Subject:
Re: PAB Proposal for support of IANA.
Date:
Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:14:12 +0200
From:
Mark Measday <measday@ibm.net>
Organization:
Josmarian SA
To:
Javier SOLA <jsola@aui.es>, "PAB@gtld-mou.org"
<PAB@gtld-mou.org>
PAB proposal for supporting IANA
Javier:
A suggested text with rationale follows this emendation of your text.
The Policy Advisory Body (PAB), created by the signature of the Generic
Top
Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding and now including more than 200
companies and associations from all around the world, would like to
comment
on the Third Iteration of the Bylaws for the New IANA published by IANA.
The IFWP process, has, for the last two months, brought together a
significant number of stakeholders of the Internet from around the
world.
The participants represent a substantial subset of the Community of
Internet Users, and their participation has permitted discussion of some
of
the most important issues regarding the redesign of IANA.
As Tamar Frankel -facilitator of the IFWP- suggested, consensus search
has been
carried out so that we could talk about work-in-progress.
Many of the results of the IFWP seem to reflect clear
consensus of the Internet Community, and -we believe- have been
correctly
understood by IANA and incorporated in the Third Iteration of the
Bylaws.
In some other issues, the consensus is not that clear. One of them is
the
type of membership that this organisation will have, a key issue, as any
non-profit corporation must have members. We support the view that
membership organisations should participate in the New IANA as
members. Questions of board membership, voting structure and ancillary
details will be best decided by emerging consensus within the mandate of
the USG white paper and its international instruments.
We encourage IANA to continue with their work towards re-engineering its
structures into a non-profit organisation that will -in a fair way-
regulate and manage the common resources of the Internet for the good of
all.
MM 31/8
Javier SOLA wrote:
PAB,
Here is a proposal for supporting IANA. Please comment on it very
quickly
(language and spelling included), as it needs to be sent almost
immediately.
Javier
The Policy Advisory Body (PAB), created by the signature of the
Generic Top
Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding and now including more than
200
companies and associations from all around the world, would like to
comment
on the Third Iteration of the Bylaws for the New IANA published by
IANA.
Perfect
The IFWP process, has, for the last two months, brought together a
significant number of stakeholders of the Internet from around the
world.
The participants do not represent, by far, the whole of the Community
of
Internet Users, but their participation has permitted discussing some
of
the most important issues regarding the re-engineering of IANA.
Suggestion:
The IFWP process, has, for the last two months, brought together a
significant number of stakeholders of the Internet from around the
world.
The participants represent a substantial subset of the Community of
Internet Users, and their participation has permitted discussion of some
of
the most important issues regarding the re-engineering of IANA.
Yes, if I recollect these people claimed original inclusion in IFWP:
Arizona Internet Access
Association (AIAA)
Association for Interactive
Media (AIM)
Association of Internet
Professionals (AIP)
Association of Online
Professionals (AOP)
Asia & Pacific Internet
Association (APIA)
Camara Argentina de Bases de
Datos y Servicios en
Linea (CABASE)
Canadian Association of Internet
Providers (CAIP)
Center for Democracy and
Technology (CDT)
Commercial Internet eXchange
Association (CIX)
Computer Software and Services
Association (CSSA)
Confederation for British
Industry (CBI)
Educom/Educause
European Internet Service
Providers Association
(EuroISPA)
Information Technology
Association of America
(ITAA)
International Chamber of
Commerce (ICC)
Internet Alliance (IA)
Internet Law & Policy Forum
(ILPF)
Internet Service Providers
Consortium (ISP/C)
Internet Service Providers of
the UK (ISPA-UK)
Internet Society (ISOC)
Society for College and
University Planning (SCUP)
US Council for International
Business (USCIB)
Subsequent meetings had official or non-official representation from the
European Commission, Japanese, Chinese, Indian governments amongst many
others, and multifarous industry groupings.It might be unwise to
denigrate these groupings. Might not be a good idea to use the word
'reengineering' in a legal
context of compromise. Also to point out that IANA, IFWP and al are in
agreement for 95% of all issues, separated only by the issue of whether
academic
democratic centralism or commercial disingenuousness should be the
business model for regulation.
As Tamar Frankel -leader of the IFWP- demanded, consensus search has
been
carried out in small break-out sessions, not in the plenary sessions
of
this meetings, so that we could talk about work-in-progress, and not
consensus of the Internet Community, which would have been false.
