Re: Implementation of a New IANA Organization

[George Michaelson <ggm@dstc.edu.au>]

Here are some initial comments.

	-George

>  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; 

Under the AEGIS of the IAB/IESG/IETF process to nominate which values and
assignments have met *technical review* Ie not in a adjuticative role, but
as a repositary of other agencies determinations? I really think that the
strong technical issues here need explicit mention. the IANA doesn't decide
to assign a new TCP ToS bit encoding, or a new IP upper layer number. It
does that under instruction from another process. It might however make more
routine assignments like RFC number or port reservation in line with some
guidance again from external processes.. And setting the 'type' bit on a
document from BCP to standard is clearly not an IANA decision. ITs acting
as a repositary, and uniqueness allocator in this process isn't it?

>    (2) managing and performing functions related to the coordination 
>        of the Internet address space;

This is sub-allocation to the *nics right? Are people tabling any radical
alteration of the address allocation methodology? Does IPv6 imply any change
of role here? If there is, then it changes one of the orgs with interest in
the IANA process so I'm assuming its vested in the NIC process we have now
and in sub-assignment of the remaining 4space. Hmmm. then its also involved
in all existing 4space allocations and 'trades'. Nasty.

>    (3) managing and performing functions related to the coordination of
>        the Internet domain name system; and 

There is a reflexive role in respect of (2) since the reverse-address maps
relate to the forward delegations. 

>    (4) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet root server
>        system.

Management oversight. Delagatory powers. but not (required) to be operational?

>  Suggestions on the proposed responsibilities and location(s) of this
>  office(s) are solicited.

There should be a clearly identified head office, and seeding one in the
current locale makes sense. 

Personally, I think that agencies like the *nics should consider hosting 
some view of services and acting as regional 'officers' of the IANA, their
constitutions appearing to be similar in intent and purpose. 

>  It should operate as a not-for-profit, cost-recovery, nonpartisan
>  corporation for charitable and public purposes.

Right on!

>  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.

'otherwise provided' is sweepingly large. Do you need limits on how this
might be specified?

>  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.

Summary: 

  15 people. 3 from *NICs, 3 from DNS, 3 from IAB, 6 from <internetworld>

This is a board of 15 people. Thats comparable to the attendance recorded
on the IAB minutes historically. I don't know about IESG conference-calls
or meetings. Its a large board, as boards go. Do you think identifying a
core attendance covering each of the 4 noted classes is also required? I
do think that a workable quorum should reflect the officers but also the
interest groups.

>  The important condition is that the Board as ultimately constituted
>  be representative of the diversity of stakeholders.

Which implies that quorate structure maybe should reflect some minimum of
the diverse representation.

>  Suggestions on how to ensure that the Board is truly an international
>  body are solicited.

Instead of re-hashing this issue from scratch, are there archives of the
ISOC board and IAB/IESG voting processes (eg in the minds of the people
working on POISSON) which are relevant here? I do recall some debate about
how somebody french or swedish, but working in the USA was allowably
non-US centric membership in this context.

>  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.

There is a beautiful quote by Edmund Burke on the three different models
of how an elected representative can act:

* they can be a 'delegate' and vote according to the wishes of
  their electors

* they can be a 'representative' and vote according to their
  concience, and understanding of the issues

* they can be a fusion of the two.

In Australia,  acting as a 'representative' and not a 'delegate' has been
seen by some as arrogance. I believe in reality that its the best choice,
and that pretending a vote translates to control of the elected party leads
to really really bad outcomes (like complete dis-enfranchisement of the people
who voted within that 'camp' for somebody else)

Ie the second and third cases are preferable. People don't get elected to
only act on behalf of their electors. They HAVE to represent wider interests.

>  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.

Why can't these people stand in an elective process (if thats what eventuates?)
Sure, maybe you need rotation away from appointed->elected but dammit if the
encumbent is viable, why exclude from continuance under a mandate?

>  Suggestions on how to create an effective transition mechanism from
>  the Initial Board to the Permanent Board are solicited.

