From owner-apple Mon Jul 6 22:12:02 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id WAA08807; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 22:12:02 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from geocities.com (mail4.geocities.com [209.1.224.24]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA08803 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 22:11:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from geocities.com (yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg [137.132.85.230]) by geocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA27032 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 06:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <35A0CDF5.8D8C6E90@geocities.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 21:15:33 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MILIS Apple Subject: TLD-ID: INDonesian DEsperate PENding Domain ENCumbrancE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hello: Just in case interested, the latest news regarding TLD-ID is available at regards, -- Rahmat M.Samik-Ibrahim VLSM-TJT http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6825 --- World Class dream, Kampong Class reality ... (m/tic) ---------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Thu Jul 9 12:49:56 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id MAA12362; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:49:56 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from zinc.singnet.com.sg (zinc.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.31]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA12358 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:49:50 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas0952.singnet.com.sg [165.21.58.62]) by zinc.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA07387 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:52:40 +0800 (SGT) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 98 11:54:18 Subject: FW: COMMERCE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE ON ENCRYPTION EXPORTS To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk FYI --- On Wed, 8 Jul 1998 22:50:27 -0400 "Ashley, Charlie H(MSMAIL)" wrote: 07/07/98 TEXT: COMMERCE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE ON ENCRYPTION EXPORTS (Daley announces new guidelines, eases controls) (570) Washington -- Under new guidelines issued by Secretary of Commerce William Daley, U.S. software companies will have more flexibility to export data-scrambling "encryption" technology to designated banks and financial institutions in 45 countries. U.S. companies will be able to export high level encryption products to eligible institutions without a license, after a one-time review, Daley said in a press released issued July 7. "This action gives our nation's financial institutions the flexibility they need to remain globally competitive," he said. "Importantly, it balances those needs with law enforcement, national security and foreign policy concerns." The Commerce Department said the 45 eligible countries are either members of the international anti-money laundering accord, the Financial Action Task Force or have enacted anti-money laundering laws. Following is the text of the press release with a list of the eligible countries: (begin text) SECRETARY DALEY ANNOUNCES NEW EXPORT GUIDELINES FOR FINANCIAL SERVICE ENCRYPTION PRODUCTS WASHINGTON -- Commerce Secretary William Daley announced today that the Clinton Administration has finalized guidelines to allow the export of U.S. manufactured encryption products of any bit-length when used by banks, financial institutions and their branches around the world to secure private electronic transactions. Strong encryption products -- with or without recovery features -- will be exportable to eligible institutions without a license, after a one-time review, to banks and financial institutions in 45 countries. Eligible institutions include banks, security firms, brokers and credit card companies. These new guidelines will affect encryption exports for almost 70 percent of the world's financial institutions and the world's 100 largest banks. Today's announcement follows last year's decision to allow special treatment of encryption products used to secure financial communications and transactions. "This action gives our nation's financial institutions the flexibility they need to remain globally competitive. Importantly, it balances those needs with law enforcement, national security and foreign policy concerns. Through steps like this we can continue to encourage the development of an electronic commerce system users can trust," said Secretary William M. Daley in a speech to exporters at the Commerce Department's Bureau of Export Administration's annual Update Conference. The 45 eligible countries are either members of the international anti-money laundering accord, the Financial Action Task Force, or have enacted anti-money laundering laws. The list of currently eligible countries is attached. Manufacturers and other exporters will be able to ship the products to these countries with only minimum reporting requirements. Products which have already been reviewed can be shipped to financial institutions of eligible countries under license exception without further review. Exports to banks and financial institutions in countries which are not eligible for license exception will continue to require approval under either export licensing arrangements or individual licenses. Applications for such licenses arrangements will be reviewed by agencies with a presumption of approval unless agencies raise specific concerns about a country or financial end user regarding participation in money laundering, narcotics trafficking or similar concerns. License Exception Eligibility List ANGUILLA ANTIGUA ARGENTINA ARUBA AUSTRALIA AUSTRIA BAHAMAS BELGIUM BARBADOS BRAZIL CANADA CROATIA DENMARK DOMINICA ECUADOR FINLAND FRANCE GERMANY GREECE HONG KONG HUNGARY ICELAND IRELAND ITALY JAPAN KENYA LUXEMBOURG MONACO NETHERLANDS NEW ZEALAND NORWAY POLAND PORTUGAL ST. VINCENT/GRENADINES ST. KITTS & NEVIS SEYCHELLES SINGAPORE SPAIN SWEDEN SWITZERLAND TRINIDAD & TOBAGO TURKEY UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES URUGUAY (end text) --------------------------- With Compliments: Chuck Ashley Economic Officer U.S. Embassy Singapore Tel: (65) 476-9470 Fax: (65) 476-9389 E-mail: ashleych@singawpoa.us-state.gov U.S. Embassy Singapore website: http://home.pacific.net.sg/~amemb/ U.S. Department of State website: http://www.state.gov -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 09/07/98 Time: 11:54:18 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Fri Jul 10 05:55:11 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id FAA03349; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 05:55:11 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id FAA03343 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 05:55:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from syr.edu (syru182-104.syr.edu [128.230.182.104]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA28426; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 16:57:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35A52EBE.1E4C374D@syr.edu> Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 16:57:35 -0400 From: Milton Mueller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Farmer , discussion-draft@giaw.org, apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: WIPO as internet mediator/arbitrator? References: <1135288085CAD111AADE00A0C9A93E500EB8@SU-SERVER> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Pete: There seem to be two basic areas from which our disagreements can be derived. Perhaps if they can be identified clearly and explicitly some progress can be made. 1. The immediate problem before us is the creation of a new organization to "own," and distribute usage rights to, domain names and IP addresses. I don't think trademark-related disputes over domain names fall within the scope of the organization, at all. Let me try to be very clear about what I mean by that. It does not mean that I believe disputes will not arise, or that they are unimportant and can be ignored. It does mean that I don't want this new organization to transmogrify into a regulatory agency, an institution that tries to control how people use the Internet. The entity should merely facilitate participation in the Internet by coordinating exclusive resource use. This is a very limited technical function, analogous to telephone numbering. Of course, disputes will arise. A very small minority of them will be trademark-related. Insofar as possible, this organization needs to be *insulated* from those disputes, not dragged into them. The disputes need to be settled by other agencies--courts, mediation, arbitration, etc. are all viable options. But at this stage, it is essential to establish a clear dividing line between the scope of this organization and trademark disputes. 2. Any discussion of this problem must recognize at the outset that, just as there is a need to protect trademark holders from "piracy" and infringement, so there is a pressing need to protect innocent domain name holders from overly aggressive trademark owners. One of the things we have learned from the disastrous NSI dispute resolution policy is that registry policies that privilege trademark rights in name distribution *invite* unfair challenges from trademark owners. Such policies encourage someone who holds a trademark on a name to challenge anybody who uses that character string, regardless of whether the users are infringing or squatting. For a trademark owner, such behavior is perfectly rational, if not ethical: they can stake a claim to a potentially valuable resource by so doing. The two points above, taken together, explain why you find myself and others resisting so strenuously the notion of handling dispute resolution under the auspices of WIPO. First, you are linking the debate over the creation of a new Entity to the dispute resolution process, thereby violating premise #1. Second, you are linking the dispute resolution process to an institution concerned exclusively with the protection of IP rights, thereby violating premise #2. The issue is not really that WIPO is "evil" or "biased," it is simply that any process that involves it must by definition insert trademark claims into areas where they do not, in many if not most cases, belong. So my preferred policy is simply this: let's create the new Entity, let's indemnify it and all registries against trademark claims arising from the distribution of names. Let's not even *discuss* WIPO or its methods at this point until the Entity is safely established and can go about its business of distributing names and numbers to registries and users. Everyone who is in favor of Internet development seems to accept the notion that ISPs and other Internet infrastructure providers should not be held responsible for illegal content, such as pornography, that happens to flow over their systems.* By the exact same logic, we do not want to make the Entity or the registries it authorizes responsible for the activity of users who violate trademark rights. That course of action can only result in the transformation of the Entity into a supranational regulatory agency. As they say in the vernacular: don't go there! --MM * In fact, nations and localities that attempt to impose content controls have a much stronger and more valid complaint than the trademark interests. It is easy to show that national systems of content control are totally undermined by the Internet. It is NOT possible to show that trademark rights have been significantly undermined. Trademark owners have won every case against infringers, and many cases against non-infringers. * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Sat Jul 11 00:13:41 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id WAA23849; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 22:00:50 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from simba.mpinet.net (microproducts.com [208.6.196.50]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA23844 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 22:00:43 +0900 (JST) Received: from [208.6.210.146] by simba.mpinet.net (NTMail 3.03.0017/42.aadq) with ESMTP id na852215 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:03:20 +0100 X-XXXXXX: X-XXXXXX: Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:59:16 -0400 To: ajp@glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) From: Ken Stubbs Subject: Re: Study: Domain Name Law Favoring Big Business Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <08495639522862@glocom.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <13032029017355@mpinet.net> Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk professor mueller was at the IFWP conference in d.c. and introduced himseld as a "observer". he then subsequently proceeded to inject his perspective, which appears to be strongly against the traditional trademark holders, into any session where he could have himself heard. as the chairman of CORE and as one who strongly advocates for additional tld's on the basis that lack therof is stifling internet growth, i would be quite disappointed that anyone would assume that he advocates similiar position to ours. we acknowledge the right of legitimate trademark holders to have a process available that provides them with an opportunity to remedy "clear infringements" on the tradmarks. we feel that there has to be a process in place which protects the "famous trademarks" but still provides equity against overzealous advocation against the little person who registers a domain with a string of text which bears some resemblence to the text in a trademark name. mr mueller certainly does not speak for the majority of responsible parties who support this position. his article as well as some of his interpretations of the results could easily be questioned for bias. ken stubbs At 05:50 PM 6/26/98 +0900, you wrote: >http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/domnam/TWB19980625S0019 > >Study: Domain Name Law Favoring Big Business >(06/25/98; 8:16 p.m. ET) >By John Borland, TechWeb > >Domain name disputes are being linked too closely to trademark law, >and judges are handing too much power to big trademark holders online, >according to a study out of Syracuse University. > >While some disputes over domain names belong in trademark court, most >cases don't fit the legal guidelines, concludes the study by Milton >Mueller, director of Syracuse's Graduate Program in Telecommunications >and Network Management. The result has been a shift of legal power >toward big corporations with broad legal resources and an expansion of >trademark rights online, Mueller said. > >---- > >See URL for the rest. > >Adam > > >* APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * > Ken Stubbs Chairman - Executive Committee Internet Council Of Registrars (CORE) World trade Center Geneve Switzerland Domain Names International, LLC U. S.Tel. 1 (352) 750-9776 U.S. Fax. 1 (352) 750-9569 U.S.Toll Free - 1 (888) 597-2846 e-mail : kstubbs@corenic.org Http://www.corenic.org * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Sat Jul 11 08:43:47 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id CAA29520; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 02:40:14 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from simba.mpinet.net (microproducts.com [208.6.196.50]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id CAA29511 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 02:40:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from [208.6.210.177] by simba.mpinet.net (NTMail 3.03.0017/42.aadq) with ESMTP id ma853280 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 13:42:55 +0100 X-XXXXXX: X-XXXXXX: Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 13:38:56 -0400 To: Milton Mueller From: Ken Stubbs Subject: Re: Study: Domain Name Law Favoring Big Business Cc: apple@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <35A6406C.C02517CC@syr.edu> References: <13032029017355@mpinet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <17425560324495@mpinet.net> Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk mr mueller: 1. you never used the word "participant" in your introduction (other's close to me whom i don't even know confirmed that observation) 2. one becomes "informed" by being involved in the process. you indulge yourself by studying the process and assuming you are more informed than those involved in it. we are not clinical trial animals and, whether you like it or not, you can't predict our behavior. people like you love to "stir the pot" and observe what happens. 3. creating additional controversies only creates delays and resulting frustrations (which i guess from your perspective gives you additional opportunities to "study the reactions" your lab specimen's to this "external stimuli") 4. what "mr stubbs" is trying to say is that he has much more respect for people who are willing to express their intentions and perspectives prior to engaging in a dialogue. he also has more respect for individuals who approach any session like we had in d.c. with a perspective consist ant with the goals of the group which was to try to find a common ground to move forward on. say hello to mr marx for me ! ken stubbs At 12:25 PM 7/10/98 -0400, you wrote: >Correction! >I explicitly introduced myself as a "participant-observer," which is an in-joke >among social scientists who use ethnographic methods. The idea being that in >the world of social investigation, it is impossible to be a detached >"observer"; one's very presence in a situation irrevocably changes it. Or, as >one famous social philosopher with whom I rarely agree once said, "Philosophers >have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to >change it." > >What is Mr. Stubbs trying to say, anyway? That I have no right to "inject my >perspective" into the deliberations? Whatever one thinks of my studies and >opinions, at least it is evident that they are not motivated by simple economic >self-interest. I believe that this process badly needs the participation of >more informed and disinterested academics, and less bickering among narrowly >conceived special interests. > >The quote is from Karl Marx. Have fun with it, Ken. Internet users of the >world, unite!!! >--MM > Ken Stubbs Chairman - Executive Committee Internet Council Of Registrars (CORE) World trade Center Geneve Switzerland Domain Names International, LLC U. S.Tel. 1 (352) 750-9776 U.S. Fax. 1 (352) 750-9569 U.S.Toll Free - 1 (888) 597-2846 e-mail : kstubbs@corenic.org Http://www.corenic.org * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Sat Jul 11 10:13:48 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id BAA27531; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 01:22:42 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id BAA27520 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 01:22:30 +0900 (JST) Received: from syr.edu (syru182-104.syr.edu [128.230.182.104]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA26775; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35A6406C.C02517CC@syr.edu> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:25:16 -0400 From: Milton Mueller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ken Stubbs , apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: Study: Domain Name Law Favoring Big Business References: <13032029017355@mpinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Correction! I explicitly introduced myself as a "participant-observer," which is an in-joke among social scientists who use ethnographic methods. The idea being that in the world of social investigation, it is impossible to be a detached "observer"; one's very presence in a situation irrevocably changes it. Or, as one famous social philosopher with whom I rarely agree once said, "Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." What is Mr. Stubbs trying to say, anyway? That I have no right to "inject my perspective" into the deliberations? Whatever one thinks of my studies and opinions, at least it is evident that they are not motivated by simple economic self-interest. I believe that this process badly needs the participation of more informed and disinterested academics, and less bickering among narrowly conceived special interests. The quote is from Karl Marx. Have fun with it, Ken. Internet users of the world, unite!!! --MM Ken Stubbs wrote: > professor mueller was at the IFWP conference in d.c. and introduced himseld > as a "observer". he then subsequently proceeded to inject his perspective, > which appears to be strongly against the traditional trademark holders, > into any session where he could have himself heard. > > as the chairman of CORE and as one who strongly advocates for additional > tld's on the basis that lack therof is stifling internet growth, i would be > quite disappointed that anyone would assume that he advocates similiar > position to ours. we acknowledge the right of legitimate trademark holders > to have a process available that provides them with an opportunity to > remedy "clear infringements" on the tradmarks. we feel that there has to > be a process in place which protects the "famous trademarks" but still > provides equity against overzealous advocation against the little person > who registers a domain with a string of text which bears some resemblence > to the text in a trademark name. > > mr mueller certainly does not speak for the majority of responsible parties > who support this position. his article as well as some of his > interpretations of the results could easily be questioned for bias. > > ken stubbs > > At 05:50 PM 6/26/98 +0900, you wrote: > >http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/domnam/TWB19980625S0019 > > > >Study: Domain Name Law Favoring Big Business > >(06/25/98; 8:16 p.m. ET) > >By John Borland, TechWeb > > > >Domain name disputes are being linked too closely to trademark law, > >and judges are handing too much power to big trademark holders online, > >according to a study out of Syracuse University. > > > >While some disputes over domain names belong in trademark court, most > >cases don't fit the legal guidelines, concludes the study by Milton > >Mueller, director of Syracuse's Graduate Program in Telecommunications > >and Network Management. The result has been a shift of legal power > >toward big corporations with broad legal resources and an expansion of > >trademark rights online, Mueller said. > > > >---- > > > >See URL for the rest. > > > >Adam > > > > > >* APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * > > > Ken Stubbs > Chairman - Executive Committee > Internet Council Of Registrars (CORE) > World trade Center > Geneve Switzerland > Domain Names International, LLC > U. S.Tel. 1 (352) 750-9776 > U.S. Fax. 1 (352) 750-9569 > U.S.Toll Free - 1 (888) 597-2846 > e-mail : kstubbs@corenic.org > > Http://www.corenic.org > * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Sat Jul 11 19:45:51 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id TAA21129; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 19:34:24 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from green.glocom.ac.jp (green.glocom.ac.jp [210.160.32.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA21125 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 19:34:19 +0900 (JST) Received: from dyn016.glocom.ac.jp (dyn016.glocom.ac.jp [210.160.33.16]) by green.glocom.ac.jp (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na082797 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 19:36:12 +0900 X-Sender: ajp@popper.glocom.ac.jp X-Mailer: Macintosh Eudora Pro Version 2.1.4-J Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 19:37:24 +0900 To: apple@apnic.net, ap-fwp-sc@apia.org From: ajp@glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Subject: EU meeting on the future of IANA/DNS Message-Id: <10361280400037@glocom.ac.jp> Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Information on the EU's July 7 meeting on the future of IANA/DNS is available at URL Conclusions from the meeting follow: Internet: the Future The future organisation and management of Internet naming and addressing. Conclusions of the European consultative meeting, Brussels, 7 July 1998. Representatives of the European private sector and other Internet participants met in Brussels, Tuesday this week. Several Member States and representatives of non-EU Governments were present as well as the international organisations together with a wide range of associations of industrial and service provider organisations. The meeting was hosted by the European Commission. Welcoming more than 140 participants to the meeting in the Brussels Palais des Congr$B=T(J, Christopher Wilkinson (DG XIII) said that he had never before seen such a broad and representative cross section of European Internet stakeholders meeting together. Background: This meeting follows the publication of a US Green Paper in February of this year, an official response to the US Government on behalf of the European Union by the Presidency of the Council and the European Commission. The US Government then published a policy statement (the "White Paper") on 5 June 1998. The EU has welcomed the US White Paper because the US Government has acknowledged many of the concerns and criticisms voiced by the EU and the position has been rectified. The European Commission is consequently recommending to the European private sector to participate actively in the implementation phase. The US White Paper calls for the creation of a new private not-for- profit corporation, which will assume the responsibilities of the existing IANA organisation and become the self-regulatory body responsible for the Internet naming and addressing system. The new corporation would also manage IP addresses, IP protocols and the Root Server system. The US White Paper envisages that the new organisation should be in place by the end of September 1998, at least on an interim basis. The European Meeting: The meeting in Brussels today addressed most of the critical issues that arise from the implementation of the White Paper. Sessions had been organised to deal with the future structure and organisation of the new Corporation, the policies for Registries and Registrars, the preconditions of stability, reliability and growth of the Internet, and policies for the Domain Name System. Reorganisation of IANA: The meeting agreed with the outline of the future structure of the IANA Corporation and emphasised the following points: * the importance of a broad and open Membership of the future Corporation, including business and consumer representatives; * significant participation and representation of existing organisations responsible for IP addressing (e.g. RIPE, ARIN and AP- NIC) and the Internet DNS including the national ccTLD Registries and the Internet Service providers (ISPs); * The need for fair and transparent financial mechanisms to fund the new Corporation and its future activities. * Continued open, bottom-up standardisation processes in the context of the IETF and the IAB. Registries and Registrars: The meeting reached a consensus on the following principles: * Competition in the registration market. Early opening of the InterNIC registries to access by all qualified Registrars. * early consideration by the new Corporation of the creation of appropriately structured new generic Top Level Domains, linked to the needs of the business and user community; * All gTLDs to be operated by shared not-for-profit Registries on a cost recovery basis. Restoration of the InterNIC Registries to a not- for-profit operation on the basis of the announced agreement between the US Government and NSI. * Development of flexible and market oriented registration policies which take full account of the requirement for transparency and reliability of DNS registration data, and ensure the portability of names and the long-term scaleability of the generic TLDs. * Access to the name space has to be open on a non-discriminatory basis. Stability and reliability: The meeting agreed that: * The master Root Server should be transferred to the new Corporation at an early date and steps should be taken to guarantee the neutral, independent and reliable operation of the Root Server system. * Current policies and practices regarding Internet protocols and standards should be maintained. Global stability and interoperability of all Internet services is a critical long-term requirement. * Policies for the allocation and use of the IP addresses should be transparent and non-discriminatory and should take full account of the future growth in demand for Internet addresses, evolving from the current system. The Domain Name system is currently implemented globally by both national ccTLD Registries and the generic TLDs. Both systems have an important role to play in the European DNS market. * Users$B%f(J requirements include transparency and predictability of the DNS, and automatic and reliable access to all other users through the Root Server system. * The new Corporation should promote the early development of global Internet directories. * Industry requirements include consistent, flexible and market oriented registration policies, including dispute resolution. * The meeting concluded that the new Corporation should expand the current generic TLD name space progressively so as to accommodate future global growth in the Internet. * The meeting welcomed the proposed reorganisation of the .US domain and drew attention to the possible creation of a .EU domain. * Participants endorsed the general principle that existing trademark rights should be protected in the context of the Domain Name System. Registries and Registrars should maintain registration data such that trademark owners might readily identify possible infringement of their rights; trademark owners should also be able to refer possible disputes to the Courts in the relevant trademark jurisdictions. * In order to ensure consumer confidence, an effective legal and commercial framework. including dispute resolution, needs to be in place prior to the introduction of new gTLDs. * The autonomy of national ccTLDs should be preserved although it is recognised that some harmonisation of practices is desirable. Conclusions - The International Process: The participants in the meeting in Brussels decided to participate in the international process and to represent the legitimate interests of European industry and users in all phases of the current reorganisation of the Internet. This includes especially the designation of an internationally representative Interim Board of Directors, and the preparation of the Articles of Association for the new Corporation. These should provide for participation and representation of Internet interests world-wide on the basis of a broad and open membership within the structure of the proposed Corporation. The meeting noted that the IFWP organisation had encouraged the European private sector to participate in their work. An open Panel of Participants will be constituted to meet with their homologues in the United States and in the Asia-Pacific Region during the coming weeks. Full European participation in an appropriately constituted international meeting following the INET$B%f(J98 in Geneva will be assured. The European Commission is encouraging the private sector in the EU to take up the global implementation of Internet management policies and structures, within the broad policy framework provided by the EU Reply and the US White Paper. The meeting also welcomed the proposal to establish a web page and an electronic mailing list to facilitate exchange of information and open policy discussion among the participants in the meeting and other interested parties. The Panel of participants should meet in a few days$B%f(J time to follow up on these results and to prepare their work. The Panel of participants will also invite Internet participants in the Asia-Pacific Region, and elsewhere in the world to communicate their interest in co-operating with the European and North American groups which are coming together in this area. Participants welcomed the fact that there was significant international participation from all parts of the world in the Brussels meeting today. ________________________ Brussels, 7 July 1998. * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Sun Jul 12 04:47:25 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id BAA28165; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 01:42:53 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from copper.singnet.com.sg (copper.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id BAA28155 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 01:42:40 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas1329.singnet.com.sg [165.21.52.39]) by copper.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA11662; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 00:45:23 +0800 (SGT) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 00:41:36 Subject: RE: Suggestions for a New Organizational Structure To: iana-announce@ISI.EDU, Jon Postel Cc: postel@ISI.EDU, iana@ISI.EDU X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Great suggestions John, worth considering. Particularly appreciate your efforts to ensure global representation and to ensure there is fair representation between the commercial and non-commercial user community. Most of all, appreciate the very clear statement and endorsement of the White Paper. This will certainly help clear the air of whether you support its implementation. Also appreciate yur support of an open consultative process, and was pleased that JIm Simms represented you at the IFWP meeting in DC, and that you presented a statement. We in AP, look forward to further sharing our views with you and hope to have you join the Singapore meeting too, BTW, would like you to know that your long standing service to the greater good of the Internet world is greatly appreciated. Regards, Laina RG --- On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Jon Postel wrote: IANA endorses the general approach suggested in the United States Department of Commerce NTIA white paper on "Management of Internet Names and Addresses" and offers the following comments on how it might be implemented. In order to accomplish this, some individuals or groups must take the initiative to generate this consensus, and various organizations, some pre-existing and some created for this very purpose, have announced a variety of meetings that have the stated intention of helping to create this consensus. IANA encourages all such efforts that can be helpful to that objective. ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 12/07/98 Time: 00:41:36 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Sun Jul 12 08:55:07 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id BAA28187; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 01:43:29 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (iron.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.29]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id BAA28171 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 01:43:16 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas1329.singnet.com.sg [165.21.52.39]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA09872 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 00:45:57 +0800 (SGT) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 00:48:04 Subject: FW: Suggestions for a New Organizational Structure To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk --- On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Jon Postel wrote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hello: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is pleased to welcome you to this list of people with an interest in the formation of a new IANA. To help focus efforts and facilitate consensus towards the implementation of a new organization, we will be sending you various announcements and drafts for your review and comments. In order to provide some background information for the next messages on this list, enclosed please find a suggestion for a new organizational structure that was posted on 26 June 1998 in case you did not see it on the IANA web site at www.iana.org. --jon. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Suggestions for a New Organizational Structure IANA endorses the general approach suggested in the United States Department of Commerce NTIA white paper on "Management of Internet Names and Addresses" and offers the following comments on how it might be implemented. First, as the White Paper makes clear and as is obvious from both the history and function of the Internet, whatever new structure is created must be the result of a true consensus of the relevant stakeholders. Given the diversity of those stakeholders and their dispersion throughout the world, obtaining input, much less consensus, is a difficult task. In order to accomplish this, some individuals or groups must take the initiative to generate this consensus, and various organizations, some pre-existing and some created for this very purpose, have announced a variety of meetings that have the stated intention of helping to create this consensus. IANA encourages all such efforts that can be helpful to that objective. IANA has few resources of its own, and thus cannot sponsor such events. In addition, given the number and geographic diversity of the meetings already announced or contemplated, Dr. Postel could not possibly attend them all. For others who are not able to attend any of the various meetings, IANA is also providing an opportunity for public comment through its web page (www.iana.org). Like many of those involved in this process, Dr. Postel has thought about the issues and has some views. He recognizes that those views, like those of other interested parties, should be made available in the spirit of developing the consensus that is critical to the success of this effort. As an initial contribution to the discussions that are already taking place, IANA offers the following suggestions about how the White Paper recommendations could be implemented. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. Basic Organizational Issues The White Paper calls for the creation of a new not-for-profit corporation to be incorporated in the United States. A non-profit corporation provides certain legal advantages, such as limited liability for officers and directors and the avoidance of tax on any income, and recognizes the non-commercial nature of the new entity's mission. Given the historical functions performed in the United States, and the need to transition these functions to the new entity, incorporation in the United States, and probably in California, is a logical step. We view this as a implementation detail, not a substantive issue. The nature and character of the new entity's Board will be the true test of its ability to represent the interests of stakeholders around the world. 2. The Purposes of the New Entity The White Paper describes the relevant purposes of the new entity well. They are (1) managing and performing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system; (2) managing and performing functions related to the allocation of Internet protocol address space to regional Internet number registries; (3) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet root server system; (4) overseeing policy for determining the circumstances under which new top level domains are added to the root system; and (5) coordinating the assignment of other Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet. 3. The Board It is critical that the new entity's Board meet several criteria: (1) represent the different interests of the various types of stakeholders; (2) represent relevant interests from around the world; (3) be able to function effectively. Meeting all these tests at once will be a challenge. The White Paper identifies four groups with an interest in Internet governance, and calls for each of these groups to have representation on the Board: (a) regional number registries; (b) the Internet Architecture Board; (c) domain name registries and domain name registrars: and (d) the Internet user community and industry. This is certainly one possible format. The general categories seem correct, although the "Internet user community and industry" is a broad group with a diverse set of participants. It might be worth considering a further subdivision of that category into commercial organizations and other users, or in some other way, to ensure that this category is properly represented on the Board. No doubt there are other formulas, but the important condition is that the Board as ultimately constituted be representative of the diversity of stakeholders. A critical issue is how to ensure that the Board is truly an international body that represent the various stakeholders around the world. There are a variety of ways this might be accomplished, including (1) limiting the number of directors from any one country to no more than a specified percentage of the directors, or (2) requiring those persons nominated for the Board by the various nominating organizations to be persons of diverse nationality. A limitation on the maximum number of directors from one country that can serve at any one time might be an effective way to accomplish this important objective. Each Board member should represent the interests of the Internet community as a whole. Once he or she takes a Board seat, they should not be the representative of a specific group, but rather a fiduciary for all those interested in and affected by the operation of the Internet. It is hard to imagine how the initial or transition Board can be established through formal election mechanisms. It is critical that the new entity be up and running sufficiently before September 30, 1998 so that it can undertake to manage, in conjunction with the Department of Commerce, the transition that is scheduled to take place at that time. Thus, this initial Board will almost inevitably have to be a true consensus group, arising out of the various meetings and discussions between the various interested stakeholders. Such a group might consist of clearly qualified and respected senior figures who did not intend to participate in the governance of his new entity past this initial transition, and who could undertake to both manage the initial transition and to develop consensus in the Internet community regarding further structural and operational details of the new entity. Because of the limited time available for a new entity to be created, and if we are to minimize any transition difficulties, all concerned should advance concrete suggestions as to who might be appropriate to serve on such an initial Board as soon as possible. Such a transition Board should serve for a relatively short time -- no more than one term -- and should probably be responsible for creating or recognizing the supporting organizations that should be the source of regular Board nominations. 