This just in from the wwtld mailing list:
Original-From: "Patrick O'Brien" <p.o.brien@domainz.net.nz>
Original-Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 05:25:29 +1300
--------------------
International Group Opposes Plan To Privatize Internet Governance
Asks White House For Stronger International Representation,
Internet-Style
Consensus Management
BOSTON, Oct. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- An International group of Internet
leaders
today announced their opposition to a plan to transfer management of the
Internet from the US Government to a private entity, claiming that the
plan is
undemocratic and ignores the consensus of the Internet community derived
in a
four month process of meeting and discussion on the Internet and around
the
world.
The Group called upon President Clinton and the U.S. Congress to ask
the
US Department of Commerce (DOC) to deny approval of the proposed
transfer
unless the entity is made more democratic and confirms to the consensus
of the
Internet community.
The proposal for a new authority, called ICANN (Internet Corporation
for
Assigned Names and Numbers), was recently submitted by Jon Postel,
Director,
of the Computer Networks Division at the University of Southern
California who
currently manages Internet naming and addressing under contract to the
US
Government.
A competing plan has been proposed by a group which has been dubbed
the
"Boston Working Group" (BWG). Key elements of the BWG proposals, which
are
missing from the ICANN proposal, include:
A. Clearer definition of accountability at Board level
B. Representation requirements for a truly International Board of
Directors
C. Governance structures that prevent capture by any particular
stakeholder group in recognition of the special monopoly status
of the
New Co
D. Transparency in all business affairs, particularly financial
aspects
in relation to business planning, budgeting and fee structures
E. Separation of policy creation and decision making to ensure
openness
in the administration of Internet assigned names, addresses and
protocol formation
F. Recognition of individual rights by adherence to international
standards including due process, personal privacy and human
rights
"Dr. Postel's current ICANN proposal doesn't meet the standards of
openness and public accountability required by the US Government's White
Paper," said Karl Auerbach, a long-time IETF participant and a member of
the
Boston Working Group (BWG) of the IFWP (International Forum for the
White
Paper).
Another IFWP participant, Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel of Internet
Texoma
in North Texas, said "We do not accept and must not allow Internet
governance
to be taken from a democratic institution, the US Government, and given
to one
which is appointed by one person to the exclusion of the entire
community."
Several International organizations have asked for increased
International
representation on the ICANN board. The Latin American and Caribbean TLD
Association (LACTLD) recently came out in opposition to the plan, mainly
because its board makeup and governing structure did not assure
participation
by Latin American stakeholders.
And other International leaders have also found problems with it.
"This
process is about creating a truly international organization, about
being
truly representative," said Patrick O'Brien, CEO for Domainz, The New
Zealand
Internet Registry Ltd.for .nz. "Where is the representation from Latin
America, or for Africa or a developing country in Asia?"
"The work of many people in IFWP meetings organized on four
continents
should not be ignored," added John S. Quarterman, a long-time Internet
expert,
in comments submitted to the US Government. At the same time, the BWG
reiterated the importance of its proposed modifications to ICANN's
bylaws that
would create a more open and accountable Domain Name management system.
The Boston Working Group represents the culmination of a series of
International meetings, dubbed the International Forum for the White
Paper
(see below for all Web URL references) held in Reston, VA and in Geneva,
Singapore, and Buenos Aires during the summer months to develop
consensus for
a plan to create a new self-government system for the Internet's domain
name
and IP address management systems.
DNS and IP address management are currently administered by the
University
of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI) via a
contract
with the US government. Postel, who is the Director of the Computer
Networks
Division at the University of Southern California, has carried out the
terms
of that contract for several years, working under the operational name
of
IANA. But last June, following a request for comments from the public,
the US
Government released a plan called the "White Paper," that would replace
IANA
with a private, non-profit corporation. The White Paper called for the
creation of a "bottom up" organization to be established by all Internet
stakeholders through the long-standing Internet self-governing process
of
consensus building. The IFWP meetings were called to create the
mechanism for
that consensus-building process.
The DOC recently signed a two-year extension with Network Solutions
Inc.
(NASDAQ:NSOL), extending its exclusive contract to manage the Internet
Registry for .com, .net, .org and .edu, which was set to expire on
October 7,
1998, through September, 2000. "With NSI managing the system under
contract
for two more years," said Jay Fenello, president of Iperdome Inc., an
alternative Domain Name Registry, "the Commerce Department now has
enough time
to consider the items of consensus that came out of the IFWP process but
were
not included in the ICANN proposal because of the rush to submit a plan
by
September 30."
The Boston Working Group believes that the ICANN proposal fails to
conform
to major IFWP consensus points and falls short of critical standards
required
by the White Paper. The White Paper included five fundamental criteria
that
guided the IFWP consensus building process, according to Tamar Frankel,
a law
Professor at Boston University, and the principle facilitator and
moderator of
the IFWP meetings.
The five guiding criteria were:
(1) Maintaining the stability of the Internet,
(2) Assuring representation of stakeholders
(3) Insuring accountability of the corporation and its board to the
members
(4) Exercise of the board's powers in an open and transparent
manner, and
(5) A structure that protects the corporation from capture.
"A close reading of the ICANN proposal shows that only two of these
criteria have been met by the current proposal," added Weisberg.
Groups that have joined with the BWG to protest the ICANN proposal
include
some of the Internet's most distinguished technical cadre, registries
and
registrars, and other organizations bound to implement these policies,
as well
as businesses seeking reliable tools of ecommerce and ordinary end
users.
SOURCE Boston Working Group
-0- 10/08/98
/CONTACT: Karl Auerbach 408-423-8585, karl@CAVEBEAR.COM, or Patrick
O'Brien of Internet Society of New Zealand Inc., +64-4-473-4567,
domainz@ISOCNZ.ORG.NZ, or Eric Weisberg of Internet Texoma, 903-813-4500
or
903-465-9331, weisberg@texoma.ne, or Jay Fenello of Iperdome, Inc.,
404-250-3242, Jay@Iperdome.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:36 PST