the Board should have the necessary power to act in an emergency to maintain the technical operation of the Internet.

10. Fees and Charges

Newco should have a provision that requires an agreed annual business plan and establishes reasonable reserves for future expenses and contingencies related to the legitimate activities of the Corporation. The ability of Newco to tax across the Internet infrastructure creates significant concern and requires explicit safeguards. Newco should adopt an open annual business planning process.

11. Structure of the Board of Directors

We believe that it would increase the probability of a more representative Board if members of the Supporting Organizations (SOs) were not automatically members of Newco's Board and more of the Board members were elected at large. We envision the SOs as permanent standing committees.

12. Initial Board

The autonomy of the initial Board and the President would be increased when a membership structure is established. Although initially difficult, the selection of the initial Board should occur through some form of public process with more disclosure.

13. Directors after the Initial Board

We believe that the diversity of Directors would be best assured by an election process (with voting by members of Newco) to be established by the initial Board. This would eliminate a self-perpetuating closed process.

14. International Representation

It is desirable to have at least one Director from each Geographic Region.

15. Election and Term

We believe that the President should be a member of the Board of Directors.

16. Annual Business Plan

We recommend that the Board should prepare an annual business plan, which includes a financial plan identifying funding sources and levels, a strategic plan and delegated financial authorities. The plan should be a matter of public record, published at the Annual Meeting preceding the fiscal year to which the business plan pertains.

17. Hearings and Appeals

A process for hearings and appeals of substantive decisions made by the Newco should be established. This process should be in accord with established principles of fairness and due process.

18. Supporting Organizations

We believe that the Supporting Organizations (SOs) should be regarded as Advisory Committees. However, with the creation of membership classes, the SOs could function as standing committees of Newco without power to appoint Directors. The SOs should be an integral part of the Newco and consequently bound to the same constraints as the Newco. If the SOs are separate entities, they could become a vehicle to avoid the responsibilities established by the Articles and By-Laws.

19. President

The range of powers and role of the President should be clearly defined with specific constraints and defined levels of authority.

20. Indemnification

We support the broadening of the indemnification provisions as they relate to those individuals acting on behalf of the corporation.

21. Amendment of the By-Laws

The provisions relating to amendment of the By-Laws in the proposals submitted are satisfactory.

As to all the points set forth above, we would suggest that the Department of Commerce use its power to contract with Newco to require that Newco By-Laws be amended as required as a condition for recognition by the US Government. We understand the difficulties faced by the Department of Commerce and offer our support and assistance in any appropriate way to help bring this process to a successful conclusion.

####

From: "Tom Lowenhaupt" <tjpl@ix.netcom.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/13/98 11:31pm

Subject: Re: Private Sector Proposals for a New Corporation to Manage Internet Domain Name System Functions

Re: Private Sector Proposals for a New Corporation to Manage Internet Domain

Name System Functions

Comments of Thomas Lowenhaupt

Jackson Heights, New York

toml@communisphere.com

Let me begin by saying that the comment period on this was entirely too

short. This is an area where I've been involved, hands on, on a daily basis,

for five years, and my comments would have been far more detailed and

organized had I not learned of your due date on the due date. Poor planning

NTIA.

I can't imagine this is even legal. If it is it should not be. I'll be

contacting my representatives on the issue.

COMMENTS

My community is developing a network to serve our local needs. It's a system

that's to enhance our existing institutions whenever possible. And the issue

of governance arises on a regular basis. We have a population of 125,000

living in three neighborhoods - which may stereotypically be referred to as

multi-ethnic Jackson Heights, Hispanic Corona, and African-American East

Elmhurst.

We are on the wrong side of the digital divide. But we're looking toward the

future of our community and governance of lour community network is of great

concern and a recurring issue.

Here are some of our thoughts.

We've agreed that representatives to the governance board need to come from

the various geographic areas of our community. Also, from various ethnic,

age, and economic groups.

We are also interested in the thoughts of those not currently involved in

the online world. For although they are currently on the sidelines, they

will soon participate. Their thoughts must be considered. A citizens panel

is being considered. We look to the Swedish experience with this and are in

contact with the Loka Institute to devise an appropriate instrument.

We're also looking for proxy voting process in the governance design. With

the communication tools available today this is a practical consideration.

Another thing we're looking at is the design of a governance structure with

a bicameral form. Not and easy matter to devise, nor to operate under, I'm

sure. But it might allow better user input into system control. We're

thinking about a technical / management board and a users board. How they're

selected, who controls, and how, has not yet been defined.

CONCLUSION

The concepts of Jefferson, Hamilton, and others must be considered,

evaluated, and applied in devising internet governance. Be it local or

planetary, it's not a quick and easy process. And with the rapid changes in

technology the governance structure must be revisited on a regular basis.

Every three years might be appropriate.

I advise a more considered and international approach.

Thomas Lowenhaupt

Founder, The Communisphere Project

October 13, 1998

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("toml@communisphere.com")

####

From: "Tom Lowenhaupt" <tjpl@ix.netcom.com>

To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)

Date: 10/13/98 11:35pm

Subject: Private Sector Proposals for a New Corporation to Manage Internet Domain Name System Functions

Comments in Microsoft Word 97 attached in file format and in full as

follows:

Private Sector Proposals for a New Corporation to Manage Internet Domain