Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 185
Netizens-Digest Saturday, October 17 1998 Volume 01 : Number 185
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: downright dangerous
[netz] Re: IP: Vice President Gore on five challenges of Global Information Infrastructure
Re: [netz] Public or private for the future of the Internet?
[netz] House Commerce Committee is investigating DNS privatizing process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:34:05 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [netz] Re: downright dangerous
At 09:46 AM 10/16/98 +1300, jshearer@cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote:
>
>Just as ISOC internationally is moving towards a more open, democratic
>culture, ISOCNZ appears to be moving the other way. I'd like to bring this
>to your attention although I admit, members have have been trying to bring
>it to mine for some time.
>
Dear Jenny and all,
It is refreshing to see you take this position. At least someone on the
council has an open mind on reform.
Not to mention the courage needed to stand up in the face of intimidation.
Are you up for re-election Jenny, or how long can you still sit on Council?
Is there a place on the web where we can find some more about your
qualifications, daytime job, and platform?
BTW, this should be available from all councillors, imho. In the interest
of openness.
At the Waiheke Forum last year it appeared that you were firmly in the "we
had to take control" camp, but I am pleased that you have now obtained a
wider view of the situation.
>Recently the ISOCNZ administration committee consisting of three Wellington
>government employees, (including the current and former Ministry of
>Commerce Internet policy advisors) was asked by Council to administer the
>new staff position of Executive Director. When I raised questions about the
>operational guidelines for this position, it transpired that the Committee
>was keeping matters pertaining to the position, wages, conditions, lines of
>authority, operating guidlines, whatever - secret, and that these matters
>were not to be discussed on the Council list.
>
>My inquiries on the matter of the Executive Director's role were met by
>swearing on the list by Jim Higgins, and an intimidatory personal email in
>which, amoung other things, he found the idea of me making public
>statements on ISOCNZ affairs "downright dangerous". I'm left to speculate
>that the Executive Director answers to the admin committee and Jim Higgins,
>and that requests by myself, for example, as policy Chair, are actioned
>only at the discretion of the executive committee, or Jim Higgins, or the
>Executive Director, even if they are backed by a Council vote.
>
Was that in this list? Were many people were unexplicably unsubscribed?
Sorry, an error in the setup of majordomo. ??
At least the gatewaying of this list to Usenet seems to be more open now
than it was in more disingenuous days last year.
Intimidating private emails. Jawohl!
I remember that some of Isocnz's members have *very* patronizing streaks.
Must be the awareness of indirect government blessing.
For the sake of openness, the Government has to come out and re-state its
position on the role and powers of Isocnz.
IMHO
>The Executive Director's report, approved by the Admin Committee but not
>put up for discussion, suggestions etc by Council, was released on to the
>website for members to comment on, some days ago. This could not be
>accessed because of password problems. I still have not received this
>document in any format that I can read, though I have asked for it. I have
>concerns about the above matters from the point of view of democratic
>process. I have apologised to the Executive Director for any hurt caused to
>her by discussing her role on the Council, and she accepted my apology. I
>regret having to raise this matter again, but Jim Higgins has ruled out
>in-house discussion.
>
This information should not even be in a passworded area for Isocnz members.
A society such as Isocnz has powers to direct policy, including billing
policy, to a wholly owned registry monopoly with 24.000 captive (the
infamous lock-in effect of a Domain name) customers.
I venture that these 24.000 have the potential to grow to some 200.000 in a
few years.
Such a society could not own such a natural monopoly position without the
sanction of the Ministry of Commerce, or the Commerce Commission.
Time for questions in Parliament.
Maurice?
>The Council has been criticised for lack of accountability, failing to
>consult, and for claiming that it represents New Zealand Internet users
>when it doesn't. What are the options? To start up a competing
>organisation, or find some mechanism to put pressure on Council for open
>and transparent process? My task in the past year has been to join ISOCNZ
>up to ISOC, and my thought has been that this would be the catalyst for a
>positive new phase. However, I can see that credibility to represent New
>Zealand users must be won the hard way - openness, discussion and
>accountability, within Council and towards members.
>
I am surprised again, happily I might say, to see how ISOC seems to have
changed,
judging at least from Roeland Meyer's position.
Here, Jenny, lies a third option.
Isocnz has to account to IANA and to what NewIana is going to become.
An open International Membership organization.
You should be in Barcelona this weekend.
