DNS: Response to GIAW draft/questions

DNS: Response to GIAW draft/questions

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1§ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 04:27:07 +0100
All,

  I am attaching our official reaponse to the GIAW's draft discussion document
and
questions.  Please feel free to review and offer comments as you will.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1&#167;ix.netcom.com


Our response

  The following is a congruence of opinion givin by myself and in cull compliance
and approval or our corporation and all of it's affiliates INEG. INC. & Associates
JEffrey A. WIlliams

============================================================
A.  A PROFILE OF THE FUTURE ENTITY
  
  1.  WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE
  ENTITY?
     
     a.  MANAGE AND COORDINATE THE SYSTEMS; CREATE
     AND ALLOCATE DOMAIN NAMES AND IDENTIFIERS.

======  Our comments and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (a) answer we would offer the following;

  We would agree that this should be the function of the "New Entity".  It
should however be done in conjunction and with the full voting approval of 
the "Stakeholders" and/or Internet community (Users) when policies are 
put forth or considered before the Board or any committee that may be 
determined or decided upon to provide for guidance and/or recommend
such said procedures.

  This should be done to comply with the USG's "White Paper" recommendation
of a "Bottom up" approach in reaching these decisions.  We believe that these
committees should also be selected by "Individual Stakeholder Vote" as should
the Interim Board and the Permanent board of directors.

  We believe that in taking this path or choosing this method the best and 
broadest support for the New "Entity" and insure that all stakeholder groups
have a fair and impartial input into the ongoing process of managing this
proposed new "Entity".
     
   









  b.  ESTABLISH A POLICY FOR THE DIRECT
     ALLOCATION OF IP BLOCKS OF NAMES TO REGIONAL
     INTERNET NUMBER REGISTRIES.

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (b) answer we would offer the following;

  What needs to be determined is how and in what manner these IP Block allocations
should be distributed and under what conditions?  Should or can the current
relative RFC's (RfC 1918 and RFC 2050) be modified?  How do the current
excess IP allocations to those that already have IP allocations that are not in use
be reclaimed?  Who and under what legal means should the reclaiming of
excess IP allocations that are already distributed be effected?

  Currently there seems to be a precieved shortage in IPv4 IP allocations
above a /21 allocation.  The ARIN has discussed a reclaiming process that is
strictly voluntary and has not been effective in even the smallest way.  To the
extent that voluntary reclaiming is unsuccessful a committee needs to be
set up to seek methods of accomplishing either by voluntary or other legal
means to reclaim these unused IPv4 allocations from those that seemingly
are hording them and returned to a Pool for those that have need or use for
those allocations.

  This committee should again be staffed by members duly empowered
under existing law or other legal remedies that may become necessary and
selected by majority vote by the stakeholder community at large in a 
referendum vote.  Any and all policies should stand up to peer review by the
stakeholders at large by referendum vote and review and approval by the
Board of Directors before implementation.

  We also believe that other IP address systems (IPv6 (underway) and IPv8
for example) should be given serious consideration pending a technical
and peer review as to add and or augment the existing IPv4 address space.
This should also be given just and due serious consideration by the said
committee as stated above.










           i. WHAT GUIDES, IF ANY, SHOULD BE
     ESTABLISHED (FOR THE INTERIM AND LATER ENTITY
     BOARDS IN THE ENTITY'S CONSTITUTIONAL?

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (i) answer we would offer the following;

  One thing that should be considered as a guide is the "Bill Of Rights" to
that was a balancing insterment in formulation of our country (United States 
of America).  This was and remains at least as an important document as our
Constitution is a it protect the individual.  Such as it should be with the
Constitution of the Internet.

  The Constitution of the Internet should contain language that is agreed upon
by all upon a ratification process or individual stakeholder vote and yet remain
flexible enough to add amendments form time to time to it much in the same
way as is done the the US Constitution by a 2/3'rds Super Majority vote as
is recomended by the White Paper for such possibilities.  SOme language can even
be borrowed from the US Constitution.  Such as,  "We hold these truths to
be self evident, that all internet stakeholders are disposed as equals."  "That
they have certain inaliable rights."  That among these are.........