4. Supporting Organizations These supporting organizations could have a variety of forms and functions. They could include: (a) an Address Supporting Organization, composed of representatives from regional Internet address registries (initially, ARIN, APNIC and RIPE-NCC); (b) a Domain Name Supporting Organization, composed of representatives from name registries and registrars (both generic and country code) of top level domains, as well as other groups and organizations that have an interest in name policy issues; (c) a Protocol Supporting Organization, initially composed of representatives from the Internet Architecture Board (presumably other organizations could eventually become members of this Supporting Organization); and (d) an Industry/User Supporting Organization, composed of representatives of organizations that represent industry and Internet users. As noted earlier, it may be that this latter organization would simply be too large and diverse to be effective, and perhaps could be further divided into two or more Supporting Organizations representing the various types of industry and other users. Minimal qualifications for membership in the Supporting Organizations should be established by the Board. Other than those minimal qualifications, however, each Supporting Organization should establish its own rules consistent with maintaining reasonably inclusive membership. The same Supporting Organizations could serve as both the Technical Advisory Committees for the Board (or as others have described them, the Names Council, the Address Council, etc.) and could also provide a list of nominees to the Board at the time that vacancies became available. Obviously, there are other ways both of these functions could be accomplished, and it will be a challenge to both establish the necessary organizations and clearly define their roles in the new organizational structure. These suggestions are intended to be only a starting point; the Board should have the power to create different or additional supporting structures as it sees fit. 5. Chief Executive The White Paper calls for the selection of a Chief Executive Officer to manage the new entity, under the direction of the Board. Presumably there would be other officers as needed, including perhaps a Chief Technology Officer. Because there have been many questions about this point, Dr. Postel would like to make it clear that he has no interest in being considered for the position of Chief Executive Officer of the new entity. He will, of course, do whatever he can to make sure that the new entity gets off the ground and begins to operate effectively as soon as possible 6. Funding The new entity will require funding. There are several possibilities. It could receive governmental funding, but this seems clearly undesirable for many reasons. It could receive corporate funding; while this possibility should not be discarded, it might not be desirable for this to be the only source of funds. It could receive foundation funding; while this may be useful as a source of interim funding, it should probably not be relied upon as the only or principal source of long-term funding. Finally, it could be funded by those who carry out the supporting functions, namely the Supporting Organizations and/or their members directly. The latter funding source seems the most logical, but there are many questions about how it could be implemented. These should be debated in the various meetings that are currently contemplated. It may well be that some special arrangements should be made for the transitional period, focusing on foundation and/or corporate grants, with the permanent funding mechanism to be established by the interim Board. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** We emphasize that these are initial thoughts, explicitly intended to be discussed, and we encourage everyone to comment. Our only request is that the comments be substantive and constructive, and that any criticisms be accompanied by specific suggestions for change or improvement. Public comments are welcome and solicited, and can be directed to comments@iana.org. Comments will be posted at www.iana.org. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you know someone who should be added to this list, please have them send a message to majordomo@iana.org with the line "subscribe iana-announce" as the body of the message. To remove yourself from this list, please send a message to majordomo@iana.org with the line "unsubscribe iana-announce" as the body of the message. ========================================================================= The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) P.O. Box 12607 Marina del Rey, CA 90295-3607 "Dedicated to preserving the central coordinating functions of the global Internet for the public good." ========================================================================= -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 12/07/98 Time: 00:48:04 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Mon Jul 13 07:33:13 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA11936; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 16:43:44 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (iron.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.29]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA11921 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 16:43:27 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas0932.singnet.com.sg [165.21.58.42]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA29342 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 12:06:20 +0800 (SGT) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 12:07:43 Subject: FW: BOUNCE apple@postoffice.apnic.net: Non-member submission from ["Norbert Klein" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk From: "Norbert Klein" To: Subject: Re: Study: Domain Name Law Favoring Big Business Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 23:50:27 +0700 Message-ID: <01bdacec$02aa0c80$816fa8c0@tiap> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 >What is Mr. Stubbs trying to say, anyway? That I have no right to "inject my >perspective" into the deliberations? Whatever one thinks of my studies and >opinions, at least it is evident that they are not motivated by simple economic >self-interest. I believe that this process badly needs the participation of >more informed and disinterested academics, and less bickering among narrowly >conceived special interests. Though I cannot provide any credentials as an academic (in this field), I still dare to inject my perspective as - at present - a country domain administrator, and for a small country in many respects - small definitely for the Internet. If I would have to care only for new sub-domains to be set up under ".kh" for entities and persons operating in Cambodia - I think that is the purpose, for which the DNS system was developed: to route mail to actual users - I would have less work. But there are obviously quite a number of people and companies outside of the country who think it serves their special economic intersts to register everything from Big Business, from Intel to Coca Cola, also in Cambodia, though none of them have a presence at all here (apart from the Intel chip in my computer and the drink I enjoy while writing). Norbert Klein Open Forum Information Exchange Phnom Penh/CAMBODIA -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 12/07/98 Time: 12:07:43 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Mon Jul 13 07:35:41 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id HAA22966; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 07:35:41 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id HAA22961 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 07:35:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from syr.edu (syru182-104.syr.edu [128.230.182.104]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA24217; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 18:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35A93AD7.D331AF10@syr.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 18:38:15 -0400 From: Milton Mueller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net, anr-talk@anr.org Subject: IFWP process controversies Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Apple participants: The International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) has held one meeting in the USA, and will soon hold second and third ones in Geneva and Singapore. The current steering committee of the IFWP is generating a growing amount of criticism and suspicion because of confusion about who it is, and how and why it makes decisions. Two messages expressing some of these concerns are appended to the bottom of this message. I wish to make it clear that I personally do *not* attribute any evil motives or conspiratorial actions to anyone, at this point. I think the problem is more likely caused by the rushed nature of the proceedings and a lamentable lack of Public Relations savvy on the part of certain people on the Steering Committee. I am sending this message to this list not to stir up trouble but, hopefully, to help avoid trouble. It is my understanding that APIA is represented on the steering committee of the IFWP. I don't know whether Izumi Aizu, Laina R-G, or someone else is the official representative. I call upon these representative(s) to head off the IFWP's growing crisis of legitimacy by engaging in regular communication with Apple and APIA members concerning the plans and processes of the IFWP Steering Committee. Just tell us simple things like: * when the SC met via conference call * what the essential business decisions of the meeting were * what plans were made that will affect the IFWP process (e.g., the agenda of the planned Singapore meeting) Really, this is an absurdly simple request, and it is incomphrensible to me why the current SC isn't doing it. As long as the current Steering Commitee fails to do this, rumors and controversies regarding this delicate process of transition will gain momentum, and we will all lose. Many, if not most, Internet "stakeholders" can only track these things online. The IFWP process is a politically complex, geographically distributed one. All SC members owe it to their constituencies to communicate about those proceedings in an open way. Milton Mueller Message 1. ================================= } }X-Sender: heath@pop.isoc.org }Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 13:46:38 -0400 }To: poc@gtld-mou.org, Brian Carpenter , } Erik.Huizer@sec.nl }From: Don Heath }Subject: Dixon }Cc: isoc-eu@imag.fr }Mime-Version: 1.0 }Sender: owner-isoc-eu@imag.imag.fr } }I just had a very good talk with Barbara Dooley regarding Dixon's }performance at the Brussels conference. She is in complete }agreement with me that he was wrong, out of line, incorrect, and }must be removed from a position of speaking at all for the IFWP! }It's being taken care of. He _may_ be able to speak for the EuroISPA, }_but_ there may be some question about that even!! } }Due to the sensitive nature of this matter, please try to keep this from }being distributed too widely. } }--- end forwarded text } Message 2: ============================ Jay Fenello wrote: > Question 7. > > While there are some encouraging signs with regard to the diverse Internet > community reaching a consensus, there are also some danger signs on the > path to September 30th. On one hand, we finally have a process that appears > to be supported by both the old and new stakeholder communities. On the > other, we still have many activities that are occurring behind the scenes > which could hijack this process at any time. > > Some of my concerns include: > > - The take-over of the open GIAW process under the IFWP banner. This has > been orchestrated by Barb Dooley of the CIX, and appears to be a hand > selected group of large trade associations. No process has been defined for > invitation to the steering committee, their meetings have been closed, and > many of the original organizers of the GIAW event were simply removed > without explanation. One week after the unanimous support for a "fair, open > and transparent" process at the GIAW event, the IFWP steering committee is > still practicing their secret ways. > > - The continued posturing of the POC/CORE supporters. Although many of the > concepts in the MoU have been clearly rejected by the U.S. Government and > many members of the Internet community, the POC/CORE bloc continues to > position the MoU as the only viable solution. This was obvious at the > recently concluded EC meeting in Europe. Their alignment with the European > governments is apparently an attempt to destroy Network Solutions, and to > force a socialistic control model on Internet governance. > > - The secret plans of the IANA (Jon Postel), the ITAG (IANA Transition > Advisory Group), and the Aspen Institute. The central theme among these > groups is that no consensus will emerge, in which case they will step > forward with an Interim Board and simply incorporate the new non-profit. > > In all of these scenarios, my concern remains the same: Internet Governance > and the business model under which the Internet will move forward are too > important to be decided by any narrowly defined special interest group. All > of the groups mentioned above are legitimate, respected, and should be part > of these deliberations. It is only when they try and resolve this debate on > their own, or among themselves, that the smaller and weaker stakeholders > (i.e. the entrepreneurial community, the free speech advocates, etc.) > become disenfranchised. > > What we have today is a power vacuum, and many groups are now circling > trying to be first in line to jump into the vortex. I suggest that the > members of Congress continue to monitor these developments. In the event of > anything less than a "fair, open and transparent" process is discovered, > Congress should be prepared to intervene in this process. > > Regards, > > Jay Fenello > President, Iperdome, Inc. > 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > "None of us knows where all this is heading, but if we get > it right, we have an opportunity that only comes once every > couple of hundred years." > -- Ira C. Magaziner * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Mon Jul 13 08:43:07 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id IAA23651; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:43:07 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (iron.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.29]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id IAA23646 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:43:02 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas2012.singnet.com.sg [165.21.53.202]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA28403; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 07:45:50 +0800 (SGT) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 98 07:27:23 Subject: RE: IFWP process controversies To: apple@apnic.net, anr-talk@anr.org, Milton Mueller X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dear Milton, Thank you for your e-mail (although you may want to be careful about retransmitting other people;s e-mails, -the one below specifically says that becasue of the sensitive nature of the e-mail it was not to be distributed widely and I think that was to be respected I think?...:-( I have been to date representing APIA at the Steering Committee calls (started off being at midnight, now they are at 9pm) and Mr Izumi Aizu and Mr Pindar Wong officially represented APIA at the IFWP meeting in Washignton DC. I have kept APPLe readers up to date of events leading up to DC. There is no secrecy intended from IFWP except for certain individuals having personal crisis that take time away from full transparency (e.g. Barbara's husband is in very critically ill condition...we should all pray for his recovery) The Steering Commitee of the IFWP is open to any not-for-profit associaiton and although money is not the issue, they are encouraged to bcome sponsors. Sponsors can give no more than US$5,000 so that no one entity can be seen to hijack the event. From what I understand, IFWP was an attempt to open up the White Paper implementation process and be as inclusive as possible. That is the only reason APIA joined in the first place. Now APIA has brought on APNIC, APNG etc from this region to join in as organisers for the AP regional IFWP meeting. >From what I understand, the GIAW started off organising things well, but many were suspicious of it since they thought it was an NSI event. The IFWP by coming in and working with GIAW was an effort to overcome these suspicions and ensure that it was as inclusive as possible, Thos who were in DC would know what a sucess the process of inclusion was. There were no leaders and there was free flow discussions. I don;t think anyone could have left that meeting feeling there was manipulations in the process. I saw people who have been at odds with each other for the last two years, even being religious abot these issues being very cordial and discussing issues together in the room. VERY good steps. You were there Milton, you should know...remember the great statements you managed to get your group to reach concensus on which are great milestones. To date, for the Geneva meeting, it will be co-organised by EuroISPA, ISOC, and other European organisations. The Steering Commitee only coordinates general details so we can send out press releases around the world etc. The Steering Committee DOES not go into substance of the Internet Governance issues. It is only an organising committee and helps take the financial burden of this organisation...i.e. to do the leg work. Europe has yet to finalise all details so no official announcement has been issued, excpet for the fact it will be at the venue of INET'98 and held on the 24th and 25th July 1998 (24th July was the original date for the Internet Summit of ISOC, so now ISOC is working on the IFWP meeting as part of that effort)They are now creating some new open lists for discussions. The AP meeting, will be co-organised by the several regional groups including APNIC, APIA etc. Since Mr Izumi Aizu is the Project Leader, I have not posted any details on APPLe yet(he has been busy on travels lately). We have yet to discuss details beyond the fact that it will be on the 12-13th August 1998 at the ANA Hotel in Singapore. Mr Magaziner has made it clear that only a new IANA that has been created by a process of inclusiveness, and global representation will be recognised. So helping make people aware of IFWP and using it as a process of inclusiveness is what it is all about. IFWP merely stands for International Forum on the White Paper, it in itself takes no positions since it is ruled by noone group. I hope this helps you. REgards, Laina RG --- On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 18:38:15 -0400 Milton Mueller wrote: Apple participants: The International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) has held one meeting in the USA, and will soon hold second and third ones in Geneva and Singapore. The current steering committee of the IFWP is generating a growing amount of criticism and suspicion because of confusion about who it is, and how and why it makes decisions. Two messages expressing some of these concerns are appended to the bottom of this message. I wish to make it clear that I personally do *not* attribute any evil motives or conspiratorial actions to anyone, at this point. I think the problem is more likely caused by the rushed nature of the proceedings and a lamentable lack of Public Relations savvy on the part of certain people on the Steering Committee. I am sending this message to this list not to stir up trouble but, hopefully, to help avoid trouble. It is my understanding that APIA is represented on the steering committee of the IFWP. I don't know whether Izumi Aizu, Laina R-G, or someone else is the official representative. I call upon these representative(s) to head off the IFWP's growing crisis of legitimacy by engaging in regular communication with Apple and APIA members concerning the plans and processes of the IFWP Steering Committee. Just tell us simple things like: * when the SC met via conference call * what the essential business decisions of the meeting were * what plans were made that will affect the IFWP process (e.g., the agenda of the planned Singapore meeting) Really, this is an absurdly simple request, and it is incomphrensible to me why the current SC isn't doing it. As long as the current Steering Commitee fails to do this, rumors and controversies regarding this delicate process of transition will gain momentum, and we will all lose. Many, if not most, Internet "stakeholders" can only track these things online. The IFWP process is a politically complex, geographically distributed one. All SC members owe it to their constituencies to communicate about those proceedings in an open way. Milton Mueller Message 1. ================================= } }X-Sender: heath@pop.isoc.org }Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 13:46:38 -0400 }To: poc@gtld-mou.org, Brian Carpenter , } Erik.Huizer@sec.nl }From: Don Heath }Subject: Dixon }Cc: isoc-eu@imag.fr }Mime-Version: 1.0 }Sender: owner-isoc-eu@imag.imag.fr } }I just had a very good talk with Barbara Dooley regarding Dixon's }performance at the Brussels conference. She is in complete }agreement with me that he was wrong, out of line, incorrect, and }must be removed from a position of speaking at all for the IFWP! }It's being taken care of. He _may_ be able to speak for the EuroISPA, }_but_ there may be some question about that even!! } }Due to the sensitive nature of this matter, please try to keep this from }being distributed too widely. } }--- end forwarded text } Message 2: ============================ Jay Fenello wrote: > Question 7. > > While there are some encouraging signs with regard to the diverse Internet > community reaching a consensus, there are also some danger signs on the > path to September 30th. On one hand, we finally have a process that appears > to be supported by both the old and new stakeholder communities. On the > other, we still have many activities that are occurring behind the scenes > which could hijack this process at any time. > > Some of my concerns include: > > - The take-over of the open GIAW process under the IFWP banner. This has > been orchestrated by Barb Dooley of the CIX, and appears to be a hand > selected group of large trade associations. No process has been defined for > invitation to the steering committee, their meetings have been closed, and > many of the original organizers of the GIAW event were simply removed > without explanation. One week after the unanimous support for a "fair, open > and transparent" process at the GIAW event, the IFWP steering committee is > still practicing their secret ways. > > - The continued posturing of the POC/CORE supporters. Although many of the > concepts in the MoU have been clearly rejected by the U.S. Government and > many members of the Internet community, the POC/CORE bloc continues to > position the MoU as the only viable solution. This was obvious at the > recently concluded EC meeting in Europe. Their alignment with the European > governments is apparently an attempt to destroy Network Solutions, and to > force a socialistic control model on Internet governance. > > - The secret plans of the IANA (Jon Postel), the ITAG (IANA Transition > Advisory Group), and the Aspen Institute. The central theme among these > groups is that no consensus will emerge, in which case they will step > forward with an Interim Board and simply incorporate the new non-profit. > > In all of these scenarios, my concern remains the same: Internet Governance > and the business model under which the Internet will move forward are too > important to be decided by any narrowly defined special interest group. All > of the groups mentioned above are legitimate, respected, and should be part > of these deliberations. It is only when they try and resolve this debate on > their own, or among themselves, that the smaller and weaker stakeholders > (i.e. the entrepreneurial community, the free speech advocates, etc.) > become disenfranchised. > > What we have today is a power vacuum, and many groups are now circling > trying to be first in line to jump into the vortex. I suggest that the > members of Congress continue to monitor these developments. In the event of > anything less than a "fair, open and transparent" process is discovered, > Congress should be prepared to intervene in this process. > > Regards, > > Jay Fenello > President, Iperdome, Inc. > 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > "None of us knows where all this is heading, but if we get > it right, we have an opportunity that only comes once every > couple of hundred years." > -- Ira C. Magaziner * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 13/07/98 Time: 07:27:23 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Mon Jul 13 10:36:49 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id KAA25224; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:36:49 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from info.isoc.org (info.isoc.org [198.6.250.9]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA25218 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:36:42 +0900 (JST) Received: from linus.isoc.org (mailhub.isoc.org [192.168.1.10]) by info.isoc.org (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id VAA02640; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newlatitude.isoc.org (pool6.lucy.isoc.org [192.168.1.36]) by linus.isoc.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id VAA05373; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:29:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980712213220.009242a0@pop.isoc.org> X-Sender: heath@pop.isoc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:32:20 -0400 To: laina@singnet.com.sg, apple@apnic.net, anr-talk@anr.org, Milton Mueller From: Don Heath Subject: RE: IFWP process controversies In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 07:27 AM 7/13/98, laina@singnet.com.sg wrote: > >Dear Milton, > >Thank you for your e-mail (although you may want to be careful about retransmitting other >people;s e-mails, -the one below specifically says that becasue of the sensitive nature of the >e-mail it was not to be distributed widely and I think that was to be respected I think?...:-( I am writing specifically about the misuse of my email, by Einar Stefferud, regarding Dixon. There were many who had complained to me that ISOC was joining the IFWP and that the IFWP was a "closed" process. They arrived at that conclusion based upon comments made, at the Brussels meeting on the White Paper, by Jim Dixon. In my opinion, and in the opinion of others, Dixon misrepresented the objectives and purpose of the IFWP. I base this on several reports relayed from the Brussels meeting. My email was simple - I was pointing out that Dixon had misrepresented the IFWP and that he would not be officially speaking for them in the future. Of course, there is no censoring of Dixon; he can say anything he wants, but I believe he should not speak for the IFWP if he would be making incorrect statements. That people would use that email in a disguised attempt to discredit the IFWP by trying to impute some evil or conspiratorial activity behind closed doors, without checking with the primary source, is, itself, a misrepresentation. ISOC is, and always has been, committed to reaching international consensus on the resolution of the DNS and related issues. Anybody who cares to know my views, and me, would understand that I am fully committed to reaching a just and internationally acceptable resolution through a completely open process! Most of you do know that. Don * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Mon Jul 13 10:44:41 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id KAA25410; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:44:41 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from doorstep.unety.net (ns.unety.net [207.32.128.1]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA25406 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:44:37 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster (webster.unir.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA26406; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 20:47:16 -0500 Message-ID: <01a101bdadfe$d35e1a20$059f20cf@webster.unir.net> Reply-To: "Jim Fleming" From: "Jim Fleming" To: "Don Heath" , "Milton Mueller" , , , Cc: , Subject: Re: IFWP process controversies Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 20:37:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Don Heath >Anybody who cares to know my views, and me, would understand that I am >fully committed to reaching a just and internationally acceptable >resolution through a completely open process! Most of you do know that. > Don, Will you post all communication that you have with Jon Postel or the members of the ITAG to these open forums ? Will you post your suggestions for the 15 Board Members of the IANA Inc. to these open forums ? Also...where does the ISOC stand with respect to the web site: http://www.iana.org ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Mon Jul 13 12:02:00 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id MAA27104; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:02:00 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA27099 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:01:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from IST.SYR.EDU (ist.syr.edu [128.230.182.139]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA03353; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 23:04:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IST/SpoolDir by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21); 12 Jul 98 23:04:29 EDT Received: from SpoolDir by IST (Mercury 1.21); 12 Jul 98 23:04:11 EDT Received: from syr.edu by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21) with ESMTP; 12 Jul 98 23:04:09 EDT Message-ID: <35A97A00.DA6A714F@syr.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 23:07:44 -0400 From: mueller Reply-To: mueller@syr.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Don Heath CC: laina@singnet.com.sg, apple@apnic.net, anr-talk@anr.org Subject: Re: IFWP process controversies References: <3.0.5.32.19980712213220.009242a0@pop.isoc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Don: I very much want the IFWP process to work. I hope the intention of my previous message was clear to you and to the listmembers: in order to forestall the kind of bickering and posturing that now pervades some of the US-based lists, the Steering Committee has to be more proactive about releasing information about what it is doing. Otherwise, the information vacuum will be filled by others. The message in a nutshell: define yourself or be defined by others. As far as those of us online are concerned, the *only* public voice of IFWP's steering committee so far has been Jim Dixon. I don't know what he said in Brussels, but the public communications I have seen from him have effectively allayed some of the legitimate concerns people have about the Steering committee. I don't think he's trying to discredit you or the IFWP process; all indications are to the contrary. At any rate, if he's not a spokesperson for IFWP who is, and where is he/she? The real threat to the process comes from the apparent inability of the Steering committee to engage in the most basic, essential forms of public communication. *Please* take this advice, which is offered in a friendly, avuncular "this is for your own good" spirit: -- issue public announcements of your meetings/conference calls (no, they don't have to be "open,") -- designate a recorder to prepare a list of participants in the meetings, and a simple, concise outline of the agreed-upon action items. Get your committee to agree on the wording -- Send out email messages with the two abovementioned items of information to all relevant lists. (no, you don't have to respond to all the noise that follows, but....) --you might also use that opportunity to state IFWP SC's response to any important controversies or misperceptions that have arisen concerning its role. This is not hard to do. Is it? The simple fact is that events like Stef's "purloined letter" and Jay's complaints will abate if and only if the SC members develop a simple, disciplined, and clear public profile. Laina: you closed your response to me with the statement "I hope this helps you." I appreciate the thought, but the point of my message was that it's not me that needs help--it's the IFWP process. * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Mon Jul 13 14:35:10 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id OAA00216; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:35:10 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (iron.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.29]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA00211 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:35:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA11345; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:37:55 +0800 (SGT) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:37:55 +0800 (SST) From: Laina Raveendran Greene Subject: IFWP To: apple@apnic.net cc: anr-talk@anr.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Given the recent messages regarding the International Forum on the White Paper, I will strongly recommend that anyone interested to know more should check out the IFWP website. Click under the IFWP-Americas meeting, and all the transcripts, audiotapings, and even phtographs of the sessions are all on the website. Hope you find this useful, REgards, Laina RG * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Mon Jul 13 23:13:40 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id XAA09688; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 23:13:40 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from zinc.singnet.com.sg (zinc.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.31]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA09684 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 23:13:36 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas0404.singnet.com.sg [165.21.56.194]) by zinc.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA07033; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:16:23 +0800 (SGT) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 98 22:17:53 Subject: RE: IFWP To: apple@apnic.net, Laina Raveendran Greene Cc: anr-talk@anr.org X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Sorry I forgot to add the url. It is at www.ifwp.org. Thanks. Laina RG --- On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:37:55 +0800 (SST) Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: Given the recent messages regarding the International Forum on the White Paper, I will strongly recommend that anyone interested to know more should check out the IFWP website. Click under the IFWP-Americas meeting, and all the transcripts, audiotapings, and even phtographs of the sessions are all on the website. Hope you find this useful, REgards, Laina RG * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 13/07/98 Time: 22:17:53 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Tue Jul 14 06:43:37 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id GAA18821; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 06:43:37 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id GAA18814 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 06:43:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from syr.edu (syru182-104.syr.edu [128.230.182.104]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA22698; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:46:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35AA802F.DBA3B9AA@syr.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:46:23 -0400 From: Milton Mueller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net, discussion-draft@giaw.org Subject: Thanks, Jim Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------CCA398CE719D68B99BBBDAB2" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------CCA398CE719D68B99BBBDAB2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here it is. A nice, factual, timely report on an action by the Steering Committee. At last! --------------CCA398CE719D68B99BBBDAB2 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from SpoolDir by IST (Mercury 1.21); 13 Jul 98 17:33:56 EDT Return-path: Received: from syr.edu by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21) with ESMTP; 13 Jul 98 17:33:53 EDT Received: from cix.org (cix.org [198.151.248.81]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA21805 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by cix.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA16740 for discussion-draft-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:26:53 +0100 (BST) From: Jim Dixon To: Christopher Ambler cc: Jay Fenello , discussion-draft@giaw.org, domain-policy@open-rsc.org, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, com-priv@lists.psi.net, dns@ntia.doc.gov, commerce@mail.house.gov Subject: IFWP steering committee [was: Supplemental Answers for Congress] In-Reply-To: <002a01bdadcd$b5bff8c0$6bc82599@amblerhome> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-discussion-draft@giaw.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, Christopher Ambler wrote: > I would strongly suggest, then, that ORSC is qualified for participation. If > it > truly requires that an ORSC representative sign the papers and pay the > fee to incorporate, then we have a problem, as I see it - as this can be > done, but to what avail? This issue was discussed today on the IFWP steering committee. The conclusion reached was that any entity wanting to participate in the steering committee activities * must be not for profit * must be formally constituted (a corporation, company, etc) * must be private sector * and must be willing to participate in the frequent conference calls We also agreed to appoint a small credentials committee. Anyone wanting to join will apply to the credentials committee, whose job it will be to make sure that the applicant meets the above criteria. If they do, they are in. If they are rejected, they can appeal to the entire steering committee, who may or may not pay attention to the appeal. A list of those on the credentials committee should appear shortly on the www.ifwp.org Web site. Please remember that the steering committee's job is to be boring and practical. We need to get conferences organized in a very short time. If you want to talk policy, the steering committee is not the place to do it. Argue here, then go to the conference. If you don't like the way the conference is set up, then it's time to complain loudly about the steering committee. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65 --------------CCA398CE719D68B99BBBDAB2-- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Tue Jul 14 11:01:41 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id LAA23045; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:01:41 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from green.glocom.ac.jp (green.glocom.ac.jp [210.160.32.