>I would be interested in feedback on what is required to serve the best
>interests of New Zealand Internet users, <snip>
Very simple: an open, democratic membership co-operative of all people who
own, manage or register Internet Domain Names ending in dot nz.
With cost recovery only as stated fiscal goal.
With full fiscal accountability to a representative body of all members and
compelled by its Articles and Bylaws to render due process in all
administrative decisionmaking affecting members.
In short: Self management by the inhabitants of the private .nz SLD's.
The government can manage the government-owned space.
There are enough articulate and qualified people among those 24.000 to make
self-government utterly realistic.
No great bureacracy is needed and the need for due process can be met in
the most Athenian way by letting the members judge on a .nz mailing list.
This could be a list restricted to owners of .nz domains and people
affected by what happens in the .nz TLD space.
The attractive characteristics of such a village democracy, might well
prove an irresistible magnet for new Domain registrations from less
democratically run TLD's, with many potential benefits for New Zealand.
This is in the long run the most economical and secure way for Owners of
.nz Domains.
The way it is now, with a tax-paying for-profit Registry, and ISP and
webhosts feeding the business and putting taxable margins on top , the body
of the .nz Domain Name owners is a captive cash-cow.
But New Zealand is not Tuvalu (.tv)
The lock-in effect of a Domain name to a TLD means captivity and that means
ultra-sensitivity to arbitrary rule.
A co-operative is the most sensible solution.
This was the view of the INZ -hub, who submitted their objections to
ISOCNZ'S Domainz' proposed policy last year.
It was met with denial, patronizing, hostility and ridicule.
>Jenny Shearer, ISOCNZ Founding Councillor.
>
>
Good on you.
The others might be enlightened by Ronda Houbens' testimony to Congress:
(full testimony at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other )
Joop Teernstra LL.M.
Democratic Association of Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz
"Towards a Bill of Rights for Domain Name Owners"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 01:25:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: IP: Vice President Gore on five challenges of Global Information Infrastructure
Just got a message of a speech from U.S. Vice President Al Gore
given to the ITU in Minneapolis.
In the speech, he calls for
> Fifth, he challenged the world community to create networks that
> allow every micro-entrepreneur in the world to advertise, market,
> and sell products directly to the world market. Such networks
> will enable entrepreneurs to keep more profits, provide
> information about world prices, develop technology as a business
> tool, increase the diversity of the global marketplace, and
> create jobs.
If he is going to insist on such, can he please keep this on a separate
CommerceNet. The Internet was made so there can be independent
networks which can do what they choose on their own network.
However, they shouldn't impose this on other networks.
Goals like that of supporting "micro-entrepreneur's" are *not* the
kind of social goals that build on the importance of the Internet
as a means of communication.
And this doesn't help to raise the public question of what is important
about the Internet and what kinds of uses should government support
and help to flourish.
It would be good to see more of a public discussion and debate on such
issues, rather than pronouncements that try to bring the old world
onto the new.
It would be good to see the U.S. V.P. support public use of the
Internet and public purposes.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Public or private for the future of the Internet?
>Greg, what do you think of putting these powers into one corporate entity?
>Do you think this can be something good?
>Is the purpose of a corporate entity to act in the public good? Or
>is it to serve its business interests?
In my opinion, the Internet has become fueled by commercial
interests. This does not come solely from the will of large
multinational corporations to dominate the Internet; it comes also
from Internet users who are willing to pay for commercial Internet
services.
Whether this is good or bad is a moot point now. It has happened. It
has been going on for several years now. For such a thing not to have
happened, the Internet would have had to have been closed to
commercial interests forever. But it was opened up, because the money
from commercial interests was needed to keep it going because NSF,
DARPA, etc. did not (or could not) keep it going.
The best we can do now is to try to make sure that as many groups as
want representation and rights on the Internet are able to get it.
Some of you may recall that I drew some comparisons between what we
are now witnessing and the activities that led up to the
Telecommunications Act of 1934. I would refer people to the book
SELLING RADIO by Susan Smulyan, that discusses the rise of commercial
broadcasting. I believe there are many parallels.
At any rate, while I have not given the new proposal an endorsement, I
have not read anything in the proposal that they are unwilling to act
in the public good, as is assessed from the activities that the public
appears to engage in on the Internet. True, not everyone engages in
those activities, but enough people engage in them to make them
commercially viable.
>The Internet grew up under public control and protection.
>Do you think that is *no* longer needed?