  Some suggestions to these "Rights" would or might be but not necessarily
in these terms:

1.) That each Internet stakeholder, be he/she/or it (Company or organization),
      have the right to use the internet to seek any and all information that is of a public
      nature in an uninhibited manner regardless of it's language of content.

2.) That each Internet stakeholder, be he/she/or it (Company or organization),
      have the right to approve any and all additions of gTLD's or TLD's be they
      of a private or public nature and any an all policies that may be determined
      in order to add these gTLD's or TLD's too the DNS system.

3.) That each Internet stakeholder, be he/she/or it (Company or organization),
      has the right to, as either an individual or as a grouped organization regardless
      of type, nature or stature, vote for any and all Board members, committee
      formations and any and all of that committees members.

4.) That each Internet stakeholder, be he/she/or it (Company or organization),
     have the indivertable opportunity to provide input or proposals to either
     the "Board of Directors", at any time, and that those proposals be given
     equal consideration regardless of origin.

 

     DOCUMENTS) IN CONNECTION WITH THE POLICY FOR,
     AND DIRECTING ALLOCATION OF, IP BLOCKS OF
     NAMES TO REGIONAL INTERNET NUMBER REGISTRIES?
------------------------------------------------
A.1.b.i. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (b.i) answer we would offer the following;

  See comments question #1 Part (b).

------------------------------------------------

     c. ESTABLISH A POLICY FOR ADDING TLDS AND
     ESTABLISH THE QUALIFICATION FOR REGISTRARS
     AND REGISTRIES WITHIN THE SYSTEM.     
      THE GOVERNMENT PAPER STATES THAT THE ENTITY
     SHOULD "DIRECT THE INTERIM BOARD TO DEVELOP
     POLICIES FOR THE ADDITION OF TLDS," AND, IN
     ADDITION, "ESTABLISH THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR
     DOMAIN NAME REGISTRARS WITHIN THE SYSTEM."
     
      i. SHOULD THESE POLICIES BE ESTABLISHED BY
     THE INTERIM BOARD OR BY THE FINAL
     REPRESENTATIVE BOARD OF THE ENTITY?
------------------------------------------------
A.1.c.i. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (c.i) answer we would offer the following;

  We have come to the conclusion that and addition of any new gTLD's and
TLD's should be determined by the Final Board of Directors.  And that
any addition of gTLD's or TLD's must have the approval of the stakeholders
at large by individual or organization Vote, where Organization= 1 Vote, should
that be preferred by some organizations, or by Individual stakeholder=1 vote
should that stakeholder choose to be represented in that manner.  

  It is also our belief that any policies that may be developed or determined
from time to time for the process of adding any new gTLD's and TLD's by
any commette or by the Board of Directors themselves should be subject to
peer review and or amended, by the stakeholders as is suggested in the White Paper.

------------------------------------------------

      ii. SHOULD THE TWO POLICIES BE DIFFERENTLY
     TREATED? QUALIFICATIONS FOR DOMAIN REGISTRARS
     ARE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE QUALITY SERVICES TO
     THE INTERNET COMMUNITY INCLUDING THE
     ENCOURAGEMENT OF COMPETITION AMONG POTENTIAL
     AND EXISTING REGISTERIES AND REGISTRARS. TLD
     IS DESIGNED IN PART TO MEET DEMAND FOR NAMES
     AND REDUCE THE PRICE OF THE EXISTING NAME
     INVENTORY WHILE AT THE SAME TIME MAINTAIN THE
     STABILITY AND COHERENCE OF THE SYSTEM. HENCE,
     THE CONFERENCE MAY PROVIDE SEPARATE
     GUIDELINES TO EACH OF THESE POLICIES. SHOULD
     THESE GUIDELINES BE REVISITED AFTER THE
     INTERIM BOARD HAS ARTICULATED THE POLICIES?
------------------------------------------------
A.1.c.ii. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (c.ii) answer we would offer the following;

  First it our opinion that existing guidelines for registrars and registries are or soon
will be inconsequential as the new "Entity" should have the opportunity to 
provide for it's own guidelines for Registrars and Registries.  So any suggestion
of a policy here is really invalid at such time that the Permanent Board of Directors
are in place.  We realize that during transition that the Iterimm Board will need
to continue the present practice, such as it is.  But it is that practice of determining
what or whom may become a registrar or a registry in the private sector that of
consideration in the forming of this new "Entity".

