>
>-- LETTER FROM NTIA TO THE BOSTON WORKING GROUP ----------------------
>
>At 06:27 PM 10/20/98 -0400, Becky Burr wrote:
>
>October 20, 1998
>
>Mr. Karl Auerbach
>Boston Working Group
>
>Dear Mr. Auerbach:
>
> On October 2, 1998, the Boston Working Group made a submission in response
>to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>Statement of Policy entitled *Management of Internet Names and Addresses,*
>63 Fed. Reg. 31741 (June 5, 1998) (hereinafter the *Statement of Policy* or
>*White Paper*). The White Paper invited the private sector to come together
>and form a new, not-for-profit corporation to administer policy for the
>Internet Name and Address system (the *domain name system* or *DNS*).
>
> The public comments received by the Department of Commerce, in response to
>your submission and others, generally support moving forward with the
>structure outlined by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>Numbers (ICANN). The public submissions and comments received, including
>those outlined by the Boston Working Group which draws heavily on the ICANN
>proposal, however, also indicate that significant concerns remain about the
>substantive and operational aspects of the ICANN.
>
> In this light, there is a need to resolve a number of specific public
>concerns with the ICANN submission including accountability (financial and
>representational), conflict of interest, transparent decision-making, and
>country-code top level domains (ccTLDs). We are hopeful that a satisfactory
>resolution of these issues, leading to the creation of a broader consensus,
>can be achieved in the near term, in order that we may move forward with the
>transition process outlined in the White Paper. We appreciate your
>thoughtful and constructive participation in this process to date and your
>suggested revisions to the the ICANN submission. We hope that your
>organization will continue to work with ICANN and others to help bring about
>successful implementation of the White Paper.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> J. Beckwith Burr Associate Administrator (Acting)
>
>
>Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="icann.001"
>
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="icann.001"
>Content-Description: WordPerfect 6.1
>
>
>
>--- here is the attachment (which came in a word perfect format) -----
>
>-- LETTER FROM NTIA TO ISI -------------------------------------------
>
> October 20, 1998
>
>Dr. Herb Schorr, Executive Director
>USC Information Sciences Institute
>4676 Admiralty Way
>Suite 1001
>Marina del Rey, California 90292-6601
>
>
>Re: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>Dear Dr. Schorr:
>
> On October 2, 1998, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) made a
>submission on behalf of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>Numbers (ICANN)
>in response to the National Telecommunications and Information
>Administration (NTIA) Statement of Policy entitled "Management of Internet
>Names and Addresses," 63 Fed. Reg. 31741 (June 5, 1998) (hereinafter the
>"Statement of Policy" or "White Paper"). The White Paper invited the
>private sector to come together and form a new, not-for-profit corporation
>to administer policy for the Internet name and address system (the "domain
>name system" or "DNS").
>
> Based on a review of ICANN's submission, other public submissions, and on
>public comments on those submissions, the Department of Commerce regards the
>ICANN submission as a significant step towards privatizing management of the
>domain name system. Overall, the submissions we received supported moving
>forward with the ICANN structure. We note, however, that the public
>comments received on the ICANN submission reflect significant concerns about
>substantive and operational aspects of ICANN. We strongly recommend that
>you review and consider the many thoughtful and constructive comments posted
>at www.ntia.doc.gov. The submissions of the Boston Working Group and the
>Open Root Server Confederation, among others, articulate specific concerns,
>many of which we share. As you refine your proposal, we urge you to consult
>with these groups and others who commented critically on your proposal to
>try to broaden the consensus.
> The White Paper contemplates that the United States would enter into an
>agreement based on the principles of stability, competition, private
>bottom-up coordination and representation. The public submissions and
>comments indicate that there are remaining concerns in the area of
>accountability (representational and financial), transparent decision-making
>processes, conflict of interest, and ICANN's proposed role with respect to
>country-code top level domains (ccTLDs). These concerns are described below
>in greater detail.
>
> Under your submission, the Interim board is encouraged but not required to
>establish an open membership structure. Many commenters expressed the view
>that the principles of private, bottom-up coordination and representation
>set out in the White Paper are unlikely to be achieved in the absence of
>some type of membership-based structure. We believe ICANN should resolve
>this issue in a way that ensures greater accountability of the board of
>directors to the Internet community.
>
> Commenters also pointed out that the ICANN submission does not describe a
>mechanism to ensure financial accountability to the members of the Internet
>community who will be funding the organization. The absence of transparency
>and controls in the budget process could impose unnecessary burdens on
>Internet users and endanger the long term viability of ICANN and thus the
>stability of the Internet. We are interested in knowing how you plan to
>address these concerns.
>
> The White Paper envisions that the United States would enter into an
>agreement with a corporation that is governed on the basis of a sound and
>transparent decision-making process, which protects against capture by a
>self-interested faction. Commenters applauded your decision to provide
>notice of and seek public comment on any policies that substantially affect
>the operation of the Internet or third parties. But many submissions urged
>that the Board also regularly explain decisions that do not reach the level
>of "substantially affecting the interests of the Internet or third parties,"
>suggesting, for example, that such explanations could be included in
>promptly published minutes of the board and other decision-making meetings.
>
> In general, commenters emphasized the importance of establishing and
>guaranteeing open and transparent processes and avoiding the appearance of
>conflicts of interests with respect to the supporting organizations
>described in the ICANN proposal. For example, some commenters suggested
>that a system that permits officers and employees of the supporting
>organizations to serve on the ICANN board of directors threatens the
>independence of the board and should, accordingly, be prohibited.
>
> The White Paper indicates that the United States is prepared to enter into
>an agreement with an organization that reflects the geographic and
>functional diversity of the Internet community. A number of commenters
>expressed concern about the proposed interim board of directors and called
>for the establishment of mechanisms to ensure equitable representation of
>the Internet community, including developing regions, based on a transparent
>and democratic election process. We are interested in hearing how ICANN
>intends to address these concerns as additional interim board members are
>selected and as the process for electing the permanent board is adopted.
>
> One final issue raised relates to our assumption that national governments
>would continue to have authority to manage and/or establish policy for their
>own ccTLDs (except, of course, insofar as such policies adversely affect
>universal connectivity on the Internet). The ICANN submission, however, is
>silent with respect to ccTLD management, and we would appreciate an
>elaboration as to ICANN's intentions in this area.
>
> We hope that ICANN is prepared to address the concerns listed above in a
>manner that is consistent with the principles of stability, competition,
>bottom-up coordination and representation. The United States intends to move
>carefully but expeditiously to privatize DNS management. We therefore look
>forward to hearing ICANN's response to the concerns expressed during the
>recently completed comment period, and to meeting with you to discuss these
>issues. Assuming that the concerns described can be resolved
>satisfactorily, we would then like to begin work on a transition agreement
>between the United States and ICANN. In keeping with our commitment to the
>principles of openness and transparency, we plan to continue to facilitate
>public participation in the transition process.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
> Associate Administrator (Acting)
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:37 PST