Most of the public was largely ignorant of what was going on on the
Internet until early this decade. Thus, it was able to flourish, as
you say. Now that more of the public knows about the Internet, they
will decide (one way or another) what types of public control and
protection are needed.
>I am referring to the expertise of DARPA and the NSF to provide for
>the research and understanding of the nature of the Internet that
>made it possible for the Internet to grow and develop.
>There is *no* board that could replace the research capacity and
>capability of government entities like DARPA and NSF.
But someone has to do it, and DARPA and the NSF are either unwilling
or unable to do it. Otherwise, they would not have stepped aside.
>But despite that, look at the folks that have been named to the board
>and can you say why you think they can replace the NSF and DARPA
>expertise?
>The board chosen through some old-boy network and secret process for
>the IANA proposal included: [deleted]
The board has been nominated. They have not been appointed yet.
For that matter, they are just an interim board. Remember, this is a
proposal. People can still nominate other candidates if they feel
they are more worthy.
>(Does anyone know much about the CED - the Committee on Economic
>Development? Two of the U.S. based above are on that. I thought that
>was a really influential power structure activity in the U.S. -
>something with CEO's of the biggest multinationals and college
>presidents of the most influential private universities.
Some of the most influential private universities and multinational
corporations have had significant input into the evolution of the
Internet from its earliest days. Why is it now that their motives are
being questioned?
>But more importantly. Public policy is a government function, and the
>U.S. government is inappropriately and without the authority planning
>to transfer this public obligation.
>I don't know of any part of the U.S. Constitution that allows or
>authorizes U.S. government officials to transfer or give to any
>private entity their government functions and powers.
We do not live in a dictatorship. The US government cannot order its
citizens to act in any particular way (except under certain emergency
situations). If NSF and DARPA want to turn over their programs to
commercial interests, and those commercial interests have people
willing to pay for the services they provide, the US government has no
choice but to allow them to do so.
You no doubt have been following the situation in Congress regarding
balancing the government's budget. The US government does not
currently seem to be in a position to take over all of the essential
functions required to oversee Internet naming and addressing policy.
If the situation is to be otherwise, it will come from taxes, or from
gutting some other government function (e.g. maintaining interstate
highways or public education). It does not seem at present that the
American public wants to be taxed for its Internet use; nor does it
want to see other essential public services gutted. Perhaps they will
feel differently in the future, if the Internet becomes a lowest common
denominator mass medium.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 16:04:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] House Commerce Committee is investigating DNS privatizing process
I thought folks on the Netizens list would find this of interest:
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> responding to:
Mentifex (mentifex@scn.org) wrote:
: Let the word go forth from this time and place (1998, Cyberspace)
: that this Netizenry will pay any price and fight any foe, that the
: cause of a freedom-based Internet shall not perish from this Earth.
: Ronda Hauben http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/ wrote under otherom:
: > I am trying to understand why there is such a hush about
: > this issue online. Why isn't there the needed debate and
: > discussion?
Maybe this will help shed some light on what has been going on.
The House Committee on Commerce is asking for an investigation
into the authority to transfer the names and numbers, root server
systems, and protocols of the Internet from the NSF to the Dept of
Commerce. But they don't seem to be asking for any investigation
of whether such resources should be transferred *out* of public
control and into a *private corporation,* or whether there is
any rationale for doing so. (The Office of Inspector General
of the NSF in their Feb. 7, 1997 report said there was *no*
problem paying for the dns etc. as NSI and the U.S. govt were
getting much much more money than was needed for the adminstration
of these functions. And in fact they said that the extra money
should be used by the NSF to support research needed to
scale the Internet -- which I think needs to be discussed
not adopted as whether there should be extra money or not is a
legitimate. But the fact was there were already great profits
being made, and it wasn't costing the NSF anything.)
Also the immense wealth and power that will go to this private
corporation is not indicated as an issue, when in fact it needs
to be a very key issue in any investigation of what is happening:
The following letter to the Secretary of Commerce and to Ira
Magaziner by the Chairman of the House Committee on Commerce
is posted at the web site of the U.S. House of Representsations.
- -----------------------
House Committee on Commerce
Released on October 16, 1998 Contact: David Fish
(202) 225-5735
Chairman Bliley to Examine the Administration's Plans to
Reform the Domain Name System(DNS)
* Letter to The Honorable William M. Daley
Secretary of Commerce
* Letter to Mr. Ira Magaziner
Senior Advisor to the President for Policy Development
______________________________________________________________
October 15, 1998
The Honorable William M. Daley
Secretary of Commerce
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th Street at Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing to express my concerns about the role of the
Department of Commerce in the transfer of the Internet's Domain
Name System (DNS) from the public sector to the private sector.