  The Interim Board should not have any powers to effect this situation presently
without the vote of the stakeholders at large.  We think it would be in everyones
best interest to allow for the Permanent Board of Directors and any committees that
may be formed to make these policies with the full approval of the stakeholders 
at large by either referendum vote or by ratification process, pending peer review.

------------------------------------------------

   






   iii. SHOULD THIS WORKSHOP DEAL WITH THESE
     ISSUES?
------------------------------------------------
A.1.c.iii. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (ciii) answer we would offer the following;

  We believe that due to the shortness of time scheduled for this conference
that it would be unwise to do so at this conference  But that this workshop
could be formulated and done at another scheduled conference or via 
electronic media exchange process or both.



------------------------------------------------

     d.  EVALUATE AND SUPERVISE THE IMPLEMENTATION
     OF THE POLICY IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE
     CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE TLDS ARE ADDED
     TO THE ROOT SYSTEM.
     
      i. WHO SHOULD SET FORTH THE POLICY FOR
     DETERMINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH NEW
     TLDS ARE ADDED TO THE ROOT SYSTEM?
------------------------------------------------
A.1.d.i. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (d.i) answer we would offer the following;

  It is our considered recommendation and/or suggestion that the new "Entity's"
Permanent Board of Directors, as one of its first orders of business mandate
that a committee be set up consisting of both volunteers and Paid staff members,
that both are subject to Stakeholder referendum vote, immediately determine
what policies(s) that should be used for Registrars, Registries ISP's, and or
IAP's for determining what and how many new gTLD's and TLD's should
or could be added to the Root system.  This committee should be open 
to excepting input from the Internet community as to what gTLD's or
TLD's they would like to see or would suggest.

------------------------------------------------

     

 ii. WHAT GUIDELINES, IF ANY SHOULD BE
     PROVIDED TO THOSE WHO WOULD SET FORTH THIS
     POLICY? SHOULD THIS CONFERENCE DEAL WITH THIS
     QUESTION?
------------------------------------------------
A.1.d.ii. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (d.ii) answer we would offer the following;

  See answer to these questions in Part (d.i).

------------------------------------------------

      iii. WHAT OTHER CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES INVOLVE
     MANAGEMENT? SHOULD THESE ISSUES BE DEFINED
     AND SET ASIDE FOR ANOTHER SESSION? SHOULD THE
     WORKSHOP PROVIDE PROCESS FOR RESOLVING
     CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES?
------------------------------------------------
A.1.d.iii. Comments:
======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (d.iii) answer we would offer the following;

  As to what other controversial issues involve management, it is our 
opinion any and all controversial issues should be of great interest to
management  They should be involved actively as well.

  As to "should the workshop provide a process for resolving
controversial issues?"  It is our belief that the workshop should prepared
to set up a forum and process to settle these issues, but that there is
not enough time in this short forum to go much beyond that.


------------------------------------------------

    








 e.  SUPERVISE THE OPERATION OF THE
     AUTHORITATIVE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM, AND
     COORDINATE THE ASSIGNMENT OF OTHER INTERNET
     TECHNICAL PARAMETERS AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN
     CONNECTIVITY ON THE INTERNET.
     
      i. IS THERE A NEED TO PROVIDE GUIDES FOR
     SUPERVISORY AND COORDINATING FUNCTIONS? DO
     THESE FUNCTIONS REST ON PROFESSIONAL
     EXPERTISE, REGARDLESS OF INTERESTS?
------------------------------------------------
A.1.e.i. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (e.i) answer we would offer the following;

  We believe that the current Root server system needs to be reengineered.
That there needs to be a migration from the current hiarchial system
to a more advanced technical system or that the current Root server
system needs expansion and more diversity or at least that some input
to some other Root server system needs to be considered.

  There are many other alternatives that have been tested an some that are
currently in use that should be given consideration to being included
into the current Root server system.  We also believe that professionals
and/or those that have either experience or equivalent experience should
be coordination these functions.

