Hello;
I have been lurking on the list for the past several weeks, and have
also attended all the IFWP "events" during the same period. I have to
say I can not completely support the new version 3 IANA draft bylaws etc
at this point, for an apparently minor but (to me) very important
reason. I will be posting my comments to the IANA site (which I have
been loathe to do so far - check out who is mostly represented there and
you'll understand why) and will cc this list as well.
Here's a preview of my thinking:
My basic problem is with the financial governance structure of the new
entity. So far, *none* of the proposals on the table has addresses the
issue of who controls the money. Yes, we know who will pay (the
registrars, registries, regional address registries, etc, and, in the
end, the end users), but it is only the Board itself which will
determine how much to spend. This is a classic organizational structure
for any "Authority" and that is the crux of my problem with it.
When I think of an "Authority" I think of a quasi-governmental
organization which spends the public's money like water, has loads of
power and no accountability. In the present case, there have been
significant efforts to create accountability for policies (to the names
organization, the IP address organization, etc). But there is nothing in
place to create accountability for spending, and the inevitable
self-propagating, top heavy excesses we already see at Network
Solutions, not to mention at all the publicly funded authorities across
the world, will likely result. Yet no one has bothered to consider this
as a potential problem.
Well, it is - a big one. I can tell you that from my own professional
experience (I worked for the City of Boston for 15 years in various
management capacities, including creating legislation to control the
local mass transit authority, and developing an equitable funding
mechanism for the newly created water and sewer authority). In Mass.,
these and other uncontrolled Authorities became known as the "budget
busters" during the state's last financial crisis.
There needs to be some kind of mechanism in the new entity that will
create a counter-force to the desire to grow and to spend more and more
money (remember, the margins in this business are huge. A big budget can
"look" small when the margin is 75%+). It should probably be some kind
of a "budget committee" solely comprised of the groups that will fund
the new IANA. But it's got to be something more than just the Board
itself, since, as the bylaws state, their loyalty will be to the
corporation and not to their constituent groups.
I'm still thinking through the best way to present this concern and not
look like a spoiler, but for now, speaking as a member of PAB, we (PAB)
do not have unequivocal support for the third IANA proposal. I support
most of it - but I see this problem as a potentially major flaw we will
come to regret down the road...
Regards,
Bill
Bill Semich
President and General Manager
.NU Domain Ltd
bsemich@mail.nu
NIC JWS7
http://www.nunames.nu
".NU - The un.common domain"
Memberships: ISP/C, ISOC, AIPA, Internet Users Society - NIUE
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:35 PST