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id LAA23037 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:01:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from dyn047.glocom.ac.jp (dyn047.glocom.ac.jp [210.160.33.47]) by green.glocom.ac.jp (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id oa083448 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:03:35 +0900 X-Sender: ajp@popper.glocom.ac.jp X-Mailer: Macintosh Eudora Pro Version 2.1.4-J Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:04:42 +0900 To: apple@apnic.net, apcctld-discussion@apng.org From: ajp@glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Subject: MPT Publishes Vision of Internet Domain Name Administration Message-Id: <02033561505538@glocom.ac.jp> Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk (from Nikkei's AsiaBizTech web site.) http://www.nikkeibp.asiabiztech.com/articles/98071310.html MPT Publishes Vision of Internet Domain Name Administration July 13, 1998 (TOKYO) -- Japan's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) released a report entitled "Toward a new era of domain name administration for the 21st century," which focuses on the administration of Internet domain names. The report, released July 7, is a summary of discussions on Internet domain names by a working group that has met five times since March. Although it is not a formal statement of government policy, the report expresses views on an international system of domain name administration. It says that cooperation between the government sector and private organizations is essential for maintaining a stable domain- name registration system. The system for registering and administering domain names -- the character strings that identify destinations in communications over the Internet -- is due for some changes. The U.S. Department of Commerce issued a plan (called the "White Paper") in June for privatizing domain name registration and administration. The White Paper calls for the setting up of a new organization, led by the private sector, to administer domain names . The MPT report indicates a broad agreement with the White Paper, and it applauds the process of seeking submissions from a wide spectrum of interested international parties. The ministry has three principal aims in publishing its report. The first is to promote basic understanding of the domain administration system. The second aim is to express, as an organization representing the Japanese government, a vision of a global system for administering generic top-level domains (gTLDs) that can be used irrespective of the country of origin (for example, .com, .net, and .org). The third aim is to point out the need for an administration system for country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) allocated to nations (for example, .jp and .uk), and to call for coordination among nations in implementing such a system. A distinctive feature of the MPT report is its submissions on the need for a proper ccTLD registration system. The U.S. government's White Paper touches only briefly on this issue. Also, the report argues that the domain name administration organizations in each country, such as the Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC), should join forces to hammer out systematized domain- name allocation policies and that government representatives should participate as observers. As the report points out, some ccTLDs have been allocated regardless of the user's nationality, and the differences between allocation policies in various countries could create confusion among Internet users. The ministry is preparing to solicit broad-based public comments by publishing the report on its Web site as well as selling a printed version. (Nikkei Communications) * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Tue Jul 14 12:13:30 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id MAA25252; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:13:30 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from green.glocom.ac.jp (green.glocom.ac.jp [210.160.32.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA25237 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:13:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from dyn047.glocom.ac.jp (dyn047.glocom.ac.jp [210.160.33.47]) by green.glocom.ac.jp (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ia083468 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:15:21 +0900 X-Sender: ajp@popper.glocom.ac.jp X-Mailer: Macintosh Eudora Pro Version 2.1.4-J Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:16:27 +0900 To: apple@apnic.net, anr-talk@anr.org From: ajp@glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Subject: White Paper: Japanese translation Cc: ap-fwp-sc@apia.org Message-Id: <03152108605668@glocom.ac.jp> Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Japanese translation of the White Paper is now available. Those with Japanese capable browsers, please see URL HTML and Microsoft Word 97 (jp) formats. Any problems, corrections or comments, please let me know. NOTE: Asia Pacific meeting on the White Paper (IFWP-AP) will be held in Singapore, August 12-13, at the ANA Hotel. Keep watching the APIA and IFWP web pages for more details. Thanks, Adam Adam Peake GLOCOM Tokyo * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Tue Jul 14 13:13:22 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA29202; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:13:22 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from copper.singnet.com.sg (copper.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA29182 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:13:11 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas1801.singnet.com.sg [165.21.53.71]) by copper.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA09182 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:15:59 +0800 (SGT) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 12:17:42 Subject: FW: Implementation of a New IANA Organization To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk --- On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Jon Postel wrote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hello: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is pleased to welcome you to this list of people with an interest in the formation of a new IANA. To help focus efforts and facilitate consensus towards the implementation of a new organization, we will be sending you various announcements and drafts for your review and comments. --jon. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY (IANA) I. Introduction This is an expanded version of IANA's earlier discussion draft posted on 26 June 1998 on the implementation of the new not-for-profit Corporation referred to in the U.S Government's white paper on "Management of Internet Names and Addresses." This draft reflects both a variety of input on earlier documents as well as reports from the Reston and Brussels meetings concerning this issue. This draft will continue to evolve as input is received through additional international meetings in Geneva and Singapore and from comments received directly at IANA. We emphasize that this paper is a compilation of ideas expressed by the Internet community and are explicitly intended to be discussed. We encourage everyone to comment. Our only request is that the comments be substantive, and that any criticisms be accompanied by specific suggestions for change or improvement. Comments on any part of this document are welcome and solicited, and can be sent via email to comments@iana.org. Comments concerning this draft will be posted at www.iana.org (click on "New IANA", then click on "Public Comments"). II. Purposes The purpose of the new Corporation should be maintaining the operational stability of the Internet by: (1) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (2) managing and performing functions related to the coordination of the Internet address space; (3) managing and performing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system; and (4) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet root server system. III. Offices Given the historical functions performed in the United States, and the need to transition these functions to the new Corporation, incorporation as a non-profit corporation in the United States, and probably in California, is a logical step. The nature and character of the new Corporation's Board will be the true test of its ability to represent the interests of stakeholders around the world. There have been suggestions that point to the advantages of creating an additional office(s) outside of the U.S. Suggestions on the proposed responsibilities and location(s) of this office(s) are solicited. IV. Scope of Activities The Corporation should be dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the central coordinating functions of the global Internet for the public good. It should operate as a not-for-profit, cost-recovery, nonpartisan corporation for charitable and public purposes. V. Board 1. Powers The powers of the Corporation should be exercised, its property controlled and its business and affairs conducted, by or under the direction of the Board. Unless otherwise provided, the Board should act by a majority vote of Directors present at a meeting, subject to the quorum requirements. 2. Number and Qualification It is critical that the Corporation's Board meet several criteria: (1) represent the different interests of the various types of stakeholders; (2) represent relevant interests from around the world; (3) be able to function effectively. The Board should be comprised as follows: (a) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Address Supporting Organization; (b) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Domain Name Supporting Organization; (c) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Protocol Supporting Organization; and (d) Six (6) Directors nominated by the Industry/User Supporting Organization. The important condition is that the Board as ultimately constituted be representative of the diversity of stakeholders. A critical issue is how to ensure that the Board is truly an international body that represents the various stakeholders around the world. There are a variety of ways this might be accomplished, including (1) limiting the number of directors from any one country to no more than a specified percentage of the directors, or (2) requiring those persons nominated for the Board by the various nominating organizations to be persons of diverse nationality. Suggestions on how to ensure that the Board is truly an international body are solicited. Each Board member should represent the interests of the Internet community as a whole. Once he or she takes a Board seat, he or she should not be the representative of a specific group, country, or region, but rather a fiduciary for all those interested in and affected by the operation of the Internet. It is critical that the new Corporation be up and running sufficiently before September 30, 1998 so that it can undertake to manage, in conjunction with the Department of Commerce, the transition that is scheduled to take place at that time. Thus, the Initial Board will almost inevitably have to be a true consensus group, arising out of the various meetings and discussions between the various interested stakeholders. Such a group might consist of clearly qualified and respected senior figures who would not participate in the governance of this new Corporation past this initial period, and who could undertake to both manage the initial period and to develop consensus in the Internet community regarding further structural and operational details of the new Corporation. Such an Initial Board should serve for a relatively short time -- no more than one term -- and should be responsible for recognizing the Supporting Organizations that should be the source of regular Board nominations. To ensure an effective transition, and to maintain Internet stability throughout the transition, the Initial Board should probably not all be replaced at the same time. Suggestions on how to create an effective transition mechanism from the Initial Board to the Permanent Board are solicited. Because of the limited time available for a new Corporation to be created, and to minimize any transition difficulties, concrete suggestions as to who might be appropriate to serve on such an Initial Board should be made as soon as possible. Suggestions for Initial Board candidates are solicited. 3. Conflict of Interest Each Director should be responsible for disclosing to the Corporation any matter that could reasonably be perceived to make such Director an "interested director" or any relationship or other factor that could reasonably be perceived to be a conflict of interest. Board members should be required to recuse themselves from any decisions in which they have a direct interest. 4. Election and Term New Directors should be installed at each annual meeting of the Board to hold office until the end of their terms. Except for the Initial Board, the regular term of office of a Director elected should be three (3) years. Any Directors should be able to serve additional terms provided that the total years of continuous service does not exceed six (6). The Board should also arrange for the terms of the Directors to be staggered by providing that of the first Permanent Board elected, five Directors should serve an initial term of one (1) year, five Directors should serve an initial term of two (2) years, and five Directors should serve an initial term of three (3) years. Suggestions on how these staggered terms should be apportioned for the first Permanent Board are solicited. 5. Compensation The Directors should receive no compensation for their services as Directors. The Board may, however, authorize the reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses incurred by Directors performing duties as Directors. VI. Supporting Organizations 1. Powers The Supporting Organizations should serve as advisory bodies to the Board and should have such powers and duties as may be prescribed by the Board and the bylaws. The Board should be able to add additional, or remove existing, Supporting Organizations by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all members of the Board. The Supporting Organizations should be responsible for nominating Directors to the Board and for recommending policies and procedures regarding the governance and operation of the Corporation as well as the general Internet infrastructure. The Board should approve or reject policies and procedures recommended by the Supporting Organizations subject to review for (1) compliance with the articles and bylaws, (2) fair and open process, and (3) absence of unresolved conflicts between Supporting Organizations. The Supporting Organizations also should constitute the primary funding sources for the Corporation in accordance with the policies established by the Board. In the interest of providing the framework for the organization before September 30, 1998, special arrangements should be made for the transitional period, focusing on unconditional corporate or charitable grants, with the permanent funding mechanism to be established by the Initial Board. Suggestions for initial funding are solicited. 2. Qualifications for Membership Minimal qualifications for membership in the Supporting Organizations should be established by the Board. Other than those minimal qualifications, however, each Supporting Organization should establish its own rules consistent with maintaining inclusive membership. The Board should also be able to prohibit unduly restrictive membership conditions. 3. Description and Responsibilities The bylaws should establish at least be the following Supporting Organizations: (a) The Address Supporting Organization should be composed of representatives from regional Internet address registries. Until such time as there are additional members in the Address Supporting Organization, Directors from this Supporting Organization should represent the American Registry for Internet Numbers ("ARIN"), the Asia Pacific Network Information Center ("APNIC") and Reseaux IP Europeens ("RIPE NCC"). The Address Supporting Organization should organize a committee called the Address Council to make recommendations to the Board regarding policies and procedures for the assignment of Internet addresses. (b) The Domain Name Supporting Organization should be composed of representatives from name registries and registrars of both generic/global and country-code top level domains ("TLDs") and other entities with interests in these issues (for example, entities interested in trademark and related issues). The Domain Name Supporting Organization should organize a committee called the Name Council to make recommendations to the Board regarding policies and procedures relating to top level (generic/global and country-code) domains, including operation, assignment, and management of the domain name system. (c) The Protocol Supporting Organization should be composed of representatives from the Internet protocol organizations. Until such time as there are additional members in the Protocol Supporting Organization, the Internet Architecture Board should act as the Protocol Supporting Organization. The Protocol Supporting Organization should organize a committee called the Protocol Council to make recommendations regarding policies and procedures regarding the management of protocol numbers, port numbers, and other technical parameters. (d) The Industry/User Supporting Organization should be composed of representatives of organizations that represent Internet users. The Industry/User Committee should organize a committee called the Industry/User Council to make recommendations regarding the advancement of the purposes and capabilities of the Internet, the needs of Internet users, and other matters concerning the use of the Internet. Suggestions on how the Industry/User Supporting Organization could be constituted, and whether it would be preferable to divide this Supporting Organization into two or more separate entities are solicited. VII. Officers The initial officers of the Corporation should be a Chairperson of the Board, a Chief Technology Officer (CTO), a President or Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and a Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer. The Board should be free to add additional officers as needed. VIII. Indemnification The Directors and staff of the Corporation should be indemnified by the Corporation from any personal liability or expense from developing, promulgating, or implementing the policies adopted by the Board. IX. Public Process The Corporation should engage independent auditors on an ongoing basis. The Corporation should operate to the maximum extent possible in an open and transparent manner at all levels. Board and Supporting Organization meetings should be open to the public, unless and except to the extent that executive sessions are expressly instituted for stated reasons, and minutes and other materials should be published and available on the Internet. X. Bylaws Any bylaws adopted by the Corporation should be altered, amended, or repealed and new bylaws adopted only upon action by two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all members of the Board. The initial bylaws of the Corporation should be transitional in nature and aid in the initial governance of the Corporation. Consistent with this purpose, the initial bylaws should be reviewed and replaced as deemed necessary or appropriate by the Permanent Board within one (1) year after it is elected. However, the initial bylaws should remain in full force and effect until such time as they are amended or replaced. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you know someone who should be added to this list, please have them send a message to majordomo@iana.org with the line "subscribe iana-announce" as the body of the message. To remove yourself from this list, please send a message to majordomo@iana.org with the line "unsubscribe iana-announce" as the body of the message. ========================================================================= The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) P.O. Box 12607 Marina del Rey, CA 90295-3607 "Dedicated to preserving the central coordinating functions of the global Internet for the public good." ========================================================================= -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 14/07/98 Time: 12:17:42 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Tue Jul 14 18:03:50 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id SAA21367; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:03:50 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from ties.itu.ch (root@ties.itu.ch [156.106.192.33]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id SAA21361 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:03:43 +0900 (JST) Received: from itu.int (fw.itu.ch [156.106.192.3]) by ties.itu.ch (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA20760; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:06:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <35AB1F9F.F1DF8C0B@itu.int> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:06:39 +0200 From: Robert Shaw X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ajp , apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: MPT Publishes Vision of Internet Domain Name Administration References: <02033561505538@glocom.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk ajp wrote: > > (from Nikkei's AsiaBizTech web site.) > > http://www.nikkeibp.asiabiztech.com/articles/98071310.html > > MPT Publishes Vision of Internet Domain Name Administration > July 13, 1998 (TOKYO) -- > > Japan's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) released a > report entitled "Toward a new era of domain name administration for the > 21st century," which focuses on the administration of Internet domain > names. The report, released July 7, is a summary of discussions on > Internet domain names by a working group that has met five times since > March. > Anyone have a URL for the report? I don't see anything on the MPT web site (at least in English...) Robert -- Robert Shaw Head a.i., IED/Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Wed Jul 15 07:14:57 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id HAA11407; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 07:14:57 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id HAA11399 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 07:14:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from syr.edu (syru182-104.syr.edu [128.230.182.104]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA14504 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35ABD906.C8E69FE6@syr.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:17:42 -0400 From: Milton Mueller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net Subject: List of IFWP steering committee members Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk > Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 > From: Mailserv@itu.int > Subject: ITU mailserv results > > >>>> who ifwp-discuss > Members of list 'ifwp-discuss': > > roberts@educom.edu > soneill@itaa.org > jenglund@itaa.org > muncapher@itaa.org > burack@isoc.org > jsola@aui.es > leni@moniker.net > werner@axone.ch > svl@nrw.net > alan@connected.org > Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr > heath@isoc.org > robert.shaw@itu.int > jdd@vbc.net > ao@Anwalt.DE > "Ron Kawchuk" > "laina" > "mcfadden" > "briano" > "jeff" > "oportunidades" > "montjoy" > "jberman" > "djw" > "deb.howard" > "jhhur" > "rhicks" > "gidaa" > "John Wood" > "akraft" > "rob" > "exec" > "andy" > "freedman" > "charles.smith" > "bdooley" > "izumi" > "dfares" > "mcfadden" > "lee" > "splendid" > "admin" > "badkins" > "Bill.Myers" > "MarkRhoads" > "tfrankel" > Amadeu@nominalia.com > sastre@Anwalt.DE > > 48 subscribers > ---------- End forwarded message ---------- > > Regards, > > Jay Fenello > President, Iperdome, Inc. > 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > "None of us knows where all this is heading, but if we get > it right, we have an opportunity that only comes once every > couple of hundred years." > -- Ira C. Magaziner * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Wed Jul 15 13:27:24 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA17084; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 13:27:24 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from copper.singnet.com.sg (copper.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA16989; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 13:22:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by copper.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA17795; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:25:10 +0800 (SGT) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:25:10 +0800 (SST) From: Laina Raveendran Greene Subject: IFWP-Geneva meeting To: apple@apnic.net, apia-members@apia.org cc: apnic-talk@apnic.net, anr-talk@apnic.net Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Please note that after some initial difficulties updating and getting the website going, the IFWP-Europe meeting details are now up on the ifwp website. Please visit www.ifwp.org for more details and for registration information. Thank you., Laina RG PS check the FAQ on the website for background information on the IFWP. * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Wed Jul 15 16:05:58 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id PAA20337; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:29:17 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from mailgate.TokyoNet.AD.JP (mycity.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [202.239.60.163]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA20330; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:29:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP (adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [202.239.60.108]) by mailgate.TokyoNet.AD.JP (8.8.6/3.6Wbeta4-06/30/97) with ESMTP id PAA20888; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:31:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from toru-bib.TokyoNet.AD.JP (sekaido-bldg118.prv.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [192.168.134.118]) by adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP (8.8.5/3.4W405/16/97) with SMTP id PAA06736; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:31:55 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <9807150631.AA03367@toru-bib.TokyoNet.AD.JP> From: Toru Takahashi Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:31:04 +0900 To: Laina Raveendran Greene Cc: apple@apnic.net, apia-members@apia.org, apnic-talk@apnic.net, anr-talk@apnic.net Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IFWP-Geneva meeting In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AL-Mail 1.32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Laina, I cannot access details. No Agenda, No registrationpage. Why? Toru Laina Raveendran Greene wrote$B!'(J > >Please note that after some initial difficulties updating and getting the >website going, the IFWP-Europe meeting details are now up on the ifwp >website. > >Please visit www.ifwp.org for more details and for registration information. > >Thank you., >Laina RG > >PS check the FAQ on the website for background information on the IFWP. >* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List * >* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request@apnic.net * > -------------------------------------------------------- TAKAHASHI Toru toru@TokyoNet.AD.JP * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Wed Jul 15 16:07:34 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA21349; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:07:34 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from mail1.cisco.com (mail1.cisco.com [171.68.225.60]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA21254; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:05:27 +0900 (JST) Received: from bgreene-pc.cisco.com (singapore-async-150.cisco.com [171.68.85.150]) by mail1.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with SMTP id AAA22524; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Barry Raveendran Greene" To: , "Laina Raveendran Greene" Cc: , , , Subject: RE: [APIA-MEMBERS] Re: [apnic-talk] IFWP-Geneva meeting Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:03:55 +0800 Message-ID: <005a01bdafbe$bb781ca0$0313130a@bgreene-pc.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <9807150631.AA03367@toru-bib.TokyoNet.AD.JP> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hello Toru, Different Team. Steering Committe sets the time and place. Program Committee sets the agenda and on-site logistics. Barry > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-apia-members@apia.org [mailto:owner-apia-members@apia.org]On > Behalf Of Toru Takahashi > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 2:31 PM > To: Laina Raveendran Greene > Cc: apple@apnic.net; apia-members@apia.org; apnic-talk@apnic.net; > anr-talk@apnic.net > Subject: [APIA-MEMBERS] Re: [apnic-talk] IFWP-Geneva meeting > > > Laina, I cannot access details. No Agenda, No registrationpage. Why? > > Toru > > Laina Raveendran Greene wrote$B!'(J > > > >Please note that after some initial difficulties updating and > getting the > >website going, the IFWP-Europe meeting details are now up on the ifwp > >website. > > > >Please visit www.ifwp.org for more details and for registration > information. > > > >Thank you., > >Laina RG > > > >PS check the FAQ on the website for background information on the IFWP. > >* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List * > >* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request@apnic.net * > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > TAKAHASHI Toru toru@TokyoNet.AD.JP > > > * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Wed Jul 15 17:35:05 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA23520; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:35:05 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from zinc.singnet.com.sg (zinc.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.31]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA23462; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:32:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from mallow.singnet.com.sg (mallow.singnet.com.sg [165.21.1.11]) by zinc.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA26493; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:35:37 +0800 (SGT) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:35:37 +0800 (SST) From: Laina Raveendran Greene Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IFWP-Geneva meeting To: Toru Takahashi cc: apple@apnic.net, apia-members@apia.org, apnic-talk@apnic.net, anr-talk@apnic.net In-Reply-To: <9807150631.AA03367@toru-bib.TokyoNet.AD.JP> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Yes, I did notice a problem too. I have notified the webmaster and hopefully this will be corrected. Laina RG On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Toru Takahashi wrote: > Laina, I cannot access details. No Agenda, No registrationpage. Why? > > Toru > > Laina Raveendran Greene wrote$B!'(J > > > >Please note that after some initial difficulties updating and getting the > >website going, the IFWP-Europe meeting details are now up on the ifwp > >website. > > > >Please visit www.ifwp.org for more details and for registration information. > > > >Thank you., > >Laina RG > > > >PS check the FAQ on the website for background information on the IFWP. > >* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List * > >* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request@apnic.net * > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > TAKAHASHI Toru toru@TokyoNet.AD.JP > * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Thu Jul 16 06:32:39 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id GAA09818; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 06:32:39 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id GAA09811 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 06:32:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from syr.edu (syru182-104.syr.edu [128.230.182.104]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA07675; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35AD208A.C4A74D50@syr.edu> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:35:07 -0400 From: Milton Mueller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Higgs CC: apple@apnic.net, discussion-draft@giaw.org, jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net Subject: Re: IFWP steering committee References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk I support Simon's request for a variance. It seems that other "variances" have already been granted. Robert Shaw is on the committee, in clear contradiction of the requirement that the organizations be part of the private sector. I could cite one or two other examples, but this would put certain people on the spot and we need to be constructive. If ORSC can produce evidence that its incorporation is impending, it is justifiable to let them in on an expedited basis in time for them to participate from Geneva on. --Milton Mueller > >Simon - as previously discussed on these lists, organizations on the > >steering committee need to have a legal existence. That is, they > >must be incorporated in some sense (as well as being non-profit and > >willing to participate in conference calls). Unless things have changed > >in the last couple of days, the ORSC is not incorporated. I have already > >suggested to the ORSC that it incorporate. > > That is in process as of yesterday. It will be complete by the end of the > week. > > Do you really need us to complete that in order to *begin* considering us > to be a memebr of the steering committee? What might happen then is, > wheh the meeting over there takes place we will have the incroporaiton > but you folks will not have had time to consider it. > > How bout a little good faith and a varience here ? > > If you want we can give you the name, phone number and email > address or our legal agent in Deleware thats handling this. > > >Once you have done so, please send email to credentials@ifwp.org asking > >to be added to the committee. > > > >-- > >Jim Dixon Managing Director > >VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Member of Council Telecommunications Director > >Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG > >http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org > >tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65 > > > > > -- > The most important thing in the programming language is the name. A > language will not succeed without a good name. I have recently invented > a very good name and now I am looking for a suitable language. > -- D. E. Knuth, 1967 * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Thu Jul 16 15:19:47 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id PAA23784; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:19:47 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from ties.itu.ch (root@ties.itu.ch [156.106.192.33]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA23779 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:19:42 +0900 (JST) Received: from itu.int (usr0-11.itu.ch [156.106.192.164]) by ties.itu.ch (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA26469; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:22:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <35AD9C1B.DE6B8729@itu.int> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:22:19 +0200 From: Robert Shaw X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Milton Mueller CC: Simon Higgs , apple , discussion-draft , jdd Subject: Re: IFWP steering committee References: <35AD208A.C4A74D50@syr.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Milton Mueller wrote: > > I support Simon's request for a variance. It seems that other "variances" have > already been granted. Robert Shaw is on the committee, in clear contradiction of > the requirement that the organizations be part of the private sector. I could cite I am NOT on the committee. I do NOT want to be on the committee. I'm only their temporary list manager and hopefully that won't be for long. I don't get the SC committee's mail. I haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about. Got it? Robert -- Robert Shaw Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Fri Jul 17 00:21:27 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id AAA06745; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:21:27 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from po1.bbn.com (PO1.BBN.COM [192.1.50.38]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id AAA06733 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:21:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from jmontjoy.bbn.com (DHCP043-174.BBN.COM [128.89.43.174]) by po1.bbn.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA22453 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:24:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980716112432.00773afc@po1.bbn.com> X-Sender: montjoy@po1.bbn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:24:32 -0400 To: apple@apnic.net From: John Montjoy Subject: Listserv for lawyers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk leftIn the interest of providing a neutral means of faciliting an effective dialogue among the lawyers involved in the IFWP process, the Internet Law and Policy Forum has made available a managed listserver <. The ILPF takes no position on the substantive issues raised in the IFWP process. However the ILPF has a strong interest in industry self governance and has a history of successfully mobilizing world-class legal resources to address emerging issues in electronic commerce and the Internet. It is our hope that this list will contribute to resolving some of the novel legal issues surrounding the White Paper. We welcome discussion of any legal topics related to the implementation of the White Paper. Any lawyer or legal scholar is invited to participate in this site. Although the list access will be professionally restricted, a regular summary of the dialogue will appear on an announced public website. Thank you. John Montjoy Chairman Internet Law and Policy Forum 380 Saint-Antoine Street West, Suite 3280 Montreal, QC H2 3XY - Canada (617) 873-3480 Fax: (617) 873-5421 Montjoy@bbn.com * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Fri Jul 17 00:33:12 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id AAA07025; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:33:12 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from po1.bbn.com (PO1.BBN.COM [192.1.50.38]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id AAA07016 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:33:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from jmontjoy.bbn.com (DHCP043-174.BBN.COM [128.89.43.174]) by po1.bbn.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA25118 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980716113618.006f7308@po1.bbn.com> X-Sender: montjoy@po1.bbn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:36:18 -0400 To: apple@apnic.net From: John Montjoy Subject: Revised listserv info Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk leftIn the interest of providing a neutral means of faciliting an effective dialogue among the lawyers involved in the IFWP process, the Internet Law and Policy Forum has made available a managed listserver <. The ILPF takes no position on the substantive issues raised in the IFWP process. However the ILPF has a strong interest in industry self governance and has a history of successfully mobilizing world-class legal resources to address emerging issues in electronic commerce and the Internet. It is our hope that this list will contribute to resolving some of the novel legal issues surrounding the White Paper. We welcome discussion of any legal topics related to the implementation of the White Paper. Any lawyer or legal scholar is invited to participate in this site. Any lawyer or legal scholar wishing to be added should send a note to < Although the list access will be professionally restricted, a regular summary of the dialogue will appear on an announced public website. Thank you. John Montjoy Chairman Internet Law and Policy Forum 380 Saint-Antoine Street West, Suite 3280 Montreal, QC H2 3XY - Canada (617) 873-3480 Fax: (617) 873-5421 Montjoy@bbn.com * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Fri Jul 17 23:52:09 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id XAA06501; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 23:52:09 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (iron.