CENTR Statement on Fourth Draft Definition of the New IANA

["Niall O'Reilly" <Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>]

CENTR Statement on Fourth Draft Definition of the New IANA


	Edinburgh, 22 September 1998


Scope of this Document

CENTR is in a position to speak on behalf of the European ccTLD Domain
Registries and has already (March, July 1998) made known:

	its position concerning the future governance of the Internet;

	its requirements of the organisation which will be the
	successor (the "New IANA) to the present IANA; and

	its readiness to participate in the definition of, and to 
	support the funding of this New IANA.

This document comments on the fourth draft definition (Postel, Battista,
September 1998) of the Bylaws of the New IANA in the light of CENTR's
clearly expressed position and requirements.


Process leading to the Fourth Draft Definition

We have understood that the diverging opinions expressed at the
Singapore IFWP meeting were taken into account by Jon Postel in
preparing the third draft definition (Postel, August 1998) of the 
New IANA. We find that this draft represents a reasonable consensus 
which CENTR can support.

We find it surprising that, in the process of preparing the fourth
draft definition, a position paper from a particular stakeholder has 
apparently been given equal recognition to that accorded to Jon Postel's
documentation, as we understood it, of a consensus process.

This is a matter of global public interest and we believe that it is 
inappropriate that a private company should be allowed to have such 
influence in the process.


Particular objections to the Fourth Draft Definition

Section IV.1.d of the draft appears to have the intent of binding
the New IANA to the terms of agreements yet to be made between third
parties.  It is our view that such a provision is entirely
inappropriate. We cannot accept that the New IANA be bound in this way.

The intent of Section IV.1.e is unclear.  If the intent of this section
is to ensure stability in the short-to-medium term, so that existing 
contracts and relationships, in particular delegation of TLD's, between 
IANA and involved parties are protected, the language of the section
ought to make this clear.

If the intent is rather to copper-fasten existing positions indefinitely
and to offer protection against the introduction of competition, we find
the section unacceptable.

We fear that the headline set by sections  IV.1.d and .e will lead 
to a situation where the process for establishing the proposed Domain 
Naming Supporting Organisation will also be dominated by similar 
private interests.

We find that the terms of Section V.6 do not ensure a sufficiently
broad spread of international representation, but rather allow a
majority of members of the Board to come from a single region.  We 
require instead that no more than one board member be elected from 
any support organization from each region.


References

	CENTR, March 1998 
	"RIPE CENTR Position Paper on Future Governance of the Internet"
	<http://www.ripe.net/centr/docs/governance.html>

	CENTR, July 1998, 
	"CENTR Position on the New IANA structure"
	<http://www.ripe.net/centr/docs/response-white.html>

	Postel, August 1998,
	"New Proposed Bylaws - Third Iteration"
	<http://www.iana.org/bylaws3.html>

	Postel, Battista, September 1998, 
	"A Brief Explanation of the Joint IANA and NSI Documents ..."
	<http://www.iana.org/intro-coop.html>

	Postel, Battista, September 1998, 
	"DRAFT BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES 
	 AND NUMBERS" <http://www.iana.org/bylaws-coop.html>

	Postel, Battista, September 1998, 
	"ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED 
	 NAMES AND NUMBERS" <http://www.iana.org/articles-coop.html>


For Boudewijn Nederkoorn, CENTR Policy Group Chair,

Niall O'Reilly