On June 10, 1998, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and
Consumer Protection held a hearing on the future of the Domain Name
System. Associate Administrator of the National Telecommunication
and Information Administration (NTIA) for International Affairs, J.
Beckwith Burr, testified on the Administration’s recently
released policy statement on the future management of the DNS. This
policy statement, known as the White Paper, outlines the
Administration’s proposal to turn over responsibility of the
management of the DNS from the government to a newly created
non-profit corporation. This new private corporation is intended to
provide for competition in domain registration and global
participation by all interested parties in the future management of
the DNS.
I welcomed the White Paper's proposal for the new corporation to be
"governed on the basis of a sound and transparent decision-making
process, which protects against capture by a self-interested
faction." The White Paper reiterated the need for openness when it
stated that: "The new corporation’s processes should be fair,
open and pro-competitive, protecting against capture by a narrow
group of stakeholders."
At the hearing, I underscored the importance of private sector
leadership and the need for stability and continuity in the
operation of the Internet during the transfer of DNS management to
the private sector. I believed that an open, consensus-based
process to develop the new self-governing structure, embodied in
the White Paper, was a promising approach. At the meetings over the
summer of the International Forum for the White Paper (IFWP), a
broad-based consensus was reached among the participants which
echoed the principles of the White Paper.
To further the goals of the White Paper, it would seem incumbent
upon the Administration to encourage all key Internet stakeholders
to participate in an open, consensus-driven governance process,
and, in particular, to encourage meaningful participation of one
important stakeholder, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA). As you know, IANA, a Department of Defense contractor,
establishes technical protocols and allocates Internet Protocols
(IP) addresses to regional IP numbering authorities, two functions
that are critical to the operation of the Internet. I was
disappointed to learn that IANA apparently did not meaningfully
participate in the IFWP process.
Instead of participating in that process, IANA, under the
leadership of Dr. Jon Postel, apparently developed its own DNS
reform proposal behind closed doors with little consultation from
the broader Internet community. The final IANA proposal, which was
delivered to the Department of Commerce on October 2, only
represented the position of IANA and no other parties.
Concurrent with IANA's release of its proposal for the new DNS
corporation, known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN), IANA named nine individuals to serve as
interim members of the board of directors of ICANN. I am concerned
about the lack of openness in the consideration and selection
process for ICANN's interim board members. In fact, Dr. Postel's
written testimony recently before a House Committee acknowledged
that the selection process for members of the interim board of
directors of the new corporation to administer the DNS, was
"undemocratic and closed." Further, I am concerned that the lack of
a solid American majority on the interim board fails to reflect the
leading role of American business investment and consumer-use in
the growth of the Internet.
The Commerce Department has provided a comment period of just six
business days (which began with the receipt of the proposals late
on October 2, and ended on October 13, 1998), for the public to
respond to the four proposals submitted to NTIA pursuant to the
White Paper's request for proposals to establish a private sector
entity. I am concerned that this limited time period is inadequate
for all interested parties to provide meaningful comment on these
proposals that are crucial to the future of the Internet and
electronic commerce.
Finally, I have concerns regarding the legal authority upon which
the Department has undertaken the process to transfer DNS
management from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to a newly
created non-profit corporation. As you know, the NSF took the lead
in commercialization of the Internet through its operation of the
NSFNET and its 1993 cooperative agreement with Network Solutions
Incorporated (NSI) to register domain names and manage the root
server system. It is my understanding that the NSF/NSI cooperative
agreement was transferred to the Department of Commerce in
September 1998.
I am concerned about the manner in which the process of privatizing
the governance of the DNS has apparently unraveled. I was hopeful
that the Administration would bring leadership to this important
effort. We are at a critical juncture in the efforts to establish a
workable governance structure that will guide the future of the
Internet and electronic commerce. The success or failure of this
current undertaking will have a profound impact on the growth of
electronic commerce as well as future Internet governance debates.
It is vitally important that this first attempt at self-governance
be undertaken in a deliberate, open and fair manner, so that it is
not subject to capture by "a narrow group of stakeholders." A loss
of credibility in the Internet community at large will seriously
undermine the ability of the new corporation to administer the
Domain Name System and the stability of the Internet itself.
Pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of Representatives, I
request that you provide the following information to the Committee
by November 5, 1998.