Exactly, these people were not, in many instances, representatives of
the stakeholder-based private, non-profit international body the USG
wanted in its
desire for a 'different type of coordination structure for the internet
for international coordination' (Ira Magaziner's comments at Reston
IFWP), and many of
them were not able to make their positions clear or make comments at
the time, one assumes they make their comments directly to the USG. As a
result it
might be better to talk about opinions rather than consensus.
Suggestion:
As Tamar Frankel -facilitator of the IFWP- suggested, consensus search
has been
carried out so that we could talk about work-in-progress.
In spite of this, many of the results of the IFWP seem to reflect
clear
consensus of the Internet Community, and -we believe- have been
correctly
understood by IANA and incorporated in the Third Iteration of the
Bylaws.
Yes, they only want one draft for incorporation, so IANA needs to take
on board the commercial and governmental interests it is currently not
reflecting.
You've got CIX, you need to get the others too, and that is by
inclusion, not exclusion.
Suggestion:
Many of the results of the IFWP seem to reflect clear
consensus of the Internet Community, and -we believe- have been
correctly
understood by IANA and incorporated in the Third Iteration of the
Bylaws.
In some other issues, the Consensus is not that clear. One of them is
the
type of membership that this organisation will have, a key issue, as
any
non-profit corporation must have members. Almost everybody seems to
agree
that membership organisations should participate in the New IANA as
members. We support this view. There are opinions in the sense that
"anybody" could become a member, but this opens the organisation to
"capture" by a powerful company with many customers, specially if
voting
through proxies is allowed.
Javier, to be rigorous, if you exclude the customers, you exclude your
stakeholders. The way forward is competition, not legislation. Hence the
expansion of
TLDs, I thought.
Suggestion:
In some other issues, the Consensus is not that clear. One of them is
the
type of membership that this organisation will have, a key issue, as any
non-profit corporation must have members. Almost everybody seems to
agree
that membership organisations should participate in the New IANA as
members. We support this view.
The model developed for PAB, which seems to
work quite well, does not allow individual members, and we think it
could
be applied to the New IANA.
Why disallow individual members? Allow as many people to join as wish to
pay the (hefty) dues.
The participation of specific companies should
be analysed very carefully, specially if members are a primary source
of
financial stability for the New IANA. None of the funds received by
the
organisation may have any strings attached, nor the possibility of
attaching them later.
This is top-down, Magaziner and others asked for bottom-up. Also, it is
unrealistic to expect organizations to join a forum without
self-interest. IANA
should take on board all workable suggestions for funding.
We encourage IANA to continue with their work towards re-engineering
its
structures to fit into a non-profit organisation that will -in a fair
way-
regulate and manage the common resources of the Internet.
What is the non-profit into which IANA should fit?
Best regards,
MM
--Mark Measday UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93 email: measday@josmarian.ch/measday@ibm.net
attached mail follows:
PAB proposal for supporting IANA
Javier:
A suggested text with rationale follows this emendation of your text.
The Policy Advisory Body (PAB), created by the signature of the Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding and now including more than 200
companies and associations from all around the world, would like to comment on the Third Iteration of the Bylaws for the New IANA published by IANA.
The IFWP process, has, for the last two months, brought together a significant number of stakeholders of the Internet from around the world. The participants represent a substantial subset of the Community of Internet Users, and their participation has permitted discussion of some of the most important issues regarding the redesign of IANA.
As Tamar Frankel -facilitator of the IFWP- suggested, consensus search has been carried out so that we could talk about work-in-progress.
Many of the results of the IFWP seem to reflect clear consensus of the Internet Community, and -we believe- have been correctly understood by IANA and incorporated in the Third Iteration of the Bylaws.
In some other issues, the consensus is not that clear. One of them is the type of membership that this organisation will have, a key issue, as any
non-profit corporation must have members. We support the view that membership organisations should participate in the New IANA as members. Questions of board membership, voting structure and ancillary details will be best decided by emerging consensus within the mandate of
the USG white paper and its international instruments.
We encourage IANA to continue with their work towards re-engineering its
structures into a non-profit organisation that will -in a fair way- regulate and manage the common resources of the Internet for the good of
all.
MM 31/8
Javier SOLA wrote:
> PAB, > > Here is a proposal for supporting IANA. Please comment on it very > quickly > (language and spelling included), as it needs to be sent almost > immediately. > > Javier > > The Policy Advisory Body (PAB), created by the signature of the > Generic Top > Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding and now including more than > 200 > companies and associations from all around the world, would like to > comment > on the Third Iteration of the Bylaws for the New IANA published by > IANA.
