preliminary official INEG. INC response was New IANA Bylaws -- the fifth version

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

Jon and all,

  It seems that there is a definite communication problem here from where we
are sitting.  There has been an overwhelming call for a initial Membership
Organization as par to the ICANN bylaws, yet in this 5th draft there is yet
to be an Article or Provision for such an Membership Organization.  There
can be no consensus on any of the Officers, Directors, Initial or other Board
Members at the very least without a Membership Organization that has the
Democratic right to VOTE for those candidates for those positions.  Stakeholders

cannot be properly represented unless or until, initially there is a Membership
Organization that has equal voting rights for ALL of the Stakeholders and users
around the world.  They too will be greatly effected by the decisions that this
Entity makes as will the economies of the nations in which these Stakeholders
reside, this is especially true in the G7.  As most of you should know, we are
now facing a global economic crisis presently.  To deny the need of leaders to
be
accountable to those they govern has greatly in part lead to this crisis.  We
should
be mindful of this in the creation of this Entity which the White Paper has
called for.

  We will again be preparing an more specific response to this 5th draft, but
certainly
not before September 30th, as this is no where near reasonable to do so.


Jon Postel wrote:

>                                                     28 September 1998
>
> The Fifth version of the Articles and Bylaws for a New Organization
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Today, we are posting version five of the proposed documents that will
> be used to incorporate a new entity that will have the responsibilities
> described in the White Paper issued by the United States Department of
> Commerce on June 5, 1998. A tremendous amount of effort has gone into
> this drafting process, and we are truly appreciative of the work of so
> many throughout the world. Thank you for heeding the call of the White
> Paper.
>
> A large number of comments were received in response to the September
> 17th version of the Articles and Bylaws (the fourth version). These
> comments and suggestions -- from many individuals, business
> organizations, and other groups, such as the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation (EFF), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Rseaux
> IP Europens Network Coordination Center (RIPE NCC), the Boston Working
> Group, Council of European National Top level domain Registries
> (CENTR), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the European Community
> Panel of Participants, Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX), and American
> Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), and both national governments and
> multinational organizations -- have been comprehensive and useful in
> the effort to identify a true community consensus.
>
> Now is the time to complete the challenge put forth by the White Paper:
> to produce a global consensus non-profit corporation to take on the
> administrative and coordination responsibility for the management of
> Internet names and addresses. We expect to be able to present such a
> proposal to the United States Government by the White Paper's deadline,
> September 30, 1998.
>
> Significant changes from the fourth version are identified in the
> "Comments" immediately following the relevant portion of the document.
> The most significant changes are the deletion of two provisions in
> Article IV -- Sections 1 (d) and (e). Both of these were new to the
> fourth version, and generated considerable comment, almost universally
> negative. To clarify what perhaps was a misperception with respect to
> 1(d), the language was never intended to create any new obligations;
> however given the serious concerns raised, it has been deleted. Section
> 1(e) was intended to provide protection against inappropriate behavior
> by the new organization; many who commented raised questions about its
> imprecision and unpredictable effect, and thus it seems inappropriate
> for consensus bylaws and more appropriate for consideration by the new
> organization.
>
> A number of comments were received relating to the language in Article
> V, Section 6, that limits the number of Directors residing in any
> single geographic region to no more than half of the At Large Directors
> and no more than two of the three Directors selected by the Supporting
> Organizations. In general, the comments from outside North America
> favored a lower ceiling, such as one third, while others favored the
> current approach or no limits at all. While admittedly the current
> formulation is far from perfect, it appears to be the language that
> attracts the broadest consensus support. Therefore, the limits
> contained in the previous draft have been retained, as has the language
> calling for a review of this provision at least every three years.
>
> The fact that these documents are being issued by IANA, and not jointly
> with NSI, should not be misinterpreted. NSI is actively engaged in the
> final negotiations with the United States Government over the
> transition of its contractual relationship with the United States
> Government. That is, understandably, its highest priority at the
> moment. Given the shortness of time, it was not possible to wait for
> the conclusion of those negotiations to release these new drafts. Many
> of the changes contained in these new drafts have been discussed with
> NSI, as they have been with many other stakeholders, but NSI bears no
> responsibility for these changes.
>
> Although the phase of initiating this new organization is coming to a
> conclusion, when the organization is incorporated, there will be much
> more work to do in developing the supporting organizations and
> councils.  We hope that there will be as much dedication entrusted into
> these efforts as was present over the last several months.
>
> The White Paper presented a very difficult challange -- to create a
> global consensus organization. Many people have worked very hard to
> make this possible through their participation in various meetings,
> mailing list discussions, and other comments. Through this process the
> global Internet community has proven that it can come together and act
> responsibly and effectively. We can all be proud of what has been done;
> we have been able to take the first steps of a long journey in true
> Internet fashion -- through working together to form a consensus
> organization.
>
> Please send comments to comments@iana.org
>
> --jon.
>
>                 See: http://www.iana.org/description3.html
>
> ======================================================================

 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