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.29]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA06491 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 23:51:59 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas0544.singnet.com.sg [165.21.57.54]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA07666 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 22:54:41 +0800 (SGT) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 98 22:56:43 Subject: FW: U.S. TREASURY OFFICIAL ON INTERNET TAX POLICY To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk --- On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:53:52 -0400 "Ashley, Charlie H(MSMAIL)" wrote: 07/16/98 TEXT: U.S. TREASURY OFFICIAL ON INTERNET TAX POLICY (Administration favors short moratorium on taxes) (2810) Washington -- The Clinton administration supports a congressional proposal for a three-year moratorium on new state and local taxes on Internet-based commerce, which President Clinton calls "the most promising new economic opportunity in decades." Joseph Guttentag, Treasury deputy assistant secretary for international tax affairs, says the administration's goals are to avoid duplicative or discriminatory taxation by thousands of state and local authorities and to deny Internet-based merchants a tax haven. Guttentag made that statement during July 16 testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Most transactions conducted via the Internet do not include sales tax. Current estimates show Internet commerce will generate as much as $1,000 million in sales revenues this year and $1,000,000 million by 2002. Guttentag says the Clinton administration is urging international adoption of standardized tax rules for electronic commerce to avoid multiple or discriminatory taxation. Following is the text of Guttentag's testimony as prepared for submission to the committee's records: (begin text) TREASURY DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY (INTERNATIONAL TAX AFFAIRS) JOSEPH H. GUTTENTAG SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased today to have this opportunity to present the views of the Treasury Department on taxation of the Internet, including proposed legislation dealing with state and local tax issues and, more broadly, international tax concerns. The state and local tax issues are dealt with in the Internet Tax Freedom Act (S. 442 and H.R. 4105). When I advised Deputy Secretary Lawrence Summers of this important hearing he asked me to convey his continued strong support for the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The Internet Tax Freedom Act has undergone some very important revisions since Deputy Secretary Summers testified in favor of its goals and principles last year. These revisions have addressed some technical and substantive concerns that we have had in the past and now put the Administration in a position to support strongly this legislation. In February, the President announced his support for legislation. More recently, last month, Deputy Secretary Summers wrote to the Speaker of the House and Ranking Minority Member to convey the Administration's support for the legislation and its important goals on the eve of passage of H.R. 4105 by the House. The Internet Tax Freedom Act as passed by the House would impose a three-year moratorium on subnational taxation of the Internet, including taxes on Internet access and bit taxes, and would prohibit multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. The moratorium would not apply to Internet access taxes imposed by certain states if certain conditions are met. The bill establishes an Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce that will address issues concerning the taxation of all remote sales. The Commission, consisting of the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce and the Attorney General, or their representatives, business, taxpayer, and subnational government representatives, in consultation with the National Tax Association -- Communications and Electronic Commerce Tax Project, would undertake a broad and thorough study of numerous issues concerning domestic and international taxation of the Internet and electronic commerce. The legislation to which I refer does not, of course, involve Federal level taxation. However, the broad tax and trade implications of the Internet and related new technologies make it imperative that we develop an appropriate legislative background that will encourage the growth of these wonderful new tools consistent with sound fiscal policy and the many other issues involved. Treasury believes that two vital goals are addressed by this legislation. First, we would not want duplicative, discriminatory or inappropriate taxation by thousands of different state and local tax jurisdictions to stunt the development of what President Clinton has called "the most promising new economic opportunity in decades." For this reason, we support a temporary and appropriate moratorium on taxation of the Internet. Second, to insure that the Internet does not become a tax haven that drains the sales tax and other revenues that our states and cities need to educate our children and keep our streets safe, in conjunction with this moratorium, we need to establish a commission to explore the longer-term tax issues raised by the Internet and electronic commerce. As the legislation has moved forward, Treasury has worked closely with many interested constituencies, including state and local governments and their representatives and the affected industries, to reach the point where we have arrived today. We will continue to keep in contact with these constituencies. Mr. Chairman, we will continue working with the Members and staff with respect to issues with which we might be helpful. We hope that the remaining issues can be resolved promptly between the two Houses with the assistance of state and local tax authorities and the affected industries. The proposed legislation declares that it is the sense of the Congress that the President should seek bilateral and multinational agreements to establish that the provision of Internet access or online services be free from international tariffs and discriminatory taxation. Going forward, the Treasury Department is particularly well-positioned to assist with the international tax implications of the Internet and electronic commerce. My testimony will focus on the international efforts underway to create a smooth playing field for commercial activity on the Internet. Our tax policy in this area, as reflected in support of the proposed Internet Tax Freedom Act, is consistent with our overall international tax policy towards the Internet, electronic commerce, and all of the related new technologies. Overall Tax Policy To encourage the growth of this technology and the resulting social and economic benefits, it is crucial that governments act responsibly and fairly regarding the Internet and electronic commerce. The Administration's key objectives are no new Internet taxes and neutrality in taxing electronic commerce. Overall, it is the view of the Administration that there should be no tax rules at the national, international, federal or sub-federal levels that inappropriately impede the full development of these exciting new technologies. Neutrality is a fundamental principle that should guide the development of tax rules in this area. Neutrality requires that the tax system treat economically similar transactions equally, whether such transactions occur through electronic means or through conventional channels of commerce. In addition, tax rules should be consistent across jurisdictions, so as to minimize the possibility of multiple or no taxation, and the rules should be transparent and easy to administer, so as to protect the revenue base. International Issues Close cooperation and mutual assistance are necessary between the United States and all of our trading partners to ensure that international policies regarding the Internet and electronic commerce are consistent and do not lead to multiple or discriminatory taxation of electronic commerce or the Internet. Continuing these efforts is one of our major objectives. Treasury has been a leader in adapting international tax rules to electronic commerce. In November 1996, Treasury published Selected Tax Policy Implications of Global Electronic Commerce, an issues paper that set forth both the major international tax issues created by electronic commerce and the general tax policy principles that should apply in this area. This paper has been very well-received and has been widely read, both in the United States and abroad. This paper has helped us formulate specific tax policy guidance and has stimulated other countries to prepare their own papers. At least half a dozen other countries have issued similar papers addressing various aspects of global electronic commerce. Treasury is actively involved in the work of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is at the forefront in developing international tax rules to achieve our mutually desired objectives. Many of our efforts are directed at preparing materials for the upcoming OECD Ministerial conference on "A Borderless World: Realizing the Potential of Global Electronic Commerce." This conference, which will be held in Ottawa in October, will provide an international platform to present, along with other important issues, basic framework conditions regarding the taxation of electronic commerce. These framework conditions make it clear that any taxation of the Internet or electronic commerce should be neutral, fair, simple, consistent, effective and flexible. These concepts will be discussed fully with business at the tax roundtable the day immediately preceding the Ministerial conference. At the tax roundtable, governments and business will have the opportunity to explore the challenges and opportunities presented by the Internet. One of the main topics of discussion will be identifying the best mechanisms for modernizing tax rules and collection procedures to accommodate global electronic commerce. The conference will offer an opportunity for all interested parties from all over the world to share knowledge and resolve issues. The examination of issues concerning electronic commerce is not limited to the United States. The European Commission issued in April 1997 a Communication entitled A European Initiative in Electronic Commerce that promoted the elimination of barriers to the development of the Internet. Several countries, including Japan and France, as well as the European Union, have issued joint statements with the United States on the Internet and electronic commerce. Additional statements with other major trading and investment partners are in the works. In addition to Treasury's specific efforts to ensure that inappropriate taxation on any level does not impede the development of the Internet, the Administration as a whole is committed to encouraging the growth of electronic commerce. An interagency working group has developed a set of principles to guide government's role in promoting electronic commerce. These principles deal with financial issues, such as customs, taxation, and electronic payments; legal issues, such as intellectual property protection, privacy, and security; and market access issues, such as telecommunications infrastructure and information technology, content regulation, and technical standards. These principles were set forth in A Framework For Global Electronic Commerce on July 1, 1997, a report that will be updated shortly. Although government has an important role to play, we recognize that the private sector must lead this growth and that the success of electronic commerce requires a continuation of the partnership between the private and public sectors. Furthermore, as stated in the Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, "Innovation, expansion of services and participants, and lower prices will depend upon the Internet remaining a market-driven arena, not one that operates as a regulated industry." Government's role should be limited to extending appropriate regulatory policies to the Internet and electronic commerce. For example, businesses need to know that contracts entered into on-line are valid, consumers need to know that goods and services purchased on-line are subject to consumer protection laws, and government needs to know that the Internet is not being used for any illegal activity. These objectives must be accomplished while recognizing the unique features and potential of the Internet and electronic commerce. The Administration is working on several fronts to achieve these goals. The Office of the United States Trade Representative has advocated in international fora, such as the World Trade Organization, the OECD, and APEC, that cyberspace remain a tariff-free environment whenever it is used to deliver products or services. Our overall objective is to keep the Internet free from international tariffs and discriminatory taxation. Subnational Issues The field of taxation is one of the most important areas where governments must adopt appropriate rules. Unreasonable taxation, or even a fear of unreasonable taxation, could significantly slow the growth of the Internet and electronic commerce. The Internet has a major role to play in promoting the ongoing vitality of our economy and our global competitiveness. The introduction of new taxes imposed solely on the Internet or electronic commerce will inevitably discourage the growth and use of the Internet. While new taxes may initially raise some additional revenue, they have the potential of discouraging growth of the Internet and electronic commerce, thus slowing the growth of the economy, and becoming counterproductive in the long-term. Instead of seeing the Internet as a bountiful new revenue source, we should, instead, adopt policies that encourage its growth and use, which will stimulate economic growth that leads to greater revenues from existing taxes. Therefore, Treasury is opposed to any new or discriminatory taxes imposed on electronic commerce, whether imposed by other countries or at the federal or subfederal level. Many of our trading partners share this view. Reaching this general consensus was not guaranteed. In the early days of the Internet -- just a couple of years ago! -- some were considering proposals for a new "bit tax" that would tax each electronic transmission according to the amount of information being transmitted. Needless to say, such a tax would discriminate against the Internet and likely stifle its development. These proposals rightly have been rejected. For example, Ambassador Hugo Paemen, the Head of the European Commission's Delegation to the United States, recently stated that the European Commission has strongly rejected proposals for a "bit tax" because such a tax "could easily nip e-commerce in the bud." The United States has firmly and consistently opposed any efforts to impose any special taxes, whether at the national or the international level, on the use of the Internet. The fact that not all share the view that taxation of the Internet should be neutral and that no new taxes should be imposed on the Internet reinforces the importance of continuing our efforts at the international level. We work hard, together with our colleagues in the Administration, to dissuade jurisdictions from seeing the Internet as a lucrative new revenue source and choosing to ignore the long-run detrimental effect such a policy would likely have on their economic growth. Instead of enacting new taxes on the Internet or electronic commerce or providing subsidies, Treasury believes that neutrality should be the fundamental principle guiding the development of tax rules in this area. Ideally, tax rules should not affect economic choices about commercial activities, nor influence market structures. Achieving neutrality in taxation is the best way to see that market forces alone determine the success or failure of new commercial methods. Neutrality can best be achieved through an approach that adopts and adapts existing tax principles -- in lieu of imposing new or additional taxes. The statement that there should be no new taxes on the Internet does not mean that the neutral application of existing taxes should be prevented. On the contrary, it means that any taxation should be applied in a neutral manner, that it should not discriminate against one form of commerce over another, and that it should be fairly applied. These are goals that all governments should pursue in shaping their tax policies. Neutrality is not the only principle that should guide tax policy. As stated previously, tax rules should also be consistent across jurisdictions and they should be transparent and easy to administer. In achieving these goals, Treasury recognizes that the implementation of basic principles of tax policy may vary at the state level, although the fundamental principles of neutrality, consistency, and non-discrimination apply at all levels of government. Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce We applaud the creation of the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, and look forward to working with you to structure the Commission in a way that meets our mutual goals. As Deputy Secretary Summers stated when expressing his support for H.R. 4105, "In conjunction with this moratorium, we need to establish a commission that will explore the longer-term issues raised by electronic commerce, and develop a policy framework that is fair to states and localities while allowing the Internet to earn its fair place in the ever-changing world." The Commission allows states and localities, industry, taxpayers and the Federal government to work together in finding a solution to these issues. No one has the intention of allowing the Internet to become a tax haven that will drain states and localities of needed revenues. Indeed, it is vitally important to recognize the legitimate concerns of neutrality and equity that exist. Thus, we are encouraged to see that the issue is on the agenda of the Commission, as it provides a forum for exchanging of views by all interested parties and incorporating those views into appropriate policies. Conclusion The objectives of the Internet Tax Freedom Act are consistent with the general tax policy principles I have described. The Act would impose a temporary moratorium on certain state or local taxes on the Internet or electronic commerce. It would establish an Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce composed of representatives from the Federal Government, State, local, and county governments, and business and taxpayers who would undertake a thorough study of a broad range of issues concerning the Internet and electronic commerce. Treasury wholeheartedly supports the goals and underlying objectives of both versions of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and we are ready to work with the Committee to reach our shared objectives. (end text) ---------------------------- With Compliments: Chuck Ashley Economic Officer U.S. Embassy Singapore Tel: (65) 476-9470 Fax: (65) 476-9389 E-mail: ashleych@singawpoa.us-state.gov U.S. Embassy Singapore website: http://home.pacific.net.sg/~amemb/ U.S. Department of State website: http://www.state.gov -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 17/07/98 Time: 22:56:44 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Fri Jul 17 23:52:35 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id XAA06525; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 23:52:35 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (iron.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.29]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA06517 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 23:52:28 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas0544.singnet.com.sg [165.21.57.54]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA07800 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 22:55:15 +0800 (SGT) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 98 22:57:19 Subject: FW: GORE CITES CHALLENGE OF FIXING YEAR 2000 PROBLEM To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk --- On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:29:50 -0400 "Ashley, Charlie H(MSMAIL)" wrote: 07/15/98 TEXT: GORE CITES CHALLENGE OF FIXING YEAR 2000 PROBLEM (Calls for bipartisan cooperation) (2590) Washington -- Vice President Gore says that unless steps are taken now to tackle the year 2000 computer problem it could cause serious problems for commerce and communications all over the world. Speaking to business leaders at the National Academy of Sciences July 14, Gore called the so-called millennium bug "one whale of a problem" that could affect hundreds of millions of computers and devices and tens of thousands of millions of embedded chips. "When you have that many of them, if only a small percentage of them don't accurately read (the year 2000), then the world has a problem," he said. "And unless the old lines of code are fixed, the problems, of course, will be serious." The year 2000 problem will cause many computers that recognize only the last two digits of a year to fail or malfunction because they will be unable to distinguish January 1, 2000, from the same day a full century earlier. Gore said that the year 2000 problem represents a challenge for the federal government, state and local governments, the private sector, and other countries around the world. "In a world with hundreds of different languages, the way in which our computers speak to one another across national boundaries drives our markets, our jobs and our future," he said. At the federal government level, Gore said it is crucial that the more than 7,000 mission critical electronic systems run effectively, carrying out functions ranging from Social Security payments to air traffic control. He added that "great progress" is being made. "At the Social Security Administration, for example, more than 90 percent of critical systems are already year 2000 compliant....Our goal is to have 100 percent government-wide compliance...by March of next year." Gore cautioned that the year 2000 problem is a management and programming challenge, and must not be turned into a "political football." "We need bipartisan cooperation to solve the year 2000 problem, not political rhetoric," he said. "More than anything else, the year 2000 problem has revealed how interconnected and interdependent we have become....We're all in this together and we must solve it together." Following is the text of Gore's remarks: (begin text) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary July 14, 1998 REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT AT YEAR 2000 CONVERSION EVENT National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, thank you very much. I didn't know I was going to get that kind of build-up, Bruce. Thank you. I do come over here a lot, and I appreciate all the kind words. And, Dr. Alberts, I want to thank you and all of your staff and team here for all of the help that you've given to the President and me, and to the administration, and to the Congress, and for the role that you play in our country. It's a great pleasure to be here with so many distinguished guests. And on behalf of the President, I'd like to spend just a moment acknowledging the folks who are on stage with us here. Before I do that, I want you to know that there are several members of the President's Cabinet who are present here today, including the OMB Director, Jack Lew, who plays such a prominent role in this issue; and, of course, John Koskinen, who is Chair of the President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion. And we want to thank John for all the work that he's done on this. Having been a part of the effort to persuade him to come back out of retirement and take this on, I want to really lay it on thick because he's done a great job. Why don't you stand up, John. We appreciate what you're doing. Also, let me point out that the Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, is here; and the Acting Secretary of Energy, Betsy Moler is here; Deputy Secretary of Labor Kitty Higgins and Deputy Secretary of Transportation Mort Downey; Deputy at SBA, Fred Hochberg; also, FCC Commissioner, Michael Powell; and others in the administration -- Janet Abrams is the Executive Director of the Year 2000 Council; Morley Winograd with the Partnership for Reinventing Government. And from the -- I probably should have started with the members of the Senate and the House -- I want to say a special word of acknowledgment to Senator Bob Bennett and his partner, Senator Chris Dodd -- the two of them are leading the charge on the Senate side to create a very thoughtful, bipartisan forum for addressing this issue that faces our country and the world. And on the House side, I want to especially acknowledge Congressman Steve Horn of California and Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Congressman John LaFalce of New York and Congressman Jim Turner of Texas. Now, behind me here on stage are some distinguished Americans who are hard at work on the issue, and the President will be referring to some of them. But I want to acknowledge Erle Nye, a CEO of Texas Utility Corporation; Stephen Wolf, CEO and Chairman of the U.S. Airways Group; John Pasquah (phonetic), Vice President for Y2K at ATT; Peter Turner, who is the COO at Torrington Research Company; and Sandra Wells who is in charge of Y2K for Torrington; and Ed Brown who is Vice President for Internet Services with First Union Bank. Now, I took notes, Dr. Alberts, of your comments about me and technology, and I was recalling a magazine article -- one of these airline magazines. And they had a list a few years ago of 31 signs that technology has taken over your life. I'll just read a few of them: If you know your e-mail address, but not your Social Security number; if you rotate your screen saver more than your tires; if you have never sat through a movie without having at least one device on your body beep or buzz. (Laughter). Now, here's the point. My personal favorite was number 23: If Al Gore strikes you as an intriguing fellow. I don't understand that. Why is that? But technology is, without question, a vital part of our everyday life, and we constantly face the challenge of making sure that we're on top of it and mastering it instead of letting it take control of our lives and master us. And we're here today to discuss what we all need to do to ensure that technology continues to be a path to prosperity and not a source of new problems, especially on the day when the calendar turns on the year 2000. I'm speaking, of course, about the so-called year 2000 problem which, as everybody knows -- well, unfortunately, not everybody does know it -- but as many people know, and certainly everyone in this auditorium knows, it could cause serious problems for commerce and communications all over the world if we're not serious about fixing it. This is a story of conscious decisions by people years ago that led to completely unintended consequences. Back in the 1960s and '70s, managers and programmers tried to save money by saving on memory. At that stage of the computer revolution memory was at a premium and they were trying to avoid using any unnecessary space in the memory storage areas. And so they came up with the notion of representing the date with only two digits, instead of four. So 1965 became just 65. And it saved millions of dollars, but it also created one whale of a problem. The software assumed that every year began with 19, and it wasn't programmed to read the year 2000. The programmers assumed, of course, that the early versions of software that they were using would quickly become obsolete, so they really didn't think about it that much. But software has turned out to be a different kind of technology from toasters or cars -- when you get a new version you don't just throw away the old software, or at least when you develop a new version they didn't throw away the earlier version, they built upon it and added to it. And software began to evolve in ways that are not completely dissimilar to the evolution of life forms in the sense that the new forms recapitulated some of the earlier evolutionary steps. And without spending much time considering it, the software writers continued to think, well, we'll soon replace this and if we fix the numbers, well, they'll have to go back and fix it all over the place. And so they fell into a pattern of denial and it didn't really seem to them to be a problem. But as a result the flawed programs were replicated by each successive generation. And over time they built up and today we have hundreds of millions of computers and devices and tens of billions of embedded chips that will not accurately read -- many of which will not accurately read the year 2000. When you have that many of them, if only a small percentage of them don't accurately read the date, then the world has a problem. And unless the old lines of code are fixed, the problems, of course, will be serious. And that means that if somebody gets a bill in December '99 and doesn't send a check until January of 2000, if that company's computer isn't fixed it might not register your payment because it will think the check is from 1900. And that would be the least of the problem. So it has to be fixed. And this is a challenge that exists on four different levels. First of all, it's a challenge to the federal government. With more than 7,000 mission critical systems at the federal level, carrying out functions ranging from Social Security payments to air traffic control, it is critical that our electronic systems run effectively and efficiently. Secondly, it's a challenge to state and local government. States use computers to run vital public health and safety systems, from Medicaid to unemployment insurance to water treatment plants. Third, it's a special challenge to the private sector. Virtually every American business, both large and small, has a stake in our information economy and ultimately has to take personal responsibility for fixing their own system. The people who are with us on stage today, to whom I referred earlier, have taken a special leadership role on this issue and we want to hold them up as examples, and they're working with us to solve the problem. And private businesses are really doing a wonderful job, in most cases -we'll talk about some of the others. Now, fourth, it's an international challenge. In a world with hundreds of different languages, the way in which our computers speak to one another across national boundaries drives our markets, our jobs, and our future. The President will talk more broadly about all four of these areas in just a moment. Let me take just one minute to focus on the federal role. The federal government has been working very hard to ensure that our critical computer systems will in fact run smoothly when the date changes. Earlier this year the President established the President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion, and appointed John Koskinen, as the highly respected former Deputy Director of Management at OMB, to head up this effort. Along with John, I met with the President's Management Council to make clear that their number one job was to meet this challenge. And I joined in the Cabinet meeting when the President laid down the law and went to each Cabinet Department and set in motion efforts to make sure that every Cabinet member understands this is priority number one. And today, over 30 Executive Branch, independent and regulatory agencies have representatives on that Council and great progress is being made. At the Social Security Administration, for example, more than 90 percent of critical systems are already year 2000 compliant. There are areas where extra attention is being devoted, I assure you, and we know very well that we have serious work ahead of us and we have to remain diligent. Our goal is to have 100 percent government-wide compliance not by December 31, 1999, but by March of next year. And John Koskinen really is a tireless and talented manager with a stellar record, and I know that together we will continue to make good progress toward meeting that goal. And we want to thank our colleagues in the Legislation Branch of the government for approaching it with the seriousness of purpose and dedication that they have brought to this task. This can be a model of partnership and, in fact, one of the lessons that businesses are learning is that some of the instinct for conflict or to take advantage of some competitor's problems have to be submerged into a common effort to make sure that everybody in a particular industry sector is solving the problem, because it will affect everybody if that's not stopped. And the same thing is true where the federal government is concerned. Our Office of Personnel Management is currently working to make sure that every agency has the talent and the personnel needed to address this issue. Last March OPM issued a memorandum that will enable us to bring back retired government programmers to meet this challenge without requiring them to give up their retirement benefits. After all, much of the work that needs to be done involves computer languages that were en vogue 30 years ago, but are not as prevalent today. And some of these languages even have dialects that can throw you for a loop if you haven't been conversant in them personally. And these programmers have the training and the skills that are greatly needed right now. So we're doing our part, and part of the message today is that everybody has to do his or her part. Let me be clear about one thing in closing. The year 2000 problem is a management challenge and a programming challenge. It must not be a political football. We need bipartisan cooperation to solve the year 2000 problem, not political rhetoric. More than anything else, the year 2000 problem has revealed how interconnected and interdependent we have become. As software has evolved, so has our society. We're all in this together and we must solve it together. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no person who understands that better than President Bill Clinton. Over the past five and a half years, no person has worked harder or done more to give our families and communities the tools that they need to make technology work for them and to make it a pathway to a brighter future. And, of course, we see the results in all of the great economic news in most parts of our country -- 16 million new jobs, new records for small business creation every year now, 78 percent of America's schools wired to the Internet, and the biggest increase in education opportunity in a generation. The President is here today to talk about how the United States of America can keep this progress going and continue to address the year 2000 problem today. It is my great honor to present to you, ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Bill Clinton. (end text) ---------------------------- With Compliments: Chuck Ashley Economic Officer U.S. Embassy Singapore Tel: (65) 476-9470 Fax: (65) 476-9389 E-mail: ashleych@singawpoa.us-state.gov U.S. Embassy Singapore website: http://home.pacific.net.sg/~amemb/ U.S. Department of State website: http://www.state.gov -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 17/07/98 Time: 22:57:19 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Sun Jul 19 01:52:45 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id BAA29442; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 01:52:45 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from copper.singnet.com.sg (copper.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id BAA29437 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 01:52:37 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas0529.singnet.com.sg [165.21.57.39]) by copper.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA16127 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 00:55:18 +0800 (SGT) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 98 00:57:29 Subject: FW: IANA post To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk --- On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 22:07:51 +0000 John Montjoy wrote: Forwarded wuth permission--- > >Hello: > >The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is pleased to welcome >you to this list of people with an interest in the formation of a new >IANA. To help focus efforts and facilitate consensus towards the >implementation of a new organization, we will be sending you various >announcements and drafts for your review and comments. > >--jon. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >A BY LAWS PROPOSAL FOR DISCUSSION > >After receiving many suggestions to consolidate the principles in the >earlier discussion drafts that IANA has issued, the following is a set >of draft bylaws for a new organization that essentially put in legal >form the principles contained in the earlier documents. These are >offered as an aid to further discussion and comment, and not intended >to reflect anything other than the principles previously set forth. >Comments and suggestions on all aspects of this document are welcomed >and encouraged. IANA would expect to issue new drafts based on the >comments received directly and the results of the discussions at the >Geneva and subsequent meetings. > > >DRAFT BYLAWS FOR A NEW IANA >A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation > > >ARTICLE I: PURPOSES > > This corporation (the "Corporation") is established for the purposes >specified in its Articles of Incorporation. These purposes include >maintaining the operational stability of the Internet by: (i) coordinating >the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain >universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) managing and performing >functions related to the coordination of the Internet address space; (iii) >managing and performing functions related to the coordination of the >Internet domain name system, including overseeing policies for determining >the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the root >system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet root server >system; (v) engaging in any other lawful activity in furtherance of items >(i) through (iv); and (vi) engaging in any other lawful act or activity for >which a corporation may be organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit >Corporation Law. > >ARTICLE II: OFFICES AND SEAL > > Section 1. OFFICES > > The principal office for the transaction of the business of the >Corporation will be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. The >Corporation may also have an additional office or offices within or outside >the State of California as the Board of Directors (the "Board") may from >time to time establish. > > Section 2. SEAL > > The Board may adopt a corporate seal and use the same by causing it or >a facsimile thereof to be impressed or affixed or reproduced or otherwise. > >ARTICLE III: SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES > > Section 1. CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND DISTRIBUTION UPON DISSOLUTION > > The property of the Corporation is irrevocably dedicated to >charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational purposes and no part of >the net income or assets of the Corporation shall ever inure to the benefit >of any Director, Officer or member thereof or to benefit of any private >person (except that reasonable compensation may be paid for services >rendered to or for the corporation affecting one or more purposes). Upon the >dissolution of the Corporation, the Corporation's assets shall be >distributed for one or more of the exempt purposes set forth in the >Articles of Incorporation and, if possible, to a 501 (c)(3)organization >organized and operated exclusively to lessen the burdens of government by >providing for the operation of the Internet by developing and maintaining >the stability of the Internet infrastructure, or shall be distributed to >the Federal government, or a state government, for such purposes, or for >such other charitable and public purposes that lessen the burdens of >government by providing for the operation and stability of Intranet >infrastructure. Any assets not so disposed of shall be disposed of by a >court of competent jurisdiction of the county in which the principal office >of the Corporation is then located, exclusively for such purposes or to >such organization or organizations, as such court shall determine, that are >organized and operated exclusively for such purposes, unless no such >corporation exists, and in such case any assets not disposed of shall be >distributed to a 501(c)(3) corporation chosen by such court. > > Section 2. NON-PARTISAN ACTIVITIES > > The Corporation has been formed under the California Nonprofit Public >Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL") with the public purposes described >above, and it shall be nonprofit and nonpartisan. Notwithstanding any other >provision of these Bylaws: > > (a) The Corporation shall not carry on any other activities not >permitted to be carried on (i) by a corporation exempt from Federal income >tax under 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) by a corporation, >contributions to which are deductible under 170 (c)(2) of the Internal >Revenue Code. > > (b) No substantial part of the activities of the Corporation shall be >the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence >legislation, and the Corporation shall be empowered to make the election >under 501 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code. > > (c) The Corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in >(including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political >campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. > > (d) No part of the net earnings of the Corporation shall inure to >the benefit of or be distributable to its members, directors, trustees, >officers, or other private persons, except that the Corporation shall be >authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services >rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the >purposes set forth in the Articles of Incorporation. > > (e) In no event shall the Corporation be controlled directly or >indirectly by one or more "disqualified persons" (as defined in 4946 of >the Internal Revenue Code) other than foundation managers and other than >one or more organizations described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 509 (a) of >the Internal Revenue Code. > > > >ARTICLE IV: STRUCTURE > > Section 1. POWERS > > Except as otherwise provided in the Articles of Incorporation or these >Bylaws, the powers of the Corporation will be exercised, its property >controlled and its business and affairs conducted by or under the direction >of the Board. Unless otherwise provided herein or by law, the Board may >act by a majority vote of Directors present at the meeting, subject to the >quorum requirements in Section 13 of this Article. Any references herein >to a vote of the Board shall consider only those members present at the >meeting unless otherwise provided herein by reference to "all of the >members of the Board." > > [TWO ALTERNATIVE PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INITIAL BOARD ARE >PRESENTED BELOW. THE FIRST CALLS FOR THE INITIAL BOARD TO SERVE A >FIXED TERM, AND FOR THAT TERM TO END UPON THE ELECTION OF THE FIRST >PERMANENT BOARD. THIS EMPHASIZES THE INTERIM NATURE OF THE INITIAL >BOARD, BUT RESULTS IN NO CONTINUITY BETWEEN THE INITIAL BOARD AND THE >FIRST PERMANENT BOARD. THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE PRESENTED CALLS FOR >STAGGERED TERMS FOR THE INITIAL BOARD, TO ALLOW A GRADUAL TRANSITION >AND EMPHASIZES CONTINUITY. REASONABLE ARGUMENTS COULD BE MADE FOR >EITHER APPROACH, AND THUS BOTH ARE SET FORTH HERE WITH THE INTENTION OF >PROMPTING A DISCUSSION OVER THE RELATIVE MERITS OF EACH APPROACH. OF >COURSE, AS IS THE CASE WITH THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT, DIFFERENT APPROACHES >ARE ALSO SOLICITED.] > > Section 2. INITIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS > > Alternative A. > > The Initial Board of Directors of the Corporation ("Initial Board") >shall consist of no fewer than five and no more than 15 directors. It >shall serve for a single term of one (1) year, unless the Initial Board >shall vote by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all the members of the >Board to extend the term of the Initial Board for an additional period of >no more than six (6) months. No member of the Initial Board shall be >eligible for election to the Board following his or her term on the Initial >Board > > Alternative B. > > The Initial Board of Directors of the Corporation ("Initial Board") >shall consist of no fewer than five (5) and no more than 15 directors. It >shall serve for a single term of one (1) year, unless the Initial Board >shall vote by a 2/3 majority to extend the term of the Initial Board for an >additional period of no more than six (6) months. At such time of the end >of the Initial Board's term, five (5) of the then existing members of the >Initial Board will remain as members of the successor Board ("Temporary >Board Members") for one (1) additional year (or such shorter time as the >Board shall determine by majority vote), with full voting rights and all >the powers and obligations of the new members of the successor Board. The >identity of the Initial Board members who will fill the Temporary Board >Member positions will be determined by the Board. > > [THE RESOLUTION OF THE INITIAL BOARD TERM ISSUES WILL IMPACT CERTAIN OF >THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS. FOR EASE OF DRAFTING, THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS >WILL ASSUME THAT ALTERNATIVE A IS EVENTUALLY SELECTED. IF SOME DIFFERENT >PROVISION IS SELECTED, THE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE MADE.] > > Section 3. NUMBER AND QUALIFICATION OF DIRECTORS AFTER THE >INITIAL BOARD > > The authorized number of Directors shall not be less than nine (9) nor >more than seventeen (17) unless changed by amendment to these Bylaws by a >two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all the members of the Board. The >authorized number of Directors shall be fifteen (15) until changed as >provided in this Section. Each Board after the Initial Board shall be >comprised as follows: > > (a) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Address Supporting > Organization, as defined in Article V; > > (b) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Domain Name > Supporting Organization, as defined in Article V; > > (c) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Protocol Supporting > Organization as defined in Article V; and > > (d) Six (6) Directors nominated by the Internet > Industry/User Supporting Organization, as defined in Article > V. > > In the event that any Supporting Organization entitled to nominate >Directors should cease to exist, the Board may either (i) create one or >more Supporting Organizations and solicit nominees from those Supporting >Organizations, or (ii) solicit nominees from the existing Supporting >Organizations sufficient to fill any vacancies in the Board. > > Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no elected or >appointed official of a national government or a multinational entity >established by treaty or other agreement between national governments shall >be a Director. > >In order to ensure equitable representation of all regions, no more than >one-half (1/2) of the total number of all Directors serving at any given >time shall be from any one region. [DEFINITION OF REGION REQUIRED HERE] >[SUGGESTIONS AS TO EXACTLY HOW THIS REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED ARE >SOLICITED.] > > Section 4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST > > The Board, through a committee designated for that purpose, shall >require not less frequently than once a year a statement from each Director >setting forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way >to the business and other affiliations of the Corporation. Each Director >shall be responsible for disclosing to the Corporation any matter that >could reasonably be considered to make such Director an "interested >director" within the meaning of Section 5233 of the CNPBCL. In addition, >each Director shall disclose to the Corporation any relationship or other >factor that could reasonably be considered to cause the Director to be >considered to be an "interested person" within the meaning of Section 5227 >of the CNPBCL. The Board may adopt a policy specifically addressing >Director and Officer conflicts of interest. No Director shall vote on any >matter in which he or she has a material and direct interest that will be >affected by the outcome of the vote. > > Section 5. ELECTION AND TERM > > Directors shall be elected at each annual meeting of the Board to hold >office until the end of their terms pursuant to the procedures described in >this section. If an annual meeting is not held or the Directors are not >elected at the annual meeting, they may be elected at any special meeting >of the Board held for that purpose. Each Director, including a member of >the Initial Board and a Director elected to fill a vacancy or elected at a >special meeting, shall hold office until expiration of the term for which >elected and until a successor has been elected and qualified. Prior to >elections, the Board shall solicit candidates from each Supporting >Organization with an open position on the Board. The Supporting >Organizations shall provide to the Board a slate of candidates for >consideration that includes at least twice as many candidates as there are >open positions on the Board for that Supporting Organization. Nominated >candidates should represent the broad and diverse interests of the Internet >community, including but not limited to, address registries, protocol and >domain name registries, domain name registrars, the technical community, >Internet users, and geographic diversity. The Board shall elect the >Directors from the slate of candidates that are nominated by each of the >Supporting Organizations that are entitled to fill an open position on the >Board; provided, however, that after any such election the number of >Directors from each Supporting Organization shall not be greater than as >set forth in Section 3 of this Article. > > The regular term of office of a Director other than a member of the >Initial Board shall be three (3) years. Any Directors may serve additional >terms provided that the total years of continuous service shall not exceed >six (6). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the terms of the Directors serving >on the first Board elected after the Initial Board shall be as follows: >five Directors (one nominee of the Address Supporting Organization, one >nominee of the Domain Name Supporting Organization, one nominee of the >Protocol Supporting Organization, and two nominees of the Industry/User >Supporting Organization) shall serve a term of one (1) year; five Directors >(one nominee of the Address Supporting Organization, one nominee of the >Domain Name Supporting Organization, one nominee of the Protocol >Organization, and two nominees of the Industry/User Supporting >Organization) shall serve a term on two (2) years; and five directors (one >nominee of the Address Supporting Organization, one nominee of the Domain >Name Supporting Organization, one nominee of the Protocol Supporting >Organization, and two nominees of the Industry/User Supporting >Organization) shall serve a term of three (3) years. > > Section 6. RESIGNATION > > Subject to Section 5226 of the CNPBCL, any Director may resign at any >time, either by oral tender of resignation at any meeting of the Board or >by giving written notice thereof to the President or the Secretary of the >Corporation. Such resignation shall take effect at the time specified >therefor, and, unless otherwise specified, the acceptance of such >resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. If the >resignation of a Director is effective at a future time, the Board may >elect a successor to take office as of the date when the resignation >becomes effective. The successor shall be elected pursuant to Section 7 of >this Article. > > Section 7. REMOVAL OF DIRECTOR > > Any Director may be removed following notice and a four-fifths (4/5) >majority vote of all members of the Board; provided, however, that the >Director or Directors who are the subject of the removal action shall not >be entitled to vote on such an action or be counted as a member of the >Board when calculating the required four-fifths (4/5) vote; and provided >further, however, that in no event shall a Director be removed unless such >removal is approved by not less than a majority of all members of the >Board. > > Section 8. VACANCIES > > A vacancy or vacancies in the board of Directors shall be deemed to >exist in the case of the death, resignation or removal of any Director, if >the authorized number of Directors is increased, if a Supporting >Organization shall fail to nominate its slate of candidates in accordance >with Section 5 of this Article, or if a Director has been declared of >unsound mind by a final order of court or convicted of a felony or has been >found by final order or judgment of any court to have breached a duty under >Sections 5230 et seq. of the CNPBCL. Any vacancy occurring on the Board of >Directors will be filled by a majority vote of all members of the Board. A >Director appointed to fill a vacancy on the Board shall serve for the >unexpired term of his or her predecessor in office and until a successor >has been selected and qualified. The successor shall be elected from a >slate of candidates nominated by the Supporting Organization represented by >the predecessor Director, unless the vacancy is created with respect to a >member of the Initial Board or by the failure of a Supporting Organization >to nominate its slate of Directors pursuant to Section 5 of this Article, >in which case the Board shall elect another Director by majority vote of >all members of the Board. The replacement need not hold the office, if >any, of the removed Director. No reduction of the authorized number of >Directors shall have the effect of removing a Director prior to the >expiration of the Director's term of office. > > Section 9. ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS > > Annual meetings of the Board will be held for the purpose of electing >Directors, Officers and for the transaction of such other business as may >come before the meeting. The first annual meeting will be held the last >week of September 1999 or on such other date as may be set by the Board. >Subsequent annual meetings shall be held as set by the Board not less than >ten (10) nor more than thirteen (13) months after the annual meeting held >the prior year. In the absence of designation, the annual meeting will be >held at the principal office of the Corporation. The Corporation shall be >required to make available at the place of any meeting of the Board the >telecommunications equipment necessary to permit members of the Board to >participate by telephone pursuant to Section 14 of this Article. > > Section 10. REGULAR MEETINGS > > Regular meetings of the Board will be held at least semi-annually, on >dates to be determined by the Board. In the absence of designation, >regular meetings will be held at the principal office of the Corporation. > > Section 11. SPECIAL MEETINGS > > Special meetings of the Board may be called by or at the request of >one-quarter (1/4) of the members of the Board or by the Chairperson of the >Board or the President. A call for a special meeting will be made in >writing by the Secretary of the Corporation. In the absence of >designation, special meetings will be held at the principal office of the >Corporation. > > Section 12. NOTICE OF MEETINGS > > Notice of time and place of all meetings will be delivered personally >or by telephone or by electronic mail to each Director, or sent by >first-class mail (air mail for addresses outside the United States) or >facsimile, charges prepaid, addressed to each Director at the Director's >address as it is shown on the records of the Corporation. In case the >notice is mailed, it will be deposited in the United States mail at least >fourteen (14) days before the time of the holding of the meeting, and the >Secretary of the Corporation shall cause each Director to be notified by >telephone or electronic mail within four (4) days after the notice is >mailed. In case the notice is delivered personally or by telephone or >facsimile or electronic mail it will be delivered personally or by >telephone or facsimile or electronic mail at least seven (7) days before >the time of the holding of the meeting. Notwithstanding anything in this >Section 12 to the contrary, notice of a meeting need not be given to any >Director who signed a waiver of notice or a written consent to holding the >meeting or an approval of the minutes thereof, whether before or after the >meeting, or who attends the meeting without protesting, prior thereto or at >its commencement, the lack of notice to such Director. All such waivers, >consents and approvals shall be filed with the corporate records or made a >part of the minutes of the meetings. > > Section 13. QUORUM > > At all meetings of the Board, a majority of the total number of >Directors then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of >business, and the act of a majority of the Directors present at any meeting >at which there is a quorum shall be the act of the Board, unless otherwise >provided herein or by law. If a quorum shall not be present at any meeting >of the Board, the Directors present thereat may adjourn the meeting from >time to time to another place, time or date. If the meeting is adjourned >for more than twenty-four (24) hours, notice shall be given to those >Directors not at the meeting at the time of the adjournment. >Notwithstanding the foregoing, a quorum shall not be less than one-fifth >(1/5) of the number of authorized Directors. > > Section 14. ACTION BY TELEPHONE MEETING > > Members of the Board or any Committee of the Board may participate in >a meeting of the Board or Committee of the Board through use of conference >telephone or similar communications equipment, provided that all Directors >participating in such a meeting can hear one another. Participation in a >meeting pursuant to this Section constitutes presence in person at such >meeting. > > Section 15. ACTION WITHOUT MEETING > > Any action required or permitted to be taken by the Board or a >Committee of the Board may be taken without a meeting if all of the >Directors entitled to vote thereat shall individually or collectively >consent in writing to such action. Such written consent shall have the same >force and effect as the unanimous vote of such Directors. Such written >consent or consents shall be filed with the minutes of the proceedings of >the Board. > > Section 16. ELECTRONIC MAIL > > Communication by electronic mail shall be considered equivalent to any >communication otherwise required to be in writing, except a written consent >authorized by Section 15 of this Article. The Corporation shall take such >steps as it deems appropriate under the circumstances to assure itself that >communications by electronic mail are authentic. > > Section 17. RIGHTS OF INSPECTION > > Every Director shall have the right at any reasonable time to inspect >and copy all books, records and documents of every kind except where >confidentiality would be violated, and to inspect the physical properties >of the Corporation. > > Section 18. COMPENSATION > > The Directors shall receive no compensation for their services as >Directors. The Board may, however, authorize the reimbursement of actual >and necessary expenses incurred by Directors performing duties as >Directors. > > Section 19. Transparency > > The Corporation and the Supporting Organizations shall operated to the >maximum extent possible in an open and transparent manner. > >ARTICLE V: SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS > > Section 1. POWERS > > The Supporting Organizations shall serve as advisory bodies to the >Board and shall have such powers and duties as may be prescribed by the >Board and these Bylaws. The Board may add additional, or remove existing, >Supporting Organizations by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all members >of the Board. The Supporting Organizations shall be responsible for >nominating Directors for election to the Board and for proposing policies >and procedures regarding the governance and operation of the Corporation as >well as the general Internet infrastructure. Any proposals forwarded to >the Board by a Supporting Organization shall be simultaneously transmitted >to all other Supporting Organizations so that they may comment to the Board >on such proposals. The Board shall approve policies and procedures >proposed by the Supporting Organizations subject to review for (1) >compliance with the articles and Bylaws, (2) compliance with fair and open >processes for generating the proposals, and (3) absence of unresolved >conflicts between Supporting Organizations. The Supporting Organizations >also shall constitute the primary funding sources for the Corporation in >accordance with policies established by the Board. > > Section 2. QUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP IN A SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION > > The Board, by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all members of the >Board, shall develop and adopt the minimum qualifications for membership in >each of the Supporting Organizations. These qualifications may be amended >from time to time by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all the members of >the Board. Any entity or organization that wishes to participate in a >Supporting Organization may do so provided it meets the minimum >qualifications developed by the Board and any additional qualifications >adopted by the Supporting Organization and approved by the Board. Each >Supporting Organization shall have the right to adopt qualifications for >membership in that organization, subject to approval by the Board to insure >that they are no more restrictive than necessary. Except where stated >above, each entity or organization that qualifies to participate in a given >Supporting Organization shall designate one individual as its >representative. The Supporting Organization shall establish procedures to >determine the nominees for such Supporting Organization's open positions on >the Board. The Supporting Organization shall provide its nominations to >the Board at least 60 days prior to the date on which the Board vote to >fill such positions will occur. > > Section 3. DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFICATIONS > > There shall at least be the following Supporting Organizations: > > (a) The Address Supporting Organization shall be composed of >representatives from regional Internet address registries and other >entities or individuals with legitimate interests in these issues, as >determined by the Address Supporting Organization and approved by the >Board. Until such time as there are additional members in the Address >Supporting Organization, Directors representing this Supporting >Organization shall by nominated by the American Registry for Internet >Numbers ("ARIN"), the Asia Pacific Network Information Center ("APNIC") >and Reseaux IP Europeens ("RIPE-NCC"). The Address Supporting >Organization shall create an Address Council to make recommendations >relating to the assignment of Internet addresses; > > (b) The Domain Name Supporting Organization shall be composed of >representatives from name registries and registrars of generic/global and >country-code top-level domains ("TLDs") and other entities with legitimate >interests in these issues, as determined by the Domain Name Supporting >Organization and approved by the Board. The Domain Name Supporting >Organization shall create a Names Council to make recommendations relating >to top level (generic/global and country-code) domains, including >operation, assignment and management of the domain name system; > > (c) The Protocol Supporting Organization shall be composed of >representatives from Internet protocol organizations. Until such time as >there are additional members in the Protocol Supporting Organization, >Directors representing this Supporting Organization shall be nominated by >the Internet Architecture Board. The Protocol Supporting Organization >shall create a Protocol Council to make recommendations relating to the >management of protocol numbers, port numbers and other technical >parameters; and > > (d) The Industry/User Supporting Organization shall be composed >of representatives of organizations that represent Internet users. The >Industry/User Supporting Organization shall create an Industry/User Council >to make recommendations relating to the advancement of the purposes and >capabilities of the Internet, the needs of Internet users, and other >matters concerning the use of the Internet. > >ARTICLE VI: COMMITTEES > > Section 1. COMMITTEES GENERALLY > > A. The Board may establish one or more committees. Committees are of >two kinds: those having legal authority to act for the Corporation, known >as Committees of the Board, and those that do not have that authority, >known as Advisory Committees. Except where otherwise stated in these >Bylaws, committee members shall be appointed by the Board. Committee >members may be removed at any time by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of >all members of the Board; provided, however, that if a Director or >Directors are the subject of the removal action, such Director or Directors >shall not be entitled to vote on such an action or be counted as a member >of the Board when calculating the required two-thirds (2/3) vote; and, >provided further, however, that in no event shall a Director be removed >unless such removal is approved by not less than a majority of all members >of the Board. The Board may delegate to Committees of the Board all legal >authority of the Board except with respect to: > > (1) The filling of vacancies on the Board or on any > committee; > > (2) The fixing of compensation of the Directors for serving > on the Board or on any committee; > > (3) The amendment or repeal of Bylaws or the adoption of new > Bylaws; > > (4) The amendment or repeal of any resolution of the Board > which by its express terms is not so amendable or repealable; > > (5) The appointment of committees of the Board or the > members thereof; > > (6) The expenditure of corporate funds to support a nominee > for Director after there are more people nominated for > Director than can be elected; or > > (7) The approval of any self-dealing transaction, as such > transactions are defined in Section 5233(a) of the CNPBCL. > > B. The Board shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which >proceedings of any committee shall be conducted. In the absence of any such >prescription, such committee shall have the power to prescribe the manner >in which its proceedings shall be conducted. Unless these Bylaws, the >Board or such committee shall otherwise provide, the regular and special >meetings shall be governed by the provisions of Article IV applicable to >meetings and actions of the Board. Each committee shall keep regular >minutes of its proceedings and shall report the same to the Board from time >to time, as the Board may require. > > Section 2. COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD > > Only Directors may be appointed to a Committee of the Board. If a >person appointed to a Committee of the Board ceases to be a Director, such >person shall also cease to be a member of any Committee of the Board. Each >Committee of the Board shall consist of two or more Directors. The Board >may designate one or more Directors as alternate members of any such >committee, who may replace any absent member at any meeting of the >committee. The Board may terminate any Committee of the Board. > > Section 3. ADVISORY COMMITTEES > > The Board may appoint one or more Advisory Committees. Advisory >Committee membership may consist of Directors only, Directors and >nondirectors, or nondirectors only, and may also include nonvoting members >and alternate members. Advisory Committees shall have no legal authority >to act for the Corporation, but shall report their findings and >recommendations to the Board. > > Section 4. TERM OF OFFICE > > The chairperson and each member of a committee shall serve until his >or her successor is appointed, or until such committee is sooner > >terminated, or until he or she is removed, resigns, or otherwise ceases to >qualify as a member of the committee. > > Section 5. QUORUM; MEETINGS > > A majority of the members of the committee shall constitute a quorum >at any meeting of that committee. Each committee shall meet as often as is >necessary to perform its duties. > > Section 6. VACANCIES > > Vacancies on any committee shall be filled in the same manner as >provided in the case of original appointments. > > Section 7. COMPENSATION > > The Board may authorize compensation for service as a member of a >committee, but no such compensation shall be authorized for a Director. >The Board may, however, authorize the reimbursement of actual and necessary >expenses incurred by committee members, including Directors, performing >their duties as committee members. > >ARTICLE VII: OFFICERS > > Section 1. OFFICERS > > The officers of the Corporation will be Chairperson of the Board, a >President (who will serve as Chief Executive Officer), a Chief Technology >Officer, a Vice President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer/Chief Financial >Officer. The Corporation may have also have at the discretion of the >Board, a Vice Chairperson, one or more additional Vice Presidents, one or >more additional Assistant Secretaries, and one or more Assistant >Treasurers. Any person may hold more than one office, except that neither >the Chairperson of the Board nor the President may serve concurrently as >the Secretary or the Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer. > > Section 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS > > The officers of the Corporation will be elected annually by the Board, >and each shall hold his or her office until he or she resigns, is removed, >is otherwise disqualified to serve, or his or her successor is elected. > > Section 3. REMOVAL OF OFFICERS > > Any Officer may be removed either with or without cause by a >two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all the members of the Board. Should any >vacancy occur in any office as a result of death, resignation, removal, >disqualification or any other cause, the Board may delegate the powers and >duties of such office to any Officer or to any Director until such time as >a successor for the office has been elected. > > Section 4. CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD > > The Chairperson of the Board shall preside at all meetings of the >Board, shall have the usual powers of a presiding officer and shall have >such other duties as may be prescribed by the Board. > > Section 5. PRESIDENT > > The President will be the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation >in charge of all of its activities and business. The President shall be >entitled to attend any meeting of the Board, and shall receive notice of >such meeting in accordance with Article IV, Section 12 of these Bylaws, and >shall be entitled to attend any meeting of any committee. The President >shall report annually to the Board on the current state of the Corporation >and plans for the future. The President shall submit to the Board the >annual budget of the Corporation for the next fiscal year at least three >(3) months prior to the commencement of the fiscal year. The President >will be empowered to call special meetings of the Board as set forth >herein, and shall discharge all other duties as may be required by these >Bylaws and from time to time may be assigned by the Board. > > Section 6. VICE PRESIDENTS > > Each Vice President, however titled, shall perform such duties and >services and shall have such authority and responsibility as shall be >assigned to or required from time to time by the President or the Board. > > Section 7. SECRETARY > > The Secretary shall keep or cause to be kept the minutes of the Board >in one or more books provided for that purpose, will see that all notices >are duly given in accordance with the provisions of these Bylaws or as >required by law, and in general perform all duties as from time to time may >be prescribed by the President or the Board. > > Section 8. TREASURER/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER > > The Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") shall be the chief >financial officer of the Corporation. If required by the Board, the CFO >shall give a bond for the faithful discharge of his or her duties in such >form and with such surety or sureties as the Board shall determine. The >CFO shall have charge and custody of all the funds of the Corporation and >shall keep or cause to be kept, in books belonging to the Corporation, full >and accurate amounts of all receipts and disbursements, and shall deposit >all money and other valuable effects in the name of the Corporation in such >depositories as may be designated for that purpose by the Board. The CFO >shall disburse the funds of the Corporation as may be ordered by the Board >or the President and, whenever requested by them, shall deliver to the >Board and the President an account of all his or her transactions as CFO >and of the financial condition of the Corporation. The CFO shall be >responsible for the Corporation's financial planning and forecasting and >shall assist the President in the preparation of the Corporation's annual >budget. The CFO shall coordinate the Corporation's funding sources, >including recommending assessments of Supporting Organizations and other >solicitations of funds. The CFO shall be responsible for all other matters >relating to the financial operation of the Corporation. > > Section 9. CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER > > The Chief Technology Officer shall advise the Board and the President >on engineering and other technical issues related to the matters which they >consider. > > Section 10. ASSISTANT OFFICERS > > Officers and Assistant Officers, in addition to those hereinabove >described, who are elected or appointed by the Board, shall perform such >duties as will be assigned to them by the President or the Board. > > Section 11. COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES > > The compensation of any Officer of the Corporation shall be approved >by the Board. Expenses incurred in connection with performance of their >officer duties may be reimbursed to Officers upon approval of the President >(in the case of Officers other than the President) or the Board. > >ARTICLE VIII: INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS, OFFICERS EMPLOYEES AND >OTHER AGENTS > > The Corporation shall, to maximum extent permitted by the CNPBCL, >indemnify each of its agents against expenses, judgments, fines, >settlements and other amounts actually and reasonable incurred in >connection with any proceeding arising by reason of the fact that any such >person is or was an agent of the Corporation. For purposes of this >Article, an "agent" of the Corporation includes any person who is or was a >Director, Officer, employee or any other agent of the Corporation; or is or >was serving at the request of the Corporation as a Director, Officer, >employee or agent of another Corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust >or other enterprise. The Board may adopt a resolution authorizing the >purchase and maintenance of insurance on behalf of any agent of the >Corporation against any liability asserted against or incurred by the agent >in such capacity or arising out of the agent's status a such, whether or >not this Corporation would have the power to indemnify the agent against >that liability under the provisions of this Article. > >ARTICLE IX: GENERAL PROVISIONS > > Section 1. CONTRACTS > > The Board may authorize any Officer or Officers, agent or agents, to >enter into any contract or execute or deliver any instrument in the name of >and on behalf of the Corporation, and such authority may be general or >confined to specific instances. In the absence of a contrary Board >authorization, contracts and instruments may only be executed by the >following Officers: Chairperson of the Board, President, any Vice >President, or the CFO. Unless authorized or ratified by the Board, no >other Officer, agent or employee shall have any power or authority to bind >the Corporation or to render it liable for any debts or obligations. > > Section 2. DEPOSITS > > All funds of the Corporation not otherwise employed will be deposited >from time to time to the credit of the Corporation in such banks, trust >companies or other depositories as the Board may select. > > Section 3. CHECKS > >All checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money, notes or other >evidences of indebtedness issued in the name of the Corporation will be >signed by such Officer or Officers, agent or agents, of the Corporation and >in such a manner as shall from time to time be determined by resolution of >the Board. > > Section 4. LOANS > > Subject to Article V hereof, no loans will be made by or to this >Corporation and no evidences of indebtedness will be issued in its name >unless authorized by a resolution of the Board. Such authority may be >general or confined to specific instances; provided, however, that no loans >will be made by the Corporation to its Directors or Officers. > >ARTICLE X: ACCOUNTING YEAR AND TAX AUDIT > > Section 1. ACCOUNTING > > The fiscal year end of the Corporation shall be determined by the >Board. > > Section 2. AUDIT > > At the end of the fiscal year, the books of the Corporation will be >closed and audited by certified public accountants. The appointment of the >fiscal auditors will be the responsibility of the Board. > > Section 3. ANNUAL REPORT AND ANNUAL STATEMENT > > The CFO shall cause the annual report and the annual statement of >certain transactions as required by the CNPBCL to be prepared and sent to >each member of the Board and to such other persons as the Board may >designate, no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the close of >the Corporation's fiscal year. > >ARTICLE XI: AMENDMENTS > > The Bylaws of the Corporation may be altered, amended, or repealed and >new Bylaws adopted only upon action by two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of >all members of the Board. These Bylaws will be reviewed at least annually, >or more often if deemed necessary. > >ARTICLE XII: INTENT > > These Bylaws are intended to be transitional in nature and to aid in >the initial governance of the Corporation. These Bylaws are intended to be >amended or replaced by the Board within one (1) year after their adoption; >provided, however, that these Bylaws shall remain in full force and effect >until such time as they are amended or replaced. > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Send your public comments to . > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > If you know someone who should be added to this list, please > have them send a message to majordomo@iana.org with the line > "subscribe iana-announce" as the body of the message. > > To remove yourself from this list, please send a message to > majordomo@iana.org with the line "unsubscribe iana-announce" as > the body of the message. > >========================================================================= > >The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) >P.O. Box 12607 Marina del Rey, CA 90295-3607 > >"Dedicated to preserving the central coordinating functions of the >global Internet for the public good." >============================================================================ > > -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 19/07/98 Time: 00:57:29 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Sun Jul 19 02:05:51 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id CAA29588; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 02:05:51 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from doorstep.unety.net (ns.unety.net [207.32.128.1]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id CAA29584 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 02:05:46 +0900 (JST) Received: from webster (webster.unir.