Perfect
> > > The IFWP process, has, for the last two months, brought together a > significant number of stakeholders of the Internet from around the > world. > The participants do not represent, by far, the whole of the Community > of > Internet Users, but their participation has permitted discussing some > of > the most important issues regarding the re-engineering of IANA.
Suggestion:
The IFWP process, has, for the last two months, brought together a significant number of stakeholders of the Internet from around the world. The participants represent a substantial subset of the Community of Internet Users, and their participation has permitted discussion of some of the most important issues regarding the re-engineering of IANA.
Yes, if I recollect these people claimed original inclusion in IFWP:
Arizona Internet Access Association (AIAA) Association for Interactive Media (AIM) Association of Internet Professionals (AIP) Association of Online Professionals (AOP) Asia & Pacific Internet Association (APIA) Camara Argentina de Bases de Datos y Servicios en Linea (CABASE) Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) Commercial Internet eXchange Association (CIX) Computer Software and Services Association (CSSA) Confederation for British Industry (CBI) Educom/Educause European Internet Service Providers Association (EuroISPA) Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Internet Alliance (IA) Internet Law & Policy Forum (ILPF) Internet Service Providers Consortium (ISP/C) Internet Service Providers of the UK (ISPA-UK) Internet Society (ISOC) Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) US Council for International Business (USCIB)
Subsequent meetings had official or non-official representation from the European Commission, Japanese, Chinese, Indian governments amongst many others, and multifarous industry groupings.It might be unwise to denigrate these groupings. Might not be a good idea to use the word 'reengineering' in a legal context of compromise. Also to point out that IANA, IFWP and al are in agreement for 95% of all issues, separated only by the issue of whether academic democratic centralism or commercial disingenuousness should be the business model for regulation.
> As Tamar Frankel -leader of the IFWP- demanded, consensus search has > been > carried out in small break-out sessions, not in the plenary sessions > of > this meetings, so that we could talk about work-in-progress, and not > consensus of the Internet Community, which would have been false.
Exactly, these people were not, in many instances, representatives of the stakeholder-based private, non-profit international body the USG wanted in its desire for a 'different type of coordination structure for the internet for international coordination' (Ira Magaziner's comments at Reston IFWP), and many of them were not able to make their positions clear or make comments at the time, one assumes they make their comments directly to the USG. As a result it might be better to talk about opinions rather than consensus.
Suggestion:
As Tamar Frankel -facilitator of the IFWP- suggested, consensus search has been carried out so that we could talk about work-in-progress.
> In spite of this, many of the results of the IFWP seem to reflect > clear
> consensus of the Internet Community, and -we believe- have been > correctly
> understood by IANA and incorporated in the Third Iteration of the > Bylaws.
Yes, they only want one draft for incorporation, so IANA needs to take on board the commercial and governmental interests it is currently not reflecting. You've got CIX, you need to get the others too, and that is by inclusion, not exclusion.
Suggestion:
Many of the results of the IFWP seem to reflect clear consensus of the Internet Community, and -we believe- have been correctly understood by IANA and incorporated in the Third Iteration of the Bylaws.
> In some other issues, the Consensus is not that clear. One of them is > the > type of membership that this organisation will have, a key issue, as > any > non-profit corporation must have members. Almost everybody seems to > agree > that membership organisations should participate in the New IANA as > members. We support this view. There are opinions in the sense that > "anybody" could become a member, but this opens the organisation to > "capture" by a powerful company with many customers, specially if > voting > through proxies is allowed.
Javier, to be rigorous, if you exclude the customers, you exclude your stakeholders. The way forward is competition, not legislation. Hence the expansion of TLDs, I thought.
Suggestion:
In some other issues, the Consensus is not that clear. One of them is the type of membership that this organisation will have, a key issue, as any
non-profit corporation must have members. Almost everybody seems to agree that membership organisations should participate in the New IANA as members. We support this view.
> The model developed for PAB, which seems to > work quite well, does not allow individual members, and we think it > could > be applied to the New IANA.
Why disallow individual members? Allow as many people to join as wish to pay the (hefty) dues.
> The participation of specific companies should > be analysed very carefully, specially if members are a primary source > of > financial stability for the New IANA. None of the funds received by > the > organisation may have any strings attached, nor the possibility of > attaching them later.
This is top-down, Magaziner and others asked for bottom-up. Also, it is unrealistic to expect organizations to join a forum without self-interest. IANA should take on board all workable suggestions for funding.
> We encourage IANA to continue with their work towards re-engineering > its > structures to fit into a non-profit organisation that will -in a fair > way- > regulate and manage the common resources of the Internet.
What is the non-profit into which IANA should fit?
Best regards,
MM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:34 PST