The noted method is certainly viable. I would expect only minor amendments
to clarify if specific boardmembers are known to be short-term, or if some
form of lottery is used. If the latter, I suggest that excluding the board
from election and a second term is not wise.

>  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.

IAB nominees. If any are non-US located, they count towards the country class
IESG nominees. 	"		"		"		"
ISOC Board nominees. 	"		"		"		"
*NIC nominees. by definition, 2/3 of the *nic are non-US located peoples.


>  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).

and the minimum hold-time between serving office is? 1 year? three years?
and is there a requirement to abstain from serving on a DNS or interested
party commercial entity for some time as well?

>  Suggestions on how these staggered terms should be apportioned for
>  the first Permanent Board are solicited.

Two choices: assigned, or randomized. if assigned, it has to be across the
interest groups. since they are sized as 3 or multiples of 3, and since there
are 3 categories of time-serve there is a natural method to identify in each
case (random or assigned) from which camp to select, and how many.

(a), (b), (c) one officer in each of 1, 2 and 3 year terms
(d) two officers in each of 1, 2 and 3 year terms.

>  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.

If this is volountarist, and the board only has discretionary funding then
the board has an increadible power over non-conforming/dissenting board members
to penalize them for expenses to attend and participate. Surely the expenses
have to be mandated, to preserve the board independance? modulo some
controls on ultra-vires and corrupt expeinditure.


>  (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.

To be clear: the supporting orgs *AND ONLY* the supporting orgs, do board
nominations?

>  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.

(2) covers some big issues like appeals and arbitration processes. Is it
worth noting some arbitration framework both 'internal' and 'external' which
can avoid legal cost explosion?

>  The Supporting Organizations also should constitute the primary funding
>  sources for the Corporation in accordance with the policies established
>  by the Board.

Hang on. Are you saying that an initial establishment funding as a grant has
been excluded? I said in a posting before that I believe the lifetime funding
requirement for IANA is so low that an initial grant, to a body like a ford
foundation would generate sufficient infinite working capital to sustain the
body as a fully independant, unfunded agency. 

Why levy if an initial grant can fund it? Its like, $5mill max annual? thats
peanuts. Its the whole of the existing $60mill internet impost re-invested
for income, forever.

>  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.

The initial funding methods MAY BE the permanent funding method. One time
fund could do this, plus cost recovery.

>  Suggestions for initial funding are solicited.

See above. I really don't see why it has to be totally funded from activity
when the seed money is achievable as an initial grant.

>  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.

In the case of national bodies, there may be criteria which lie in the domain
of government fiat (like citizenship)

>  (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).

Noting the recusant requirements. And the ISO codes implies government interest
is unavoidable, but is now diluted (and guaranteed) a 3 vote position in the
board, across all countries. Which is interestingly SMALL voting rights.

>  (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.

Does this mean that the IETF/IESG/ISOC is wholly represented via IAB?

>  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.

Right, and their requirements here should be vested and weighted markedly
because with only 3 votes, its awful hard to see how some non-technical 
people are going to manage taking on advice their input to agree to what may
seem mundane, but is bloody vital work.

>  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.

Definately. The interests of providers and users are completely different.
Completely. And if one of them is ISOC, what is the other? 

>  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.

In a technical sense, how many of these are required in the quorate level
and are they voting or non-voting? sorry, maybe a dumb question.

>  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.

And the body itself, IANA, also needs indemnity issues resolved. Do these
lie in a different domain? after all, I suspect the issues where indemnity
arise will be officers acting to implement IANA policy outcomes so I think
there is a nexus here..

>  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.

The IAB model looks workable to me.  Ie physical presence is irrelevant as
long as active participation is proved.

>  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.

The bylaws should reflect E-commerce and Internet modalities ie it should
be possible to do signed voting online, and use online presence as active
participation, as far as the law(s) allow.

--
George Michaelson         |  DSTC Pty Ltd
Email: ggm@dstc.edu.au    |  University of Qld 4072
Phone: +61 7 3365 4310    |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3365 4311    |  http://www.dstc.edu.au