1. Please provide the Committee with an explanation, including
citations to relevant statutes, of the Administration’s
authority over management of the Internet. In particular, please
explain: (1) the Department of Commerce's authority to assume the
NSF cooperative agreement with NSI; and (2) the Department of
Commerce's authority to transfer responsibility for the management
of the DNS to the private sector.
2. Given IANA's historical role in the operation of the Internet
and its role in establishing a new management structure, please
describe the Department of Commerce's efforts to encourage IANA's
meaningful participation in the IFWP process. Additionally, please
describe the Department's knowledge and/or involvement in IANA's
decision to submit its own proposal. Please provide all records
relating to IANA's participation in the IFWP or IANA's decision to
submit a separate proposal.
3. Why is the Department of Commerce's comment period so short?
Why did the Department provide just six full business days for the
public to analyze the proposals and provide comment? Please explain
the Department's regulations and guidance governing public comment
periods generally and in relation to the consideration of the four
DNS reform proposals together with the relevant regulations and
guidance.
4. Did the Department of Commerce have any involvement in the
consideration or selection of ICANN's proposed interim board
members? If so, please describe the Department's involvement and
list and describe any communications the Department had with the
following people or entities regarding the consideration or
selection of the proposed interim board members prior to the
announcement of the proposed interim board members: (1) IANA or its
representatives; (2) the proposed interim board members; (3)
representatives of foreign governments, international
organizations, or non-governmental organizations; or (4) other
individuals and organizations outside the US government. Please
provide all records relating to such communications (whether
written, electronic or oral).
For purposes of responding to this request, the term "records,"
"relating," "relate," and "regarding" should be interpreted in
accordance with the Attachment to this letter.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please
contact me or have your staff contact Mark Paoletta, Chief Counsel
for Oversight and Investigations, or Paul Scolese, Professional
Staff Member, at (202) 225-2927.
The House Commerce Committee intends to monitor the consideration
of the draft proposals and the transfer of DNS management to the
private sector very closely for the remainder of the 105th Congress
and throughout the 106th Congress. As the Administration undertakes
this effort, I ask that the Committee be kept informed of and
consulted on the process in a timely fashion.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley
Chairman
______________________________________________________________
October 15, 1998
Mr. Ira Magaziner
Senior Advisor to the President for Policy Development
Executive Office of the President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Magaziner:
I am writing to express my concerns about the Administration's role
in the transfer of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) from the
public sector to the private sector.
On June 10, 1998, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and
Consumer Protection held a hearing on the future of the Domain Name
System. Associate Administrator of the National Telecommunication
and Information Administration (NTIA) for International Affairs, J.
Beckwith Burr, testified on the Administration’s recently
released policy statement on the future management of the DNS. This
policy statement, known as the White Paper, outlines the
Administration’s proposal to turn over responsibility of the
management of the DNS from the government to a newly created
non-profit corporation. This new private corporation is intended to
provide for competition in domain registration and global
participation by all interested parties in the future management of
the DNS.
I welcomed the White Paper's proposal for the new corporation to be
"governed on the basis of a sound and transparent decision-making
process, which protects against capture by a self-interested
faction." The White Paper reiterated the need for openness when it
stated that: "The new corporation’s processes should be fair,
open and pro-competitive, protecting against capture by a narrow
group of stakeholders."
At the hearing, I underscored the importance of private sector
leadership and the need for stability and continuity in the
operation of the Internet during the transfer of DNS management to
the private sector. I believed that an open, consensus-based
process to develop the new self-governing structure, embodied in
the White Paper, was a promising approach. At the meetings over the
summer of the International Forum for the White Paper (IFWP), a
broad-based consensus was reached among the participants which
echoed the principles of the White Paper.
To further the goals of the White Paper, it would seem incumbent
upon the Administration to encourage all key Internet stakeholders
to participate in an open, consensus-driven governance process,
and, in particular, to encourage meaningful participation of one
important stakeholder, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA). As you know, IANA, a Department of Defense contractor,
establishes technical protocols and allocates Internet Protocols
(IP) addresses to regional IP numbering authorities, two functions
that are critical to the operation of the Internet. I was
disappointed to learn that IANA apparently did not meaningfully
participate in the IFWP process.
Instead of participating in that process, IANA, under the
leadership of Dr. Jon Postel, apparently developed its own DNS
reform proposal behind closed doors with little consultation from
the broader Internet community. The final IANA proposal, which was
delivered to the Department of Commerce on October 2, only
represented the position of IANA and no other parties.
