Comments on draft

[mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Article IV, Section 1 (General Powers)

The "bill of rights" Section 1(b through e) is in general quite
welcome. But, either that section, or the articles of
incorporation, needs to be supplemented with language expressing
a preference for policies that foster competition and open entry
in those downstream markets that rely on the Internet resources
administered by the corporation.

Something like:
"Insofar as it is possible, the Corporation shall ensure that
its policies and decisions with respect to the administration of
Internet names and numbers foster competition and open entry in
Internet-related markets."

If you will recall, such a provision was a consensus item in the
workshop on the "profile of the entity" in both Reston and
Geneva.

Article VI Section 3(a)(i) and (ii)
The language describing participating in the domain name SO is
nice and broad. The language describing participating in the
address SO is very narrow. I don't like the narrowness of the
address SO language. This wording MUST be broadened to make it
clear that any organization that holds or has paid for Internet
addresses has a right to membership in the address SO.
Otherwise, we have guaranteed a tiny little clique a permanent,
self-perpetuating position in the Corporation that is all out of
proportion to their significance. There are currently only 3
address registries in the world, they are small organizations
the principals of which all know each other personally.
Moreover, unlike domain name registries, which in a very real
sense are subject to competition, the RIRs are almost entirely
immune from any form of economic competition. PLEASE do
something about this. Addresses are probably the most valuable
asset controlled by the corporation. If you are looking for a
possible site for the cultivation of corruption, cronyism and
inefficiency, this is it.

Finally: does it HAVE to be in Los Angeles?