CENTR Statement on Fourth Draft Definition of the New IANA

Hi,

I find the below statement of Niall O'Reilly on behalf of CENTR
entirely reasonable, and on behalf of the NA domain support it.

However I would like to point out that for the U.S. government to
privatize essential functions of the Internet in such a rush job
without prior consultation of the stake holders is quite incredible,
and then to encourage the two government contractors who have most to
gain to make up the proposal on how to do it, strikes me as an
unprecedented attempt at railroading the many smaller interested
parties. Parties which have created the Internet and brought it to
where it is today. Examples of the attempts at railroading can be read
in many reports from the recent meetings in Reston, Geneva and
Singapore.

I always thought that Democatization, Due Process, Avoidance of
Conflict of Interest and other democractic principle were fundamental
to the US government, at least that is what developing countries are
being told by the US aid agencies when it comes to funding requests.
But then I may be naive. However I am quite sure many lawyers will
make a lot of money of this.

I strongly urge to reconsider the deadline and move it back to at
least to the end of the year if not the middle of next year so the
privatization process (which I support in principle) can be done
right.

I urge (African) Domain Managers to come out strongly in support of my
above stated position(s) on this issue.


In message <3607DFB8.BB8D3404 at ucd.ie>, "Niall O'Reilly" writes:
> CENTR Statement on Fourth Draft Definition of the New IANA
> 
> 
> 	Edinburgh, 22 September 1998
> 
> 
> Scope of this Document
> 
> CENTR is in a position to speak on behalf of the European ccTLD Domain
> Registries and has already (March, July 1998) made known:
> 
> 	its position concerning the future governance of the Internet;
> 
> 	its requirements of the organisation which will be the
> 	successor (the "New IANA) to the present IANA; and
> 
> 	its readiness to participate in the definition of, and to 
> 	support the funding of this New IANA.
> 
> This document comments on the fourth draft definition (Postel, Battista,
> September 1998) of the Bylaws of the New IANA in the light of CENTR's
> clearly expressed position and requirements.
> 
> 
> Process leading to the Fourth Draft Definition
> 
> We have understood that the diverging opinions expressed at the
> Singapore IFWP meeting were taken into account by Jon Postel in
> preparing the third draft definition (Postel, August 1998) of the 
> New IANA. We find that this draft represents a reasonable consensus 
which CENTR can support.
> 
> We find it surprising that, in the process of preparing the fourth
> draft definition, a position paper from a particular stakeholder has 
> apparently been given equal recognition to that accorded to Jon Postel's
> documentation, as we understood it, of a consensus process.
> 
> This is a matter of global public interest and we believe that it is 
> inappropriate that a private company should be allowed to have such 
> influence in the process.
> 
> 
> Particular objections to the Fourth Draft Definition
> 
> Section IV.1.d of the draft appears to have the intent of binding
> the New IANA to the terms of agreements yet to be made between third
> parties.  It is our view that such a provision is entirely
> inappropriate. We cannot accept that the New IANA be bound in this way.
> 
> The intent of Section IV.1.e is unclear.  If the intent of this section
> is to ensure stability in the short-to-medium term, so that existing 
> contracts and relationships, in particular delegation of TLD's, between 
> IANA and involved parties are protected, the language of the section
> ought to make this clear.
> 
> If the intent is rather to copper-fasten existing positions indefinitely
> and to offer protection against the introduction of competition, we find
> the section unacceptable.
> 
> We fear that the headline set by sections  IV.1.d and .e will lead 
> to a situation where the process for establishing the proposed Domain 
> Naming Supporting Organisation will also be dominated by similar 
> private interests.
> 
> We find that the terms of Section V.6 do not ensure a sufficiently
> broad spread of international representation, but rather allow a
> majority of members of the Board to come from a single region.  We 
> require instead that no more than one board member be elected from 
> any support organization from each region.
> 
> 
> References
> 
> 	CENTR, March 1998 
> 	"RIPE CENTR Position Paper on Future Governance of the Internet"
> 	<http://www.ripe.net/centr/docs/governance.html>
> 
> 	CENTR, July 1998, 
> 	"CENTR Position on the New IANA structure"
> 	<http://www.ripe.net/centr/docs/response-white.html>
> 
> 	Postel, August 1998,
> 	"New Proposed Bylaws - Third Iteration"
> 	<http://www.iana.org/bylaws3.html>
> 
> 	Postel, Battista, September 1998, 
> 	"A Brief Explanation of the Joint IANA and NSI Documents ..."
> 	<http://www.iana.org/intro-coop.html>
> 
> 	Postel, Battista, September 1998, 
> 	"DRAFT BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES 
> 	 AND NUMBERS" <http://www.iana.org/bylaws-coop.html>
> 
> 	Postel, Battista, September 1998, 
> 	"ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED 
> 	 NAMES AND NUMBERS" <http://www.iana.org/articles-coop.html>
> 
> 
> For Boudewijn Nederkoorn, CENTR Policy Group Chair,
> 
> Niall O'Reilly
> 


el
-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse\         /                 Swakopmund State Hospital
<el at lisse.NA>         *        |                  Resident Medical Officer
Private Bag 5004       \      / +264 81 1246733 (c) 64 461005(h) 461004(f)
Swakopmund, Namibia     ;____/       Domain Coordinator for NA-DOM (el108)




-------- Logged at  Wed Sep 23 11:08:23 MET DST 1998  ---------