Concurrent with IANA's release of its proposal for the new DNS
corporation, known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN), IANA named nine individuals to serve as
interim members of the board of directors of ICANN. I am concerned
about the lack of openness in the consideration and selection
process for ICANN's interim board members. In fact, Dr. Postel's
written testimony recently before a House Committee acknowledged
that the selection process for members of the interim board of
directors of the new corporation to administer the DNS, was
"undemocratic and closed." Further, I am concerned that the lack of
a solid American majority on the interim board fails to reflect the
leading role of American business investment and consumer-use in
the growth of the Internet.
The Commerce Department has provided a comment period of just six
business days (which began with the receipt of the proposals late
on October 2, and ended on October 13, 1998), for the public to
respond to the four proposals submitted to NTIA pursuant to the
White Paper's request for proposals to establish a private sector
entity. I am concerned that this limited time period is inadequate
for all interested parties to provide meaningful comment on these
proposals that are crucial to the future of the Internet and
electronic commerce.
Finally, I have concerns regarding the legal authority upon which
the Department has undertaken the process to transfer DNS
management from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to a newly
created non-profit corporation. As you know, the NSF took the lead
in commercialization of the Internet through its operation of the
NSFNET and its 1993 cooperative agreement with Network Solutions
Incorporated (NSI) to register domain names and manage the root
server system. It is my understanding that the NSF/NSI cooperative
agreement was transferred to the Department of Commerce in
September 1998.
I am concerned about the manner in which the process of privatizing
the governance of the DNS has apparently unraveled. I was hopeful
that the Administration would bring leadership to this important
effort. We are at a critical juncture in the efforts to establish a
workable governance structure that will guide the future of the
Internet and electronic commerce. The success or failure of this
current undertaking will have a profound impact on the growth of
electronic commerce as well as future Internet governance debates.
It is vitally important that this first attempt at self-governance
be undertaken in a deliberate, open and fair manner, so that it is
not subject to capture by "a narrow group of stakeholders." A loss
of credibility in the Internet community at large will seriously
undermine the ability of the new corporation to administer the
Domain Name System and the stability of the Internet itself.
Pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of Representatives, I
request that you provide the following information to the Committee
by November 5, 1998.
1. Please provide the Committee with an explanation, including
citations to relevant statutes, of the Administration’s
authority over management of the Internet. In particular, please
explain: (1) the Department of Commerce's authority to assume the
NSF cooperative agreement with NSI; and (2) the Department of
Commerce's authority to transfer responsibility for the management
of the DNS to the private sector.
2. Given IANA's historical role in the operation of the Internet
and its role in establishing a new management structure, please
describe your efforts to encourage IANA's meaningful participation
in the IFWP process. Additionally, please describe your knowledge
and/or involvement in IANA's decision to submit its own proposal.
Please provide all records relating to IANA's participation in the
IFWP or IANA's decision to submit a separate proposal.
3. Did you support the Department of Commerce's decision to limit
the public comment period on the DNS proposals to six full business
days? Please provide all records relating to the comment period,
including but not limited to all records of communications (whether
written, electronic or oral) between the Executive Office of the
President and the Department of Commerce relating to the comment
period.
4. Did you have any involvement in the consideration or selection
of ICANN's proposed interim board members? If so, please describe
your involvement and list and describe any communications you had
with the following people or entities regarding the consideration
or selection of the proposed interim board members prior to the
announcement of the proposed interim board members: (1) IANA or its
representatives; (2) the proposed interim board members; (3)
representatives of foreign governments, international
organizations, or non-governmental organizations; or (4) other
individuals and organizations outside the US government. Please
provide all records relating to such communications (whether
written, electronic or oral).
For purposes of responding to this request, the terms "records,"
"relating," "relate," and "regarding" should be interpreted in
accordance with the Attachment to this letter.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please
contact me or have your staff contact Mark Paoletta, Chief Counsel
for Oversight and Investigations, or Paul Scolese, Professional
Staff Member, at (202) 225-2927.
The House Commerce Committee intends to monitor the consideration
of the draft proposals and the transfer of DNS management to the
private sector very closely for the remainder of the 105th Congress
and throughout the 106th Congress. As the Administration undertakes
this effort, I ask that the Committee be kept informed of and
consulted on the process in a timely fashion.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley
Chairman
News Home
U.S. House of Representatives Seal The House Committee on Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2927
Commerce@mail.house.gov
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #185
******************************