------------------------------------------------

      ii. ARE THERE SUPERVISORY AND COORDINATING
     FUNCTIONS THAT INVOLVE POLICY DETERMINATIONS?
     IF SO, WHICH ARE THEY?
------------------------------------------------
A.1.e.ii. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (e.ii) answer we would offer the following;

  They should have viable and considered input to policy determinations. But 
that a committee should be set up to make these policy determinations.  And that
that committee should have the full approval and be mandated by the Permanent
Board of Directors with the stakeholders vote as to whom will be serving on
that committee and for how long.

------------------------------------------------

     f. COORDINATE THE ASSIGNMENT OF OTHER
     INTERNET TECHNICAL PARAMETERS.
     
     g. SERVE IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY IN
     REVIEWING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.
     
      i.  WHOSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ARE TO BE
     EVALUATED? WHO ARE THE PARTIES? WILL IT BE A
     JUDICIAL ADVERSARIAL PROCESS AND WHY?
------------------------------------------------
A.1.g.i. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #1 part (g.i) answer we would offer the following;

  With respect to (e.), the IANA and other apropriate should be the 
reviewing body for coordinating body for internet technical parameters
as is recommended in the White Paper.  The other bodies that may or
could be considered might be the IETF, W3C, and a group that is
determined by the Board of directors as an independent body or
that a totally Independent body determined by the Permanent Board
of Directors with the input from the IANA, IETF and the W3C
for advisory purposes.

  With respect to  (f.), the Permanent Board of Directors should have
a judicial advisory staff to handle any legal situations that may be
required, but that that Permanent Board of Directors should serve
in that judicial capacity.  This should be incorporated in the 
Constitution of the Internet as part of it's articles.

  With respect to (i.), there should be the availability of judicial review
should the membership or the Stakeholders request it.











------------------------------------------------

  2. WHAT ARE THE ASPIRATIONS AND FUNDAMENTAL
  PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD GOVERN THE ENTITY, ITS
  DECISION MAKING BODIES, ITS STRUCTURE AND
  OPERATIONS?

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (d.ii) answer we would offer the following;

  The fundamental principals should be determined and included within the
Constitution of the Internet and the "Internet Bill of Rights"  The 
principals should be worked out by the stakeholders in a series of 
"Internet Constitutional Conventions".

  
      THESE ASPIRATIONS AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
     SHOULD BE CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
     DOCUMENTS OF THE ENTITY.
     THEY SHOULD GUIDE DECISION MAKERS IN CONFLICT
     RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS TO BE APPLIED IN
     PARTICULAR CASES.
     
     a.  MAINTAIN STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY OF
     DOMAIN NAME AND IDENTIFIERS ALLOCATION,
     COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT PROCESS. HOW IS
     THIS OBJECTIVE TO BE ACHIEVED?
     
     
















 i. ESTABLISH TECHNICAL CRITERIA AND POLICIES
     IN THE FORM OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES, RULES, AND
     PROCESSES (RULES). THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING
     THE POLICIES SHOULD AIM AT MAINTAINING THE
     INTEGRITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET,
     ENCOURAGING COMPETITION AMONG SERVICE
     PROVIDERS AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE
     VITAL INTERESTS OF THE AFFECTED PARTIES
     (DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY).
------------------------------------------------
A.2.a.i. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (a.i.) answer we would offer the following;

  In essence we agree with these proposals.  It however incumbent to 
realize that these proposals must be given to the internet Stakeholders
to approve and consider for their individual vote.


------------------------------------------------

      ii. ESTABLISH GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR
     PROSPECTIVE CHANGES OF RULES. RETROACTIVE
     RULE CHANGES WILL NOT BE ADOPTED EXCEPT IN
     UNIQUE SITUATIONS.
------------------------------------------------
A.2.a.ii. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (a.ii) answer we would offer the following;

  And yes, we  agree.  An yet again this principal must indeed be approved
by the stakeholders by individual vote prior to adoption or implementation.

------------------------------------------------

    







  iii. PUBLISH THE RULES AND THE REASONS FOR
     THEIR ADOPTION. REFRAIN FROM TAKING ACTION
     BEFORE THEY ARE PUBLISHED.
------------------------------------------------
A.2.a.iii. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (a.iii) answer we would offer the following;

  We agree in total with this resolution.


------------------------------------------------

      iv. PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARINGS ON THE
     RULES AND CHANGES
------------------------------------------------
A.2.a.iv. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (a.ii) answer we would offer the following;

We agree totally with this.  We would add however that upon conclusion of those
hearings that any resolutions that may be reached be given to the stakeholder
community for their vote before adopted and /or implemented and that that a majority
vote must be reached before implementation can proceed.

------------------------------------------------

      v.  ALLOW AD-HOC CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO
     PARTICULAR SITUATIONS AFTER NOTICE OF THE
     APPLICATION FOR CHANGES, AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
     HEARING AND PRESENTATION BY AFFECTED PARTIES.
------------------------------------------------
A.2.a.v. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (a.v.) answer we would offer the following;

  We agree in as far as to provide for resolution of Domain Name disputes
or gTLD/Tld collisions.  As for any other rule ad-hoc changes they must
receive a peer review and approval by the vote in majority of the Stakeholder
community.

------------------------------------------------

      vi. PUBLISH OTHER INFORMATION THAT THE
     MEMBERSHIP OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITIES MAY BE
     INTERESTED IN RECEIVING;
------------------------------------------------
A.2.a.vi. Comments:

 ======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (a.ii) answer we would offer the following;

 The Internet community IS the membership by default.

------------------------------------------------

      vii. ESTABLISH PROCEDURES TO PREVENT THE USE
     OF THE PROCESSES DESCRIBED ABOVE IN ORDER TO
     SLOW DOWN OR PREVENT DECISIONS BY THE ENTITY,
     ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO DAY TO DAY
     OPERATIONS.
------------------------------------------------
A.2.a.vii. Comments:

 ======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (a.vii) answer we would offer the following;

  We tend to agree as long as that procedure does not exclude the review
and vote of the Stakeholder community except where day to day operations
issues are concerned.

------------------------------------------------

   













  b.  SEEK CONSUMER SATISFACTION: PROVIDING
     CHOICES, LOWER COSTS, INNOVATIVE AND DIVERSE
     SERVICES. HOW IS THIS OBJECTIVE TO BE
     ACHIEVED?

      i. ENCOURAGE COMPETITION AMONG SERVICE
     PROVIDERS;
------------------------------------------------
A.2.b.i. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (a.ii) answer we would offer the following;

To achieve consumer satisfaction and diversity of service is a hand in glove
in our experience  The internet community must be served to the best
of the "Entity's" ability and should be paramount in any decision that is
to be considered.

  Competition should always be encouraged and even assisted in and where it
can be done without diversely effecting the Internet User in general.


------------------------------------------------

      ii. AVOID PRACTICES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
     MONOPOLIES.
------------------------------------------------
A.2.b.ii. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (b.ii) answer we would offer the following;

  We agree with this completely.

------------------------------------------------

      iii. OTHERS?
------------------------------------------------
A.2.b.iii. Comments:

------------------------------------------------

    


 c.  ATTAIN FLEXIBILITY THROUGH PRIVATE
     SECTOR, BOTTOM-UP COORDINATION. HOW IS THIS
     OBJECTIVE TO BE ACHIEVED?

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (c) answer we would offer the following;

  To achieve this is really something that should be built into the Internet 
Constitution.  We consider that providing competition, diversity of 
services, expanding the Root server system and IP address space
protocols that coming form the Internet software development
community sector of the Internet community this will be self 
perpetuating.


     
      i. ESTABLISH CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
     RESPONSIVE MECHANISMS TO INTERNET COMMUNITIES
     MEMBERS.
------------------------------------------------
A.2.c.i. Comments:

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (c.i.) answer we would offer the following;

  It is paramount that good and numerous channels should be provided
in order for the new "Entity" to be successful.

------------------------------------------------

      ii. OTHERS?
------------------------------------------------
A.2.c.ii. Comments:

------------------------------------------------

     d. USE AN OPEN, TRANSPARENT DECISION MAKING
     PROCESS