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA18796 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:08:30 -0500 Message-ID: <02bc01bdb26d$957082c0$059f20cf@webster.unir.net> Reply-To: "Jim Fleming" From: "Jim Fleming" To: Subject: Fw: Comments on Proposed IANA By Laws Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:00:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Jim Fleming To: comments@iana.org Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET ; discussion-draft@giaw.org Date: Friday, July 17, 1998 8:32 PM Subject: Comments on Proposed IANA By Laws >Dr. Jon Postel >University of Southern California >Information Sciences Institute >Suite 1001 >4676 Admiralty Way >Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > >Dear Dr. Postel: > >I read with interest your proposed By Laws for a Nonprofit >Public Benefit Corporation. I am not sure that your proposed >company will be compatible with the United States Government's >Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code. You might want to get >a letter ruling from the IRS before your proceed or consider >forming a for-profit company. I suggest that you consult an >attorney regarding your proposed Corporation. > >As you will note below, according to the IRS your proposed >company can not be "organized to engage in an activity ordinarily >carried on for profit". Several of the activities that you mention >in ARTICLE I: PURPOSES, are currently carried on by for profit >companies in the U.S. For example: > > 1. "(ii) managing and performing functions related to the > coordination of the Internet address space" is carried on > by many ISPs and companies such as @Home which > performs a similar function for the Cable TV industry. > > 2. "(iii) managing and performing functions related to the > coordination of the Internet domain name system, including > overseeing policies for determining the circumstances under > which new top-level domains are added to the root system;" > is carried on by many of the Root Name Server operators > around the world, many of whom are for-profit companies > including the companies that operate eDNS, AURSC, etc. > > 3. "(iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet > root server system;" is currently performed by Network > Solutions Inc., a for-profit company that is publicly traded. > Other for-profit companies are also involved, such as PSI Net > and the Internet Software Consortium (ISC) appears to > be converting from a non-profit to a for-profit operation. > >You might want to consider whether these activities are essential >to your proposed corporation. They might be better handled >by for-profit companies. As specified by the IRS, non-profit >companies are not intended to compete with for-profit >companies, instead, they are supposed to be organized >to provide community services not normally supplied >by for-profit companies. Your proposed Corporation seems >to lack that sort of purpose, yet seeks the advantages of >the non-profit structure. I suggest that you carefully review >your proposal in the light of U.S. laws and tax codes. > > >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com > > > >REFERENCE MATERIAL > >@@@@@@@@ http://www.iana.org/bylaws.html > >"ARTICLE I: PURPOSES > > This corporation (the "Corporation") is established for the purposes >specified in its Articles of Incorporation. These purposes include >maintaining the operational stability of the Internet by: (i) coordinating >the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain >universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) managing and performing >functions related to the coordination of the Internet address space; (iii) >managing and performing functions related to the coordination of the >Internet domain name system, including overseeing policies for determining >the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the root >system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet root server >system; (v) engaging in any other lawful activity in furtherance of items >(i) through (iv); and (vi) engaging in any other lawful act or activity for >which a corporation may be organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit >Corporation Law." > >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > >http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/index.html > >http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bus-orgs.html > >@@@@ http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bl-req.html > >"No part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private >shareholder or individual and it may not be organized for profit or >organized to engage in an activity ordinarily carried on for profit >(even if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces >only sufficient income to be self-sustaining)." > >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Sun Jul 19 06:31:23 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id GAA01975; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 06:31:23 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id GAA01967 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 06:31:17 +0900 (JST) Received: from syr.edu (syru182-104.syr.edu [128.230.182.104]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA26991; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 17:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35B114CF.EE396846@syr.edu> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 17:34:07 -0400 From: Milton Mueller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: iana-announce@ISI.EDU CC: iana@ISI.EDU, apple@apnic.net, list@giaw.org Subject: Re: IANA By Laws Proposal for Discussion References: <199807172216.PAA11648@boreas.isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk I think the good Doctor is getting a bit ahead of himself here. Two important points I wish to make. They may seem semantic or symbolic in character, but they are actually more substantive than they seem. 1. The new organization will not be, and should not be referred to as, a "new IANA." Or to put it more accurately, the Entity will be new, but it will not be IANA. And if it is IANA, it will not be new (enough). The problem here is that the term "IANA" carries far too much undesirable historical freight. The existing IANA is too closely aligned with past initiatives and institutions that failed to get consensus and polarized many stakeholders in the process. Any transitional process that adopts as a label the organizational name of one of the partisans in the past two years of warfare simply does not make sense. Calling this organization a "new IANA" is like calling it a "new NSI." When the US was creating a new system of government it did not call the "President" a "King." This choice of terms was made regardless of whether the previous King was a good King or a bad King. It was made because the new label reflected a new institutional framework. While I reognize and appreciate the accomplishments and contributions of the IANA in the past, I respectfully request that it stop using the term "new IANA" in all further discussions of the new Entity. 2. The by-laws propose a specific state, California, for the location of this new Entity. Once again, I find this to be extremely presumptuous. To any objective observer, it appears as if we are picking the location of the organization based upon specific ideas about who is going to be running it. I think it is best for the involved community to reach a consensus about what this organization is going to do, and who is going to be running it, FIRST. Then we can talk about where to incorporate it. It may well end up in California, or somewhere else in the United States. But let's put first things first. Regards, Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Sun Jul 19 20:07:30 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA14647; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 16:56:09 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from geocities.com (mail8.geocities.com [209.1.224.42]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA14606 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 16:55:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from geocities.com (yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg [137.132.85.230]) by geocities.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA05068 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 00:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <35B1A748.60F439FF@geocities.com> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 15:59:04 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MILIS Apple Subject: Re: IANA By Laws Proposal for Discussion References: <199807172216.PAA11648@boreas.isi.edu> <35B114CF.EE396846@syr.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Milton Mueller wrote: > 1. The new organization will not be, and should not be > referred to as, a "new IANA." Why not? How about: "might be called the new IANA" ? "IANA" is something related to the "root" server management and addresses allocations. That brand name is the same like "Kodak", "Kleenex", "Pampers", etc. > 2. The by-laws propose a specific state, California, for > the location of this new Entity. Once again, I find this > to be extremely presumptuous. I second this. tabe, -- Rahmat M.Samik-Ibrahim VLSM-TJT http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6825 - POST'EL POWER SYNDROME: after too long in charge symptom (m/tic)- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Sun Jul 19 21:24:56 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id VAA00160; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 21:24:56 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from copper.singnet.com.sg (copper.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id VAA00156 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 21:24:52 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas2558.singnet.com.sg [165.21.55.68]) by copper.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA02738 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 20:27:41 +0800 (SGT) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 98 20:29:32 Subject: FW: Jon Postel's Draft Contribution To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk FYI to help discussion. --- On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 13:29:39 -0400 Tony Rutkowski wrote: Laina, The following summary of the Postel contribution may be useful. --tony 1) Form. California 501(c)3 corporation 2) Powers. (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) managing and performing functions related to the coordination of the Internet address space; (iii) managing and performing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system, including overseeing policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet root server system; 3) Membership. Membership consisting of four Supporting Organizations, each of which has members as follows: Address. Regional Internet address registries and other entities or individuals with legitimate interests in these issues. Pre-defined to be ARIN, RIPE, and AP-NIC. Domain Name. Name registries and registrars of generic/global and country-code top-level domains ("TLDs") and other entities with legitimate interests in these issues. Protocol. Internet protocol organizations. Pre-defined to be the ISOC-IAB. Industry/User. Organizations that represent Internet users. 4) Membership requirements. To be determined. Multiple memberships are allowed for a joining party. 5) Power allocation. All powers reside in the Board of Directors. No checks or balances are specified. 6) Board seat allotments. The Board will be comprised of: 3 Directors nominated by the Address Supporting Organization 3 Directors nominated by the Domain Name Supporting Organization 3 Directors nominated by the Protocol Supporting Organization 6 Directors nominated by the Internet Industry/User Supporting Organization 7) Initial Board. The initial Board that will either a) be replaced entirely and permanently after one year b) 1/3 (likely) will continue for an extra year 8) Board elections. The Board elects its own replacement Directors from nominees submitted by the supporting organizations. There are no requirements for diversity. 9) Terms. Board members have 3 year terms; 2 consecutive terms are possible. 10) Officers. Officers are appointed annually by the Board. 11) Openness. The only requirements relating to openness are that "the Corporation and the Supporting Organizations shall operated to the maximum extent possible in an open and transparent manner." 12) Conflict of interest. Board members file an annual disclosure of interests. "No Director shall vote on any matter in which he or she has a material and direct interest that will be affected by the outcome of the vote." No definitions are specified. 13) Review and Appeal. No provisions exist with respect to review and appeal. 14) Bylaws amendments require 2/3 Board approval -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 19/07/98 Time: 20:29:32 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Thu Jul 23 17:16:21 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA01623; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:16:21 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from warrane.connect.com.au (warrane.connect.com.au [192.189.54.33]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA01617 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:16:14 +0900 (JST) From: David.Goldstein@aba.gov.au Received: from janus.aba.gov.au (pix076a.magna.com.au [203.111.111.76]) by warrane.connect.com.au with SMTP id SAA12988 (8.8.8/IDA-1.7 for ); Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:19:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by janus.aba.gov.au (5.65/1.2-eef) id AA26601; Thu, 23 Jul 98 18:14:05 +1000 X400-Received: by mta abamta in /PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au; Relayed; 23 Jul 98 18:14:05 +1000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au; Relayed; 23 Jul 98 18:21:34 +0000 Date: 23 Jul 98 18:14:05 +1100 Delivery-Date: 23 Jul 98 18:14:05 +1100 Message-Type: Multiple Part X400-Originator: David.Goldstein@aba.gov.au X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=ausgovaba/ADMD=telememo/C=au;XGW-980723182134+0000-29763] X400-Recipients: apple@apnic.net Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text Message-Id: <0723182134-ABA shortlisted for Carl Bertelsmann Pri* @MHS> Importance: normal Subject: ABA shortlisted for Carl Bertelsmann Pri Autoforwarded: FALSE To: apple@apnic.net Conversion: Allowed Conversion-With-Loss: Allowed Alternate-Recipient: Prohibited Content-Identifier: ABA shortlisted Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk ______________________________ News Release NR 71/1998 For immediate release ABA SHORTLISTED FOR CARL BERTELSMANN PRIZE The Australian Broadcasting Authority has been shortlisted for the 1998 Carl Bertelsmann Prize for its general co-regulatory approach to broadcasting services, and in particular its use of this model in relation to on-line services. The ABA has been selected by the German based Bertelsmann Foundation, from more than a hundred possible prize candidates, as one of six organisations from around the world that stand for responsibility on the way into the digital era. `The ABA is honoured to be nominated for such a prestigious award,' said Professor David Flint, ABA Chairman. `"It is gratifying that the co-regulation model and our work in the on-line services area has received international recognition in this way.' The prize will be awarded on 10 September 1998 in Gutersloh, Germany. The theme for the 1998 prize is `Communications 2000 - Innovation and Responsibility in the Information Society'. The keynote address will be given by Roman Herzog, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. In awarding the prize, the Bertelsmann Foundation is seeking to highlight viable models for regulating the media and communications markets in the future. Any future regulation will need to safeguard media freedom, media diversity and media quality within a broader regulatory framework, and further regulate telecommunications and the media in line with general commercial legislation and guidelines. The Bertelsmann Foundation awards the Carl Bertelsmann Prize in recognition of innovative contributions in key areas of social policy. The goal is to spark and promote public and political debates. The winners are chosen from around the world by a panel of international experts. The Carl Bertelsmann Prize in 1998 intends to illustrate opportunities and to recognise a major contribution to dealing with the challenges of the emerging digital age. It will be awarded to a political or entrepreneurial initiative setting an example for balanced order, self-regulation and responsibility in the communication and media markets. The prize itself is worth DM300 000. The five other nominees are: the U.S. Federal Communications Commission; the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission; the Recreational Software Advisory Council, a non-profit organisation founded by the US software industry; Education Network Australia (EdNA) an Australian government initiative; and Bayern Online, a trend-setting project launched by the Bavarian State Government. The shortlist was produced following an international selection process. A commission made up of experts from the media and communications field, politicians and media entrepreneurs compiled a catalogue of criteria based on the white paper `Communications Coordinates 2000', which the Bertelsmann Foundation presented at the start of 1997. The countries were selected according to specific requirements of their infrastructure, legislation and method of market regulation. These included: . safeguarding the freedom of media and information . competition-oriented regulation of the market; . limitation of state intervention in programming to ensuring social compatibility . politically independent, efficient monitoring of the market . agreement on quality standards and the fundamental principle of self-regulation . acceptance of the freedom of publishing and corresponding responsibility for programming structure, quality and content . promotion of media competence . facilitation of access to the information media. The award will be presented on 10 September 1998 live on the Bertelsmann Foundation Web site, http://preis.stiftung.bertelsmann.de Media contact; Donald Robertson, Manager Media and PR, on (02) 9334 7980 22 July 1998 (end) ______________________________ David Goldstein Project Officer, Online Services Australian Broadcasting Authority e-mail: david.goldstein@aba.gov.au phone: +61 2 9334 7938 fax: +61 2 9334 7799 URL: http://www.aba.gov.au ______________________________ * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Fri Jul 24 17:46:58 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA26681; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 17:46:58 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from castor.inet98.ch (castor.inet98.ch [195.176.96.3]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA26671 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 17:46:49 +0900 (JST) Received: from syr.edu (iar-pc17.inet98.ch [195.176.97.17]) by castor.inet98.ch (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA01505; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:48:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <35B785B4.F4ADDDD@syr.edu> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 20:49:24 +0200 From: mueller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list@ifwp.org, apple@apnic.net, ben.petrazzini@itu.int Subject: The "Balanced Diversity & Professionalism proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Jim Dixon asked for comment on the proposal for achieving "balanced diversity and professionalism" on the Board of the WP's new corporation. I have looked over it carefully and wish to make the following comments: 1. I like Jim's approach to measuring representativeness via a quantitative index. There could be some quibbling over the values assigned to certain parameters--as a North American, I was surprised at the 50% representation given to that region, which may be a bit much, surely North American dominance of the Internet will not last at current levels for more than 3 or 4 more years. But on the whole it is a useful approach. 2. Jim's definition of the sectors to be represented was poorly thought out and must be revised. Jim defined 7 categories: -Internet technical community -Internet Industry -Ecommerce businesses -Business in general -Brand name holders -Those "concerned with intersection of IPR and the Internet" -Users The list contains some glaring logical problems and some obvious omissions. As for omissions, where are educational users? Schools, universities, etc are highly significant sector to be represented, both in quantitative terms and in overall social importance. The third, fourth, fifth and possibly even the sixth category are all really subsets of each other. To consider them separate sectors is both logically unjustifiable and politically dangerous, because it would drastically imbalance the Board. What we really have here is a hierarchy: Business in general, of which "brand name holders" and "Ecommerce" are subsets. There are few if any industries that cannot be translated into, or utilize, ecommerce in some way. Brand name holders are simply those businesses who have managed to establish a brand identity in a particular market. This category also intersects with, or perhaps overlaps entirely, with the category of "people concerned about the intersection of intellectual property with the Internet, for brand names are simply a form of intellectual property. There is no logical, economic, or political reason to give this little segment of the world (brand names, IPR) a special claim to a seat on the Board, much less two seats. It seems that Jim has deliberately rigged his definition of sectors to give these sectors disproportionate representation. Aside from the imbalance, this whole approach represents a conceptual error. If sectoral definitions are used to establish the nature of Board representation, the sectoral definitions must be broad, generic, and of lasting significance. They cannot be based on ephemeral political conflicts such as the DNS-trademark battle. It would be equally valid to claim that the Board should have a "privacy advocate," or a "civil libertarian," or a "person concerned with control of pornographic content." Obviously, these are not "sectors" but political positions. Board representation should NOT be based on such things. Here is a better list of sectors to be represented: 1. Internet operations (basically, ISPs, NSPs, NAPs, registrars) 2. Internet manufacturing (equipment suppliers) 3. Business sector (in their capacity as both users and consumers of Internet) 4. Educational sector 5. End users (small business and household consumers) It is both possible and likely that the business sector will choose someone with a trademark, someone who is fully aware of the trademark and intellectual property issues posed by the Internet. It is also possible that the consumer advocate will give voice to trademark concerns if in fact consumer confusion becomes a serious issue. But there is no reason to stack the deck in favor of a special interest in the Internet controversies by guaranteeing one side in a controversy two seats on the board. * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Tue Jul 28 11:45:43 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id LAA18062; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:45:43 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from mail8.ntu.edu.sg ([155.69.1.97]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA18058 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:45:37 +0900 (JST) Received: by MAIL8 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:48:19 +0800 Message-ID: <6665AC0C667ED11186E308002BB487E101495796@exchange2> From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Dr)" To: "'APPLe'" Subject: No comment on the Internet gambling law? Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:47:19 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk The following story is from Edupage and folks on this list must have seen it several times over: SENATE VOTES TO BAN INTERNET GAMBLING The Senate voted 90-10 Thursday to ban Internet gambling, extending the existing federal prohibitions on interstate gambling via telephone or wire. A companion bill is moving through the House. Approximately 140 Web sites offer gambling, and more than $600 million was wagered online last year on sports alone, according to the Justice Department. Sponsoring Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) says without the ban, the revenues could balloon to $10 billion in the next couple of years. "If we don't stop this activity now, the money that is generated by this kind of illegal activity is going to... become so influential in our political process that we will never get it stopped." The legislation would exempt "fantasy" or rotisserie sports leagues, in which participants bid on rosters of professional athletes to create "fantasy" teams, and money is exchanged based on the players' statistics. (Los Angeles Times 24 Jul 98) As far as I can tell, the US attempt to ban Internet gambling is the first such law in the world and there is no doubt others will follow suit. I'm puzzled as to the dearth of comments on it, or, more particularly, against it. This is after all content regulation supporting an activity done by consenting adults that is hard if not impossible to police. Regards, Peng Hwa ANG * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Wed Jul 29 00:36:11 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id AAA02010; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:36:11 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from ties.itu.ch (root@ties.itu.ch [156.106.192.33]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id AAA02005 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:35:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from itu.int (fw.itu.ch [156.106.192.3]) by ties.itu.ch (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA02834; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <35BDF08B.18D99EFE@itu.int> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:51 +0200 From: Robert Shaw X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b1 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domain-policy , gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org, apple@apnic.net Subject: RealVideo of IFWP-Geneva Plenaries Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk IFWP Plenary sessions 1 and 2 for July 24 http://realserver.itu.ch/ifwp/ifwp240798-1.ram http://realserver.itu.ch/ifwp/ifwp240798-2.ram IFWP Plenary sessions 1,2 and 3 for July 25 http://realserver.itu.ch/ifwp/ifwp250798-1.ram http://realserver.itu.ch/ifwp/ifwp250798-2.ram http://realserver.itu.ch/ifwp/ifwp250798-3.ram -- Robert Shaw Head a.i., IED/Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Wed Jul 29 06:31:34 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id GAA08768; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 06:31:34 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id GAA08759 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 06:31:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from IST.SYR.EDU (ist.syr.edu [128.230.182.180]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA24763; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IST/SpoolDir by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21); 28 Jul 98 17:34:08 EDT Received: from SpoolDir by IST (Mercury 1.21); 28 Jul 98 17:34:06 EDT Received: from syr.edu by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21) with ESMTP; 28 Jul 98 17:34:02 EDT Message-ID: <35BE43D3.161702DF@syr.edu> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:34:12 -0400 From: mueller Reply-To: mueller@syr.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list@ifwp.org, apple@apnic.net Subject: Re: [ifwp] RE: [IFWP] Re: The Board References: <32700-14829@lists.interactivehq.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Jim: Jim Dixon wrote: > What is somewhat blurry here is how we get accountability out of this (Council) > structure. > >snip< > However, it appears that the councils will be independent bodies. The > IP address council will consist of RIPE, ARIN, and APNIC, possibly plus > some other members providing user (ISP, business) input. These will not > be part of the new corporation. So all of the normal tools of management > are missing. I agree with you 100% here. This is what makes me uneasy about the bottom-up paradigm, despite its philosophical appeal. The existing Internet resource owners I think are putting one over on the rest of the world by seeking to structure the Neworg in a way that ratifies their existing control and insulates themselves from direct control of the Board. > Exactly what could the Board do if one of the regional IP address > registries began selling large blocks of address space to the highest > bidder? I haven't heard the slightest suggestion that the Board would > have any power to curb this activity. More fundamentally, how do the Regional IP registries GET their blocks of address space? Who owns them? In my opinion ownership of these resources must be clearly vested in Neworg. Neworg must have the right to create new methods of distributing IP addresses as technology evolves and the topology of the Internet changes. At Reston, Karl Auerbach made the excellent point that the justification of the current regional approach to IP address registries depends entirely on the physical layout of transoceanic telecommunication facilities. In the future, there may be some more rational way to organize the distribution of IP addresses. There may be no need for regional registries at all. * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Wed Jul 29 13:04:54 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA17491; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:04:54 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from mail8.ntu.edu.sg ([155.69.1.97]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA17485 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:04:47 +0900 (JST) Received: by MAIL8 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:07:29 +0800 Message-ID: <6665AC0C667ED11186E308002BB487E1014957A1@exchange2> From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Dr)" To: "'APPLe'" Subject: RE: No comment on the Internet gambling law? Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:06:29 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Folks, I got private email response from someone who says that there are behind-the-scenes moves against the anti-gambling law. I find the law interesting 'cos there is a banner advertisement of a virtual casino in the online version of the Business Times, the business daily in Singapore. The url is: http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/ Regards, Peng Hwa ANG * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Wed Jul 29 20:44:05 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id UAA29097; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:44:05 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from geocities.com (mail8.geocities.com [209.1.224.42]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA29091 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:43:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from geocities.com (yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg [137.132.85.230]) by geocities.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA26070 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 04:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <35BEF901.19F9D0D7@geocities.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:27:13 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MILIS Apple Subject: Re: No comment on the Internet gambling law? References: <6665AC0C667ED11186E308002BB487E1014957A1@exchange2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Ang Peng Hwa (Dr) wrote: > I find the law interesting 'cos there is a banner advertisement > of a virtual casino in the online version of the Business Times, > the business daily in Singapore. Hello: I found this interesting because I am still confused whether we are heading to cope "global issues locally" or "local issues globally". Regarding the first case, what are the global issues ? (Are they US centric ?). In the second case, who cares other's problems ? regards, -- Rahmat M.Samik-Ibrahim VLSM-TJT http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6825 - Hasta Manana, Always Soccer, FIFA Forever (The Spice Hooligans) - * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Thu Jul 30 13:05:40 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA14174; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 13:05:40 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from alpha.apnic.net (alpha.apnic.net [203.37.255.97]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA14169 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 13:05:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from doorstep.unety.net (ns.unety.net [207.32.128.1]) by alpha.apnic.net (8.8.7/SCO5) with SMTP id OAA21964 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:08:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from webster (webster.unir.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA23748; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:03:06 -0500 Message-ID: <0a8f01bdbb6d$cb6ba220$059f20cf@webster.unir.net> Reply-To: "Jim Fleming" From: "Jim Fleming" To: Cc: Subject: Historical background of APccTLD Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 22:54:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk @@@@ http://www.apng.org/apcctld/minutes/taskforce.html 1. Historical background of APccTLD - Dr. Kilnam Chon started this plan in the end of 1997 Dr. Jon Postel and IANA asked him to form a regional body of ccTLDs (by the time Europe was ahead to form a body) - Dr. Chon proposed ccTLD contact and NICs to form regional body according to the request from IANA - Got agreement. Contining to discuss - Web page set up on http://www.apng.org/apcctld/, hosted temporarily by Chairman, APNG. 2. Which countries or economies should be considered under APccTLD? - Definition of boundary is the same as those made by RIPE and APNIC - Dr. Postel joined APccTLD mailing list, and Canada became an observer - Draft list set up by Dr Tan Tin Wee on http://www.apng.org/apcctld/tld.html @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Thu Jul 30 16:23:37 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA18971; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:23:37 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (iron.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.29]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA18962 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:23:29 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from laina (qtas0815.singnet.com.sg [165.21.57.205]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA26846 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:26:15 +0800 (SGT) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 98 15:27:45 Subject: FW: Welcome to the New Director General of APNIC! To: apple@apnic.net X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk --- On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 04:30:10 +0800 (SGT) "APNIC Pty. Ltd." wrote: Welcome to the New Director General of APNIC! Toru Takahashi; Chair of Executive Council, APNIC Hello, APNIC members! As you are aware, David Conrad formally resigned from the position of APNIC Director General (DG) in February this year. Since that time, a great deal of effort has been expended on defining an open, fair and unbiased recruitment process to fill this very important position. The APNIC Executive Council (EC) is now happy to announce that this process has come to a successful, logical conclusion and a new Director General has been found. The New Director General ------------------------------------ The new Director General is Mr. Paul Wilson who is an Australian. To give you a very brief background about Paul, he is very active and experienced in the Internet community. Not only he has been a Chief Executive Officer of an ISP, and therefore understands ISP-related issues, but he has also worked as a consultant for the Pan-Asia program under Singapore-based International Development Research Centre (IDRC). In this consulting capacity he has visited and worked in many countries throughout Asia, both developed and developing, and as such he has considerable cross-cultural experience and understanding. He will be available from August 3 1998. DG Induction ------------------- To assist Paul in getting up to speed as quickly as possible, not only will he be assisted by the APNIC Executive Council and Staff, but also from well known Chair of the Asia Pacific Networking Group (APNG) -- Dr. Tan Tin Wee. As you may know, APNIC started as an initial project of APNG. Dr. Tan Tin Wee will assist for a period of six months. The DG Solicitation and Selection Process ---------------------------------------------------------- What follows are some details about the recruitment process and its outcomes. KPMG were nominated to carry out the Executive Search. They are a highly respected organization and our previous dealings with them have been very good and of high quality. The advertisement was placed on many mailing lists throughout the region and beyond. It was posted on the APNIC Web site, together with the KPMG web site. Advertisements were also prepared and placed in copies of "The Australian" and "Singapore Straits Times" newspapers. There were 52 applicants from many countries, all over the world. Dr. John Earls, Director of Research from KPMG was appointed to conduct the initial interviews. He has many years of experience interviewing senior executives in the IT industry and has experience across the board. >From the initial list of 52, he interviewed 15 candidates at 3 different locations: Australia, Singapore and the US. From this process he recommended a further 6 candidates for final interview. We, the EC members together with senior Secretariat staff, gathered at the new APNIC office in Brisbane for the final interviews. Firstly, with the assistance of John Earls, we discussed and agreed on the procedure for the interviews together with the questions to be asked. Each candidate was interviewed for two hours. The interviews were conducted across 2 days. Throughout the process we have received invaluable input from the community throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Consideration was given to the following suggestions from members: 1. When APNIC's new DG does his own role, he/she must give ear to its members opinions. Therefore, new DG must have ability to understand what is the current situation of Asian countries. For this, a person from Asian country will be suitable for APNIC in this viewpoint. 2. We think, selecting APNIC's new DG is very important issue on the Internet society in Asia Pacific region. But, APNIC needs additional staffs who can support DG and understand the situation of Asian countries. 3. Assistance from APNIC members, especially from national NIC's in AP region is essential for APNIC. Therefore, new DG must have the ability to understand the situation of national NIC's in AP region. The Executive Council considered these comments as being basic and important considerations. An Asian candidate was not considered a pre-requisite for the job. What was more important, however, was that the person selected will be able to treat all members equally, fairly and without bias. The staff of APNIC as a whole is very diverse and will always attempt to reflect our diverse membership. We have people with different nationalities and birthplaces such as Japanese, Hong Kong, Bangladesh, England and Australia. Now we will have one additional Australian and one Singaporean. One of the first priorities for Paul Wilson, together with Dr Tan Tin Wee will be to visit several member countries to meet with members. We believe, the new DG and Secretariat staff together with the members can look towards a strong and stable future for APNIC. We hope you will give him your support. Thanks and Welcome! ------------------------------- The EC would like to take this opportunity of thanking Mr. David Conrad for his sterling work in nurturing APNIC from its humble beginnings to it current form with over 200 members. We wish him the very best in his new endeavor as the Executive Director of the Internet Software Consortium. Together with member's support, we believe that the new DG and Secretariat staff can look forward to a stable and stronger future for APNIC. Please join us welcoming Paul Wilson who can be reached at pwilson@apnic.net. Welcome Paul! Toru Takahashi Chair of Executive Council APNIC -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 30/07/98 Time: 15:27:45 This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Thu Jul 30 23:26:40 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id XAA24324; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:26:40 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA24319 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:26:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from IST.SYR.EDU (ist.syr.edu [128.230.182.180]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA03185; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:29:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IST/SpoolDir by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21); 30 Jul 98 10:29:19 EDT Received: from SpoolDir by IST (Mercury 1.21); 30 Jul 98 10:28:58 EDT Received: from syr.edu by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21) with ESMTP; 30 Jul 98 10:28:40 EDT Message-ID: <35C0831F.EF27195C@syr.edu> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:28:47 -0400 From: mueller Reply-To: mueller@syr.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list@ifwp.org, apple@apnic.net Subject: Report on IFWP-Geneva Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------58E117542C434ECAC7395316" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------58E117542C434ECAC7395316 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For those who are interested, attached is an html document containing a narrative of developments in IFWP Geneva. --Milton Mueller. --------------58E117542C434ECAC7395316 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name="IFWP narrative.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="IFWP narrative.html" Content-Base: "file:///D|/My%20Documents/domain%20nam es/IFWP%20narrative.html" IFWP Geneva: A Personal Narrative

