Re: Structuring IANA: A Few Questions to Be Answered

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Steve and all,

steve wrote:

> July 18, 1998
>
> TO: Comments@IANA
> FROM: Stephen J. Page
> RE: Structuring IANA: A Few Questions to Be Answered About Individual
> Stakeholder Rights and Freedoms
>
> IANA,
>         If one uses the idea of "governance" as in Constitutional
> governance as a framework, we need to look at setting things up in a way to
> protect the rights and freedoms of individuals FIRST, while serving the
> society as a whole.  (A society is only a large number of individuals, so
> protecting the rights of individuals should be foremost in our minds.)
> This can be done by recognizing that all individuals (regardless of
> non-attendance at the meeting) are stakeholders in the process.
>         Contrast this approach to the approach of IANA, summarized by the
> comments at the top of www.iana.org's transitional web page:
>
>                 "Dedicated to preserving the central coordinating functions
> of the
>                                     global
>                         Internet for the public good."
>
> Some fundamental questions to be asked by the to-be-named
> Board of Directors of IANA and others:
>
> 1.From what law has U.S. Govt given IANA the right to be 'dedicated to
> preserving the central coordinating...'?
>
> 2.Does "central coordinating functions" mean "government"?  If so, where is
> that stated?  What governing body of law is being used to bring order,
> which is what laws do?
>
> 3.Supporting the New IANA, what framework will be used to supporting the
> continued need for protections of rights and freedoms recognized in U.S.
> Constitution?
>
> 4.What does the "public good" mean?  Is it defined anywhere?  Who defined it?
>
> 5.Who defines "public"?  Is it a global public or is it a
> geography-dependent public?  How many people constitute the 'public'?  200?
> 250 Million?  6Bn?
>
> 6.Whose public does this refer to?  American? German? Swedish? Albanian?
> Who decides?  Is there a plan formulated for informing the public, however
> defined?  Has anyone formulated such a plan?  What are the mechanisms for
> assessing such plan(s).
>
> 7.Who participates in determining what is "good" for the public?  How is
> the input received?  Is there a mechanism for building 'consensus' upon the
> body of human knowledge that exists regarding what is "good" and what is
> "not good" for individuals? (stakeholders)
>
> 8. What if the "public good" clashes with one individual's "good".  (The
> classic conflict of 'individual' versus the 'state'.)  Who decides the
> outcome of that clash?  U.S. law?  Chinese law?  IANA law?
>
> 9.What will be the relationship between IANA and Internic?  NSI?  How will
> that change from the past?  With ARIN?  Will IANA control the governance of
> IP numbers?  How data assets be accounted for?  Who owns IANA's database?
> Who owns ARIN's numbers?
>
> 10.Is IANA, as a quasi-governing entity, allowed to own property?
> Intellectual property? Addresses? IP Numbers?
>
> 11. How does that differ from IANA's owning property in the past?
> Intellectual property?  Addresses?  Reservations (and/or allocations) of
> specific domain names?
>
> 12.If so, under what law and jurisdiction does IANA have these rights?
>
> 13. If IANA will function as a quasi-governing body, what happens if IANA
> asserts ownership of property which "for the public good" when it is owned
> by an individual or a corporation? (IANA is placed into position of
> competing with others.)
>
> 14. Does IANA have the right to "eminent domain" of property "for the
> public good"?
>
> 15. If so, from which document does that right flow?  Is there recourse to
> individuals/companies?

  Really Steve, all of these questions are irrelevant or moot as the WP clearly
states
that tie IANA is to ADVISE in creating the new non-profit corporation.  Although
this does not appear from their own posted Bylaws seem to indicate, that is what
the WP mandates.

>
>
> Stephen J. Page
> MBA OD BSc
> U.S. Data Highway Corp.
> usdh@ccnet.com
> T: 925-454-8624  F: 925-484-0448
>
> (1)
> Magaziner, Lessig Spar Over Domain Name Plan
>                        (06/11/98; 2:46 p.m. ET)
>                        By Mo Krochmal, TechWeb
>
> NEW YORK -- Ira Magaziner, the Clinton administration's point
> person on technology, said Wednesday the next few months will tell if
> the U.S. policy of letting the Internet self-regulate will work.
>
> Magaziner, who shared a forum with technology pundit Esther Dyson
> and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, said within six months
> the federal government will know if private initiatives on Internet
> domain names are working. "If not, then we will have to review it
> again," he said.
>
>                  [snip]
>                        But Lessig disagreed, saying the implications of
> creating a special
>                        non-profit agency seems like a substitute for
> government, but one that
>                        does not have to answer to an electorate.
>
>                        "This is bizarre for a democracy," said Lessig. "Why
> not just carve up
>                        the government into private non-profit organizations
> and be done with
>                        it all? We are creating the most significant
> jurisdiction since the
>                        Louisiana purchase, and we are building it outside
> the review of the
>                        Constitution."
>
>                        Magaziner bridled at the suggestion.
>
>                        "In Washington, you need to act," Magaziner said.
> "The contracts
>                        were up in September and we couldn't let the
> Internet dissolve. You
>                        have to do something."
>
> [remainder of article
> at:http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/domnam/TWB19980611S0009

 regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com