Re: [ifwp] FW: Letter from NTIA re ICANN

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

Re: NTIA paragraph on Board Members:

"The White Paper indicates that the United States is prepared to enter
into an agreement with an organization that reflects the geographic and
functional diversity of the Internet community. A number of commenters
expressed concern about the proposed interim board of directors and called
for the
establishment of mechanisms to ensure equitable representation of the Internet
community, including developing regions, based on a transparent and democratic
election process.  We are interested in hearing how ICANN intends to address
these concerns as additional interim board members are selected and as the
process for electing the permanent board is adopted."

Does this imply that NTIA is acquiescing in the existing list of the nine
named Interim Board members?  

Also, the email implies that NTIA doesn't disagree with the manner in which
IANA selected the Board members - just the results.  Is that a fair comment?

Also - no comment on the type and state of incorporation?!?










At 04:50 PM 10/20/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I am forwarding a copy of this letter, which was sent out on Dave
>Farber's IP list.
>
>Pete
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Farber [mailto:farber@cis.upenn.edu] 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 3:31 PM
>To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
>Subject: IP: Letter from the Office of Ira ,Magaziner re ICANN
>
>        October 20, 1998
>
>Dr. Herb Schorr, Executive Director
>USC Information Sciences Institute
>4676 Admiralty Way
>Suite 1001
>Marina del Rey, California 90292-6601
>
>
>Re:     Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>Dear Dr. Schorr:
>
>On October 2, 1998, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) made
>a
>submission on behalf of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>Numbers
>(ICANN) 
>in response to the National Telecommunications and Information
>Administration
>(NTIA) Statement of Policy entitled "Management of Internet Names and
>Addresses," 63 Fed. Reg. 31741 (June 5, 1998) (hereinafter the
>"Statement of
>Policy" or "White Paper").  The White Paper invited the private sector
>to come
>together and form a new, not-for-profit corporation to administer policy
>for
>the Internet name and address system (the "domain name system" or
>"DNS").
>
>Based on a review of ICANN's submission, other public submissions, and
>on
>public comments on those submissions, the Department of Commerce regards
>the
>ICANN submission as a significant step towards privatizing management of
>the
>domain name system.  Overall, the submissions we received supported
>moving
>forward with the ICANN structure.  We note, however, that the public
>comments
>received on the ICANN submission reflect significant concerns about
>substantive
>and operational aspects of ICANN.  We strongly recommend that you review
>and
>consider the many thoughtful and constructive comments posted at
>www.ntia.doc.gov.  The submissions of the Boston Working Group and the
>Open Root
>Server Confederation, among others, articulate specific concerns, many
>of which
>we share.  As you refine your proposal, we urge you to consult with
>these
>groups and others who commented critically on your proposal to try to
>broaden
>the consensus.
>The White Paper contemplates that the United States would enter into an
>agreement based on the principles of stability, competition, private
>bottom-up
>coordination and representation.  The public submissions and comments
>indicate
>that there are remaining concerns in the area of accountability
>(representational and financial), transparent decision-making processes,
>conflict of interest, and ICANN's proposed role with respect to
>country-code
>top level domains (ccTLDs).  These concerns are described below in
>greater
>detail.
>
>Under your submission, the Interim board is encouraged but not required
>to
>establish an open membership structure.  Many commenters expressed the
>view
>that the principles of private, bottom-up coordination and
>representation set
>out in the White Paper are unlikely to be achieved in the absence of
>some type
>of membership-based structure.  We believe ICANN should resolve this
>issue in a
>way that ensures greater accountability of the board of directors to the
>Internet community.  
>
>Commenters also pointed out that the ICANN submission does not describe
>a
>mechanism to ensure financial accountability to the members of the
>Internet
>community who will be funding the organization.  The absence of
>transparency
>and controls in the budget process could impose unnecessary burdens on
>Internet
>users and endanger the long term viability of ICANN and thus the
>stability of
>the Internet.  We are interested in knowing how you plan to address
>these
>concerns.
>
>The White Paper envisions that the United States would enter into an
>agreement
>with a corporation that is governed on the basis of a sound and
>transparent
>decision-making process, which protects against capture by a
>self-interested
>faction.  Commenters applauded your decision to provide notice of and
>seek
>public comment on any policies that substantially affect the operation
>of the
>Internet or third parties.  But many submissions urged that the Board
>also
>regularly explain decisions that do not reach the level of
>"substantially
>affecting the interests of the Internet or third parties," suggesting,
>for
>example, that such explanations could be included in promptly published
>minutes
>of the board and other decision-making meetings.  
>
>In general, commenters emphasized the importance of establishing and
>guaranteeing open and transparent processes and avoiding the appearance
>of
>conflicts of interests with respect to the supporting organizations
>described
>in the ICANN proposal.  For example, some commenters suggested that a
>system
>that permits officers and employees of the supporting organizations to
>serve on
>the ICANN board of directors threatens the independence of the board and
>should, accordingly, be prohibited.
>
>The White Paper indicates that the United States is prepared to enter
>into an
>agreement with an organization that reflects the geographic and
>functional
>diversity of the Internet community. A number of commenters expressed
>concern
>about the proposed interim board of directors and called for the
>establishment
>of mechanisms to ensure equitable representation of the Internet
>community,
>including developing regions, based on a transparent and democratic
>election
>process.  We are interested in hearing how ICANN intends to address
>these
>concerns as additional interim board members are selected and as the
>process
>for electing the permanent board is adopted.      
>
>One final issue raised relates to our assumption that national
>governments
>would continue to have authority to manage and/or establish policy for
>their
>own ccTLDs (except, of course,  insofar as such policies adversely
>affect
>universal connectivity on the Internet).  The ICANN submission, however,
>is
>silent with respect to ccTLD management, and we would appreciate an
>elaboration
>as to ICANN's intentions in this area.  
>
>We hope that ICANN is prepared to address the concerns listed above in a
>manner
>that is consistent with the principles of stability, competition,
>bottom-up
>coordination and representation. The United States intends to move
>carefully
>but expeditiously to privatize DNS management.  We therefore look
>forward to
>hearing ICANN's response to the concerns expressed during the recently
>completed comment period, and to meeting with you to discuss these
>issues. 
>Assuming that the concerns described can be resolved satisfactorily, we
>would
>then like to begin work on a transition agreement between the United
>States and
>ICANN.  In keeping with our commitment to the principles of openness and
>transparency, we plan to continue to facilitate public participation in
>the
>transition process.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>
>J. Beckwith Burr
>Associate Administrator (Acting)
>
>__________________________________________________
>To view the archive of this list, go to:
>http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
>___END____________________________________________
>
>
>