IFWP-Geneva: A Personal Narrative

Milton Mueller, Associate Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies. mueller@syr.edu

Slices of conversation from IFWP-Geneva.

Glenn Kowack: "We are trying to do brain surgery with baseball bats."
Ole Jacobson: "It’s not brain surgery, it’s an autopsy conducted on a living body."

"They all look the same to me."
--a Japanese delegate, after seeing another IETF/IANA Net guru with bald head, gray hair, and long beard.

Contents:

 
The following is a personal narrative of the 2nd IFWP meeting, held in Geneva July 24 and 25. The IFWP and participating organizations are making available many official and semi-official documents produced by this important event. This account provides people who weren’t there with an interpretation that cannot be derived from a simple reading of documents and transcripts. Like all such interpretations, it reflects a single individual’s perspective and biases. But sometimes the details and insights provided by such an account provide a more coherent understanding of what was going on.

The tone and structure of this meeting were more formal than the Reston event. Initially, attendance was larger, perhaps as much as 450 on the first day, due to spillover from INET-98. Attendance in the breakout sessions and on the second day, however, was about the same as Reston. The stakeholders represented were much broader geographically. The reason was the meeting’s overlap with the Internet Society meeting (INET-98) held during the preceding three days. That conference brought in large contingents from Africa, Europe, and Asia, and connected the IFWP process to the IANA/IETF contingents that were conspicuously absent from the Reston meeting.

Staking out territory: the power struggle in microcosm

The issues that must be faced and resolved were posed more starkly in Geneva than in Reston, precisely because of this broader participation. Whereas in Reston it was enough simply to develop a spirit of cooperation and the faintest outlines of a consensus, in Geneva it became apparent that deals will have to be struck and the details of plans hammered out. This meeting was far more political than its predecessor was. Blocs were more apparent, deal-making between them the order of the day.

Here, in the author’s opinion, is the most salient fact that emerged from the event. The old Internet rather offhandedly created a globally distributed collection of economic and political actors with a vested interest in maintaining, insofar as possible, the power pyramid devolving from IANA. These "status quo" interests are now fully participating in the IFWP process in order to protect and preserve their position. This includes, at the centre, the old IANA itself, which in the weeks leading up to Geneva took the lead by preparing its own road map for how the transition should take place. It also includes the regional numbering registries--RIPE for Europe, AP-NIC for Asia, and ARIN for the US—which have exclusive control of IP number blocks for their regions, and which, in preparation for the White Paper transition, created a plan for a "Global Address Registry Council." Current country code TLD registrars are also in this category. Having received a valuable territorial monopoly on domain name registration from the old IANA, the ccTLD holders are keen to protect their little stake in the Internet. Prior to IFWP Geneva, European and Asian ccTLD holders organized interest groups. During the IFWP sessions ccTLD holders argued for, among other things, special membership classes and guaranteed seats on the Neworg Board.

Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with IANA preparing a draft proposal for the structure and by-laws of a "new IANA." Likewise, there is nothing illegal or immoral about the regional IP numbering registries or ccTLDs preparing proposals regarding their role in the transition. They are all legitimate stakeholders, and their interests are directly affected. We must, however, clearly identify these groups as a faction or set of factions, and understand that their viewpoint does not represent the Internet as a whole but is, rather, a fairly self-interested and narrow one. If the IFWP process is to be fair and effective, the viewpoints of these vested interests must be balanced against other viewpoints and compete fairly with them. And herein lies one of the central problems with the IFWP process. Because of their strategic position within the existing Internet administrative hierarchy, the status-quo factions can dominate the process. The new organizational framework has to somehow represent the interests of millions of users and suppliers who are not part of that old structure. Indeed, it is vital that the process represent what the Internet can become, not just what it is now.

Of course, there were other factions and interests present. Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), for example, sent a delegation of 7 or 8 people that forcefully represented the interests of the world’s largest registrar/registry. But as a clearly identifiable commercial interest, one that is anything but popular among most netizens, there was little danger that NSI could dominate or co-opt the process. Representatives of the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee (POC) were also a highly visible, organized, and active group.

The danger of co-optation by status quo interests was manifested in Geneva on at least two separate occasions. It happened first in the opening plenary session, when the regional IP registries cleverly won the right to present their views in a privileged fashion. It happened again in the workshop on the formation of Councils devoted to numbering and protocols, where the regional number registries attempted to structure the Councils in ways that will secure their exclusive control over them.

The opening plenary

The opening panel quickly displayed these tensions. The plenary session featured Ira Magaziner of the US Govt, Jon Postel of IANA, Christopher Wilkinson of the EU, Michael Schneider, a German lawyer representing European ISPs, and Dr. Tamar Frankel of Boston University.

A tired-looking Ira Magaziner spoke first, and announced that he would leave the meeting as soon as he finished speaking. His limited participation, he said, reflected the USG’s concept of its proper role in the process: the Neworg should be formed by stakeholders, not by governments. Among the key points in his brief talk:

  • All issues do not need to be resolved by September 30, but Neworg must be in place and "have legitimacy" by then.
  • The Neworg must be robust against legal challenges.
  • The USG doesn’t want more than one organization coming to them with proposals.
  • The USG doesn’t intend to act unilaterally.
Magaziner concluded by saying that the people who want the Internet to be run by governments are waiting for this process to fail, possibly an indirect reference to the EU representative sitting near him at the podium. "Order and stability" have always been the rationale for their intervention, he said. The message: get it done or else.

The European Union’s Christopher Wilkinson spoke next. Is the EU happy with the White Paper? Yes, he said, although one could feel the "but…" coming. Wilkinson said that he appreciated the efforts made by the US administration and welcomed the new process, but he chose to dwell upon "reservations" and "areas of continuing concern." Among those:

  1. The applicability of European and national law to the Internet must be recognized, specifically EU competition law and national trademark law.
  2. Wilkinson called for "consistency" in dispute resolution policies, which revealed his close alliance with the trademark interests who want to see a uniform dispute resolution procedure adopted in order to lower the cost of challenging domain names. (No one seemed to notice the apparent contradiction between Wilkinson’s call for uniformity in this area and his concern about maintaining national and regional differences in point 1 above.) He specifically called for WIPO to have a coordinating role in this process, and, reflecting WIPO’s current attempt to position itself as the dispute resolver for all of cyberspace, Wilkinson said there was no reason to limit WIPO’s role to cybersquatting.
  3. Neworg must have a multilateral, international dimension. This of course reflects continuing European concern about the possibility of US dominance of the Internet.
  4. Rather ominously, Wilkinson asserted that the Neworg will require a "permanent oversight function, from the point of view of public policy." This sounded like a call for a kind of regulatory oversight by governments, although it may not be what he meant.
In general, Wilkinson’s distinctly statist approach was in marked contrast to Magaziner’s. Wilkinson referred to the DNS namespace as a "public resource to be managed as such" and emphasized that public sector and governmental user reps should be able to participate in the councils formed by the new organization. Addressing the DNS controversies, Wilkinson said that eligibility criteria for establishing new TLDs are "urgently required," and called for slow and progressive expansion of the namespace, including non-English language TLDs. Wilkinson’s complete comments are available at http://www.ispo.cec.be/eif/dns/cwgeneva.html

Jon Postel was next. He was very nervous and spoke for a short time in a strained, barely audible voice. He merely referred to his drafts of by-laws and structure and expressed the hope that the meetings will bring forward ideas to improve the drafts that he wrote. It was clear from this statement that he viewed his drafts not as one of many competing proposals being passed around, but as the basic agenda from which the transition would be defined. Postel attempted to separate two distinct problems:

  1. The need to get an organization in place that can continue coordination by September 30.
  2. The need to handle domain name policy issues that don’t need to be settled by September 30. That set of problems could be approached by defining a charter for a domain names council and how it would operate over the coming months.
Michael Schneider spoke next about the Brussels meeting. He noted that the Green Paper was seen by Europeans as an attempt to perpetuate US dominance of the Internet, but claimed that Wilkinson had convinced the USG not to take a US-centric approach. The White Paper was now acceptable. I will omit his summary of the Brussels consensus because it is available elsewhere. http://www.ispo.cec.be/eif/dns/conclusions.html

He then gave a detailed and thoughtful elaboration of newer consensus points that were emerging from the European side, mostly regarding structure and governance. The Europeans seem to have in mind a membership organization in which both the Board and the Councils are elected by members.

Tamar Frankel was supposed to discuss the consensus items developed at Reston, as a counterpart to Schneider’s presentation. It is useful at this point to say a few words about Dr. Frankel’s unusual role in this process. Frankel is not a veteran of the Internet policy wars but was thrust into the middle of the IFWP process shortly after the release of the White Paper. Originally drawn into the process due to her expertise in corporate governance, she has now become a member of the IFWP steering committee and the nominal presiding officer or figurehead at its public events. Her outsider status is the source of her strength—no one can accuse her of being partial or a member of any faction. She has a sharp mind and a delightful personality, and is sincerely and totally committed to developing consensus among the Internet’s warring factions. But her limited historical knowledge of Internet politics and lack of familiarity with many substantive issues create risks, as the next development in the plenary quickly proved.

Frankel noted that the Reston meeting shifted attention away from the names of people who would sit on the Neworg Board, and more toward defining the details of the Board’s charter, so that the Board’s discretion is reduced. Once that is accomplished, agreement on who is qualified to serve on the Board doesn’t matter so much. The objective of the IFWP process, therefore, is to provide more detailed guidelines based on the White Paper. The meeting in Reston, Frankel said, was a milestone event because Internet people not of like mind came together for the first time to focus on agreeing, not on winning. Looking at what has happened since, she finds a great deal of consensus. Frankel then stopped her speech and invited Pindar Wong to make a presentation, ostensibly as an example of the newly developing "consensus."

Consensus by pre-emption?

What happened next bordered on an abuse of the IFWP process. Pindar Wong is a key figure in the Asia-Pacific Internet Association (APIA) and AP-NIC, and was recently appointed to the gTLD-MOU’s Policy Oversight Committee (POC). Wong and others were instrumental in forging plans for a "Global Address Registry Council" controlled by the existing registries. Wong then exploited his access to the IFWP steering committee and the innocence of Dr. Frankel to gain for this faction an opportunity to promote this proposal at the opening plenary session.

Wong launched into a propagandistic presentation complete with Powerpoint slides that attempted to sell the regionals’ plans for a Global Address Council. The essential message was quite simple: IP Address allocation procedures are well established; regional registries are in charge of that process now and should remain so. They should also be guaranteed representatives on the Neworg Board. The final slide, which said only "WE ARE READY" was left up during the entire Q&A period.

Of course, this did not represent "consensus" among formerly conflicting parties, but the viewpoint of a very specific group within the process. It is neither surprising nor impressive that the three organizations that now hold monopoly control over IP address allocation can come to an agreement that they ought to remain in control. That is more like collusion than consensus. Whichever word one chooses, it exemplifies precisely the kind of activity that IFWP must move beyond if it is to succeed.

The Workshops

After the plenary we broke up into workshops, re-convening in the evening. My reporting of the workshops is somewhat spotty because I of course could only be in one place at one time.

Profile of the Entity (Workshop A)

On the first day (July 24) I spent the rest of my time in Workshop A, which was charged to develop a "profile of the entity" that could serve as a constitution or charter defining the scope and limits of its power. The Geneva workshop stuck to the basic framework agreed upon in Reston, but added some substantive elaborations and changes. Geneva moved the constitutional debate forward by taking on directly the issue of the direction of control—bottom up vs. top-down. In its specification of the Neworg Board’s powers, the Geneva workshop sought to limit its power by requiring that IP number policies be approved through a "bottom-up process where entity councils make proposals that the board may accept or veto." That modification was proposed by IETF stalwarts, led in this workshop by Scott Bradner, but carried out throughout all panels. In general, the consensus was that decisions about technical policies must be approved by a relevant Council prior to being accepted or rejected by the Board, although the Board may propose specific items to be considered by the Councils.

The provision giving the Board the power to set policies and procedures regarding domain names did not so clearly favor the bottom-up paradigm, however. Indeed, it is difficult to describe the "consensus" regarding domain name powers in any coherent way. The Internet TLD remains a hornet’s nest of controversy and difficult political decisions. Everyone accepts that the Board will have the power to delegate TLDs, but there was little agreement about how much control it will have to dictate standards and practices of any specific TLD. The workshop was not even able to reach a consensus about maintaining the ISO 3166 standard as the basis of country code TLDs.

Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig presided over the session in what I thought was a masterful performance. He was an active moderator who interrogated speakers about the implications of their comments and how they fit logically into the consensus items. He managed to do this without interposing his own views.

The Membership Workshop (Workshop B)

Accountability is the feature most lacking from the current IANA pyramid. Membership, therefore, is a crucial issue. Membership determines who is defined as a legitimate stakeholder in the Neworg and the rights that go with membership will be the primary mechanism for enforcing accountability. The issue of membership becomes even more important now that the bottom-up paradigm is gaining momentum. The bottom-up paradigm shifts responsibilities to the Councils. So who has a right to participate in, and run, the Councils?

Jon Postel’s draft proposal for a "new IANA" structure and by-laws had received a great deal of criticism because it contained no provision for accountability or membership. NSI, on the other hand, was pushing strongly for the idea of a flat, open-to-the-public, membership organization. A proposal for a more restricted approach to membership put forward by Jim Dixon of the European ISP Association also was stimulating debate about what categories of membership or Board representation, if any, should exist (geographical, sectoral, etc.). In general, American participants tended to favor an open, individual membership with voting rights and direct elections to the Board. European and Asian participants wanted to limit membership to industrial and Internet-based stakeholders, and foster a less direct relationship between individuals and Board members.

So I spent the next morning in the Membership workshop. The previous day’s workshop had been described to me by one participant as a "disaster" due to its failure to come to any meaningful decisions. The second day was not a disaster, but it was utterly inconclusive. The problem of membership—what it will be, who will be eligible, and what powers they will have—is not even close to being solved. For example, the workshop agreed that individuals could be members, but could not agree on whether they (as opposed to organizations) could vote. The consensus items developed in the meeting simply do not add up to a coherent system or philosophy of membership.

Domain names and Trademarks (Workshop F)

Workshop F proved that the Reston meeting provided an amazingly accurate definition of those minimal areas where a solid consensus about this divisive issue can be achieved. It is abundantly clear where we agree and where we disagree on this issue, and no amount of discussion is going to change anyone’s mind. Indeed, the more the issue is debated, the more the interests of Internet users and stakeholders become differentiated from, and opposed to, the interests of large-scale trademark interests. Throughout Geneva, one sensed that even the POC and Core interests were backing away from trademark interests because of the obstacle they present to the creation of new TLDs. At the INET conference, WIPO adopted a very low profile, in effect scaling back its dispute resolution plan to nothing more than a purely voluntary forum for private arbitration.

Thus, the six consensus points produced by Reston were examined and debated in great detail, but despite all the verbiage not much changed. This made for a boring workshop, but solid results.

Only one substantive change was made, and it represented a setback for trademark interests. The first consensus item from Reston called upon the Neworg to "gather and disseminate information" about domain name disputes involving cyber-squatting. Having participated in the formation of this resolution in Reston, I know that it was an attempt to find a middle ground between the trademark interests and their opponents. Perhaps, we reasoned, if we could come up with a clear enough definition of cyber-squatting and its characteristics, we could find a way to eliminate it that would not also threaten the interests of innocent registrars, registries, and Internet domain name holders.

This provision came under concerted attack from a variety of sources. In the end, it was stricken from the list of consensus items. A new consensus item, specifying that the Neworg should cooperate with TLD entities to form databases with up-to-date contact and registration information, was added. In fact, there was already agreement on this point in Reston, but the agreement was so obvious and tacit that it was never put onto the list. Notably, however, the Geneva workshop explicitly refused to specify that the contact information databases should be standardized.

Representatives of INTA and the European Motion Picture Association valiantly made the case for mandating uniformity in trademark policies and/or dispute resolution procedures across all TLDs. They failed. There was little support for the idea of uniformity, and Reston’s consensus point #3—that the entity should encourage the development of "various" trademark dispute resolution mechanisms—was upheld.

The only other modification was in consensus point #6, which defined a process for decision making about this problem for the Board. The complicated 6-stage process defined in Reston was canned in favor of a simple statement of the bottom-up paradigm: Councils will make recommendations to the Board, the Board will then have the authority to ratify or veto the recommendations.

The Address and Protocol Councils (Workshop D)

I did not attend this Workshop but listened carefully to the presentation at the closing plenary session. The full report from Workshop D can be found at: http://www.geneva.ifwp.org/rptworkshopd.html.

This Workshop appears to have been completely dominated by what I have elsewhere referred to as the "status quo" faction; in this case, the existing regional address registries. The workshop report proposed that the IETF appoint the Internet Architecture Board as the Protocol Council and that the Address Council be initially composed of no one else but the regional address registries. Although there was some pressure within the workshop to open the Address Council up to other segments of the Internet community or Neworg members, this was strenuously opposed by the existing address registries. Both Councils would be insulated from direct control by the Neworg Board, which could only "ratify" policies suggested by the councils or "suggest" policies for the Council to consider.

When presented in the final plenary, this governance formula struck many participants as dangerous and unacceptable. No less than four speakers rose in the Q&A section to criticize it. Subsequent discussion on the IFWP listserver amplified these concerns. One of the most perceptive analyses came from Jim Dixon, of the EuroISPA:

"The problem is that the proposed structures, presented as just a continuation of the way things are done now, actually represent a major change. At this point IANA has a clear oversight function. It allocates address space…to the RIRs and sets down clear policies on how that address space is to be managed. Although there are no legal sanctions involved, none of the RIRs would dare to break IANA's rules. The entire system runs on trust, and if they violated that trust they would lose all credibility.

In the proposed new structure the councils report to themselves; the role of the Board is minimised. Relationships of trust are replaced by legal relationships, relationships in which the councils have power but no responsibility and the Board has responsibility but little power. This is a fundamental change and not a healthy one."

The Wild Card in the Pack: pgMedia vs NSI and NSF

The ideology of "self-governance" stands at the core of the status quo, IANA-led faction. They feel that if only the current mechanisms of Internet administration—IANA, the regional address registries, and so on—can be insulated from such distractions as law, politics, government regulation, and the profit motive, everything will be fine. Many of these people still feel that the U.S. NTIA proceeding was an unwarranted intrusion. Although they recognize that it is futile to ignore the White Paper process now, they would like to keep the same system going within the framework of the White Paper.

But the surrounding society just won’t go away. Perhaps the most significant recent encroachment is an antitrust lawsuit against NSI and the US National Science Foundation (NSF) launched by Paul Garrin’s name.space business. See http://www.pgmedia.net/law/.

Garrin is an innovative entrepreneur in New York City who is attempting to develop a registry system based on an entirely open name space. Garrin proposes an unlimited number of non-proprietary TLDs and nondiscriminatory access to the root. His antitrust suit challenges NSI’s refusal to add new TLDs to the name space on competition policy grounds. It also points out the deleterious impact on free speech of arbitrary restrictions on the name space.

The name.space lawsuit was the object of a lot of discussion and concern at the IFWP meeting. During the conference news arrived that the NSF seemed to be doing a poor job of mounting a defense. People began to speculate on what a name.space victory would mean. It was interesting to observe people’s reactions to the name.space lawsuit. NSI representatives, of course, tended toward apoplexy whenever the subject was raised. Jon Postel literally fled whenever Garrin, who was present for the IFWP meeting, approached him. Many participants from the US downplay its chances of success—not because they feel the charges are without merit, but because they think that no US Judge understands the legal, technical and economic implications of opening up the root sufficiently to feel confident making a decision for the plaintiff. There seemed to be a whispering campaign to discredit Garrin’s lawsuit as a conspiracy between NSI and some other, unspecified forces. A French delegate openly denounced the case as a "fake." The charge infuriated NSI counsel Philip Sbarboro, who not only has first-hand knowledge of NSI’s legal expenses but will have to contend with treble damages if his client loses. If the Garrin lawsuit is a conspiracy, it’s a hugely expensive and risky one for NSI.

Other interesting reactions: an ITU staff member claimed that a successful lawsuit would force Magaziner to turn the whole Internet reorganization over to the ITU. Wishful thinking? You be the judge. An Australian delegate made a more reasonable speculation that unilateral action to open the root by a US court would prompt a WTO proceeding. One could argue, however, that the nondiscriminatory access to the root advocated by name.space is precisely the kind of free trade in services that the WTO seeks to promote.

Even if it is not successful, the seriousness of the case and the lengths to which it has gone demonstrates that privately initiated litigation in strategic jurisdictions such as the US can play a vital role in shaping the Internet’s institutional framework. Indeed, after observing the total lack of a substantive consensus in the Workshop on the authority of the proposed "Names Council," and after contemplating some of the private deals that were being floated among some of the contending parties over new gTLDs, I found myself hoping for a Garrin victory. A court ruling for nondiscriminatory access to the root and no artificial limits on the name space might generate some confusion and disrupt the IFWP process in the short term, but it would also cut the Gordian knot that has stalled the development of the name space for the past three years.

Conclusion

The Geneva meeting was an exhausting but exhilarating immersion in Internet politics. Still, fundamental questions about accountability, membership, and the future of the name space remain unanswered. One can only wonder what is going to happen in Singapore. I hope the IFWP Steering Committee becomes more sensitive for the need to maintain balance and fairness with respect to position and activities of various factions as we approach the September 30 deadline. A new IFWP meeting has been added for Latin America. The end game, which must pull it all together and hammer it into a coherent and acceptable proposal, will be very important. There is talk of Ottawa, Canada as a possible site for this. --------------58E117542C434ECAC7395316-- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Thu Jul 30 23:33:05 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id XAA24399; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:33:05 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA24395 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:32:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from IST.SYR.EDU (ist.syr.edu [128.230.182.180]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA04081 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:35:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IST/SpoolDir by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21); 30 Jul 98 10:35:49 EDT Received: from SpoolDir by IST (Mercury 1.21); 30 Jul 98 10:35:34 EDT Received: from syr.edu by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21) with ESMTP; 30 Jul 98 10:35:29 EDT Message-ID: <35C084B9.B7511B7F@syr.edu> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:35:37 -0400 From: mueller Reply-To: mueller@syr.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net Subject: [Fwd: key impressions and points from Geneva from ifwp-law] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2E2618F614C071B20E754730" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2E2618F614C071B20E754730 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Apple members: The message below outlines what is going to be one of the major issues that will have to be worked out in Singapore. --------------2E2618F614C071B20E754730 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from SpoolDir by IST (Mercury 1.21); 29 Jul 98 19:01:07 EDT Return-path: Received: from syr.edu by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21) with ESMTP; 29 Jul 98 19:00:58 EDT Received: from cix.org (cix.org [198.151.248.81]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA18486 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by cix.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17013 for discussion-draft-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:52:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Greenwell Reply-To: Patrick Greenwell To: Karl Auerbach cc: Tony Rutkowski , Eric Weisberg , discussion-draft@giaw.org Subject: Re: key impressions and points from Geneva from ifwp-law In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-discussion-draft@giaw.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > The reports reflect a group of people advocating: > > > > 1) An Address Council consisting only of the > > regional registries, with the possibility > > of other "bodies" being added later. > > Any thoughts that those who consume address space, ISPs, organizations, > and companies might have a valid reason to be on an address council? The issue of the composition of both the IP address councils and Protocol councils are extremely troubling at present. There was a private meeting held prior to the Sunday sessions by the three RIRs to come to find points of consensus among them. One of the points of consensus that was reached is that the they (the RIRs) and they alone should constitute the IP address council. Pindar Wong presented this view in the Sunday morning general session. To say that I was more than a little concerned is a severe understatement. I had originally planned to attend the session on Domain Name and trademark issues. The above sentiment changed my plans. The session on these two councils consisted almost solely(someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong) of individuals involved in one of the three RIRs (ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC) and/or members of the IETF. The belief that the RIRs alone should comprise the Address council was echoed strongly by those in attendance. I raised the issue (along with one other voice of dissent) of ISP and end-user representation on the council a view which was roundly criticized by many of the participants. The general feeling seem to hold that the RIRs already represented ISPs and end-users and as such no further representation of these constituencies was necessary. I pointed out issues that I saw with the one RIR that I am familar with (ARIN), namely that in order to become a voting member that one must pay $1,000, and that meetings are only open to members, to little apparent effect. As an aside, I do note (and am pleased to hear) that non-members are allowed to attend both RIPE and APNIC meetings. A vote was taken on the issue of reserving a single seat on the council for a representive of *either* ISPs or end-users and was almost unanimously voted against. An alternate was then formulated which would give the original council representation to the RIRs and allow a process whereby other council members besides RIRs could be added, and a process whereby a council member could be denied admission or removed should they not meet NEWCOs "openess requirements." (these requirements were not defined) This was consensus on this proposal(more on that later.) There was also the issue of the protocol council. It was posited that the IETF would appoint the protocol council, and it was suggested that the IAB be that council. This also reached consensus. Being human offers us the benefit of reflection upon our actions, to see what we have done correctly, and what mistakes we have made. I personally made two mistakes that day: 1) Allowing the compromise solution regarding the IP address council to go unchallenged. I did so because I wished to be facilitative rather than intractable, but I now feel that this was a mistake. 2) Allowing the proposal to let the IETF appoint the protocol council to go unchallenged. Functionally (which is the view I was looking at it from previously,) I have no objections to the proposal. I cannot think of a group of more qualified individuals to serve as the protocol council. However, from a process perspective, this proposal is severely flawed. Both of these items should not go unchallenged. However well-intentioned the participants they do represent closed processes. It is imperative that the council compostion represent a wide variety of interests, and as presented other interests are given short shrift. However unpalatable it may be to some to allow for direct representation of ISPs and end-users and other potential interests in policy matters, it needs to happen if we are to realize a fair, open and most importantly *representitve* process. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v Systems Administrator (925) 377-1414 f NameSecure \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ --------------2E2618F614C071B20E754730-- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Fri Jul 31 00:20:09 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id AAA24900; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:20:09 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id AAA24896 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:20:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from IST.SYR.EDU (ist.syr.edu [128.230.182.180]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA11138 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:22:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IST/SpoolDir by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21); 30 Jul 98 11:22:53 EDT Received: from SpoolDir by IST (Mercury 1.21); 30 Jul 98 11:22:47 EDT Received: from syr.edu by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21) with ESMTP; 30 Jul 98 11:22:41 EDT Message-ID: <35C08FCA.B520FD82@syr.edu> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:22:50 -0400 From: mueller Reply-To: mueller@syr.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apple@apnic.net Subject: [Fwd: key impressions and points from Geneva from ifwp-law] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------FD9ECC8380EF5CBBF7A021D2" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------FD9ECC8380EF5CBBF7A021D2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Couldn't have said it better, myself --------------FD9ECC8380EF5CBBF7A021D2 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from SpoolDir by IST (Mercury 1.21); 30 Jul 98 11:10:44 EDT Return-path: Received: from syr.edu by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21) with ESMTP; 30 Jul 98 11:10:37 EDT Received: from cix.org (cix.org [198.151.248.81]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA09479 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by cix.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18499 for discussion-draft-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:07:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:04:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Karl Auerbach X-Sender: karl@pax Reply-To: Karl Auerbach To: Patrick Greenwell cc: Tony Rutkowski , Eric Weisberg , discussion-draft@giaw.org Subject: Re: key impressions and points from Geneva from ifwp-law In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-discussion-draft@giaw.org Precedence: bulk > There was a private meeting held prior to the Sunday sessions by the three > RIRs to come to find points of consensus among them. One of the points of > consensus that was reached is that the they (the RIRs) and they alone > should constitute the IP address council. A closed group holding a closed meeting and reaching a closed solution will close the coffin lid on this process. --karl-- --------------FD9ECC8380EF5CBBF7A021D2-- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Fri Jul 31 10:44:54 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id KAA00608; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:44:54 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from geocities.com (mail9.geocities.com [209.1.224.44]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA00604 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:44:46 +0900 (JST) Received: from geocities.com (yapcs-r2.iscs.nus.sg [137.132.85.230]) by geocities.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA01212; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 18:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <35C12236.C1803EBF@geocities.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:47:34 +0800 From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" Organization: VLSM-TJT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.30 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MILIS PAU-MIKRO CC: BUNG Budi Rahardjo , MILIS Apple , tinwee@pobox.org.sg, iana@iana.org Subject: TLD-ID needs a new admin contact Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hello: As per 27 July 1998 the current TLD-ID admin contact has officially declared the intention to resign. Therefore, based on Gagasan 30 September 1997/PDTT-ID (http://www.vlsm.org/rms46/imho-i-g30s.html) and the Declaration of INDEPENDENCE (4 July 1998) (http://www.vlsm.org/rms46/imho-e-4july.html), a new TLD-ID contact should be appointed by IANA before February 22, 1999. Any party who are interested, should directly contact IANA (mailto:iana@iana.org); and make sure that my email address **IS NOT** included in any e-thread CC: loop. Meanwhile, the TLD-ID business will be as usual. Therefore, it is up to the Indonesian community decision themselves, especially the TLD-ID inhabitants, whether to let those dishonest shameless brainless tijumbou's (they are paying APNIC members, btw) to take over. [Nonetheless, the result of the sending of 10000 students to the parliament building last May, was very amazing. I am just wondering, how many should be sent to that other HQ :^)]. best regards, -- Rahmat M.Samik-Ibrahim VLSM-TJT http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6825 -- Going back in reading is called a regression (Evelyn N. Wood) -- * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Fri Jul 31 19:20:00 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id TAA02487; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:20:00 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from mail8.ntu.edu.sg ([155.69.1.97]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id TAA02483 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:19:54 +0900 (JST) Received: by MAIL8 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:22:37 +0800 Message-ID: <6665AC0C667ED11186E308002BB487E1014957BC@exchange2> From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Dr)" To: "'Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim'" , MILIS Apple Subject: RE: No comment on the Internet gambling law? Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:21:28 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim [mailto:rms46@geocities.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 6:27 PM To: MILIS Apple Subject: Re: No comment on the Internet gambling law? Ang Peng Hwa (Dr) wrote: > I find the law interesting 'cos there is a banner advertisement > of a virtual casino in the online version of the Business Times, > the business daily in Singapore. Hello: I found this interesting because I am still confused whether we are heading to cope "global issues locally" or "local issues globally". Regarding the first case, what are the global issues ? (Are they US centric ?). In the second case, who cares other's problems ? Rahmat, Do you have easier questions to answer? :-) I'm not sure if the issue can be cleaved in the way you have-local vs global. My understanding of the US situation is that fraud is a major consideration. How do you know the odds are not stacked against you when you are gambling online? Fraud is a global issue: there are frauds everywhere. This is no US-centric issue. But the US does seem to have a peculiar ambivalence towards gambling. Sports gambling-huge in, for example, Britain-is viewed with distaste in the US. So that is a local attitude. But we should care how the US thinks 'cos it is a large Net entity with generally rational policies. If a thinking guy does something different, the smart thing to do is to sit up and take notice. I suppose we could let the free-market decide the issue. But gambling tends to be taken over by the mob. Like the free market, the mob believes in cut-throat competition. Regards, Peng Hwa ANG * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net * From owner-apple Fri Jul 31 23:28:37 1998 Received: by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id XAA03091; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:28:37 +0900 (JST) X-Authentication-Warning: teckla.apnic.net: majordomo set sender to owner-apple@postoffice.apnic.net using -f Received: from gatekeeper.pipermar.com (firewall-user@gatekeeper.pipermar.com [206.181.226.34]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA03087 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:28:31 +0900 (JST) Received: by gatekeeper.pipermar.com; id KAA23854; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807311426.KAA23854@gatekeeper.pipermar.com> Received: from unknown(192.168.100.12) by gatekeeper.pipermar.com via smap (4.1) id xma023739; Fri, 31 Jul 98 10:25:22 -0400 Received: by BALTMSG1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:27:47 -0400 From: "Halpert, James - DC" To: MILIS Apple , "'Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim'" , "Ang Peng Hwa (Dr)" Subject: RE: No comment on the Internet gambling law? Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:26:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-apple@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dr. Ang, You've covered many of the chief arguments in favor of the Kyl bill. The ones I keep hearing are: (1) children will gamble using their parents' credit cards (2) sports gambling corrupts athletes who will "throw" games (3) gambling is controlled by the mob (4) gambling is sinful (and fundamentalist christians have considerable political power here) (5) consumers will be defrauded (6) gambling is a tax on the poor. Unspoken arguments that help to explain the enthusiastic support of the chief constituencies that favor the bill (State AGs, casinos, sports leagues): (1) Internet gambling competes with state lotteries, which are a signficant source of government revenue (2) Internet gambling competes with casinos (3) Large-scale sports betting on the Internet tarnishes the image of sports leagues. The problem for US Internet providers is that all these interests seek to force ISPs to police the Internet to stop gambling traffic from crossing their networks through injunctions forcing ISPs to attempt to block out overseas gambling sites. They do not care much if at all about the effect on the Internet of these obligations in terms of: 1) setting a terrible example for other nations inclined to curb free speech on the Internet and taking a step toward balkanizing the medium 2) imposing major costs on innocent parties to engage in the usually futile activity of blocking foreign content 3) slowing operation of the network and blocking some entirely lawful content 4) exposing Internet providers to contempt liability if they try and fail to fulfill the demands of a court order to block an overseas site. The usual response to these objections is simply that "technology will evolve so that ISPs will be able police the Internet to eradicate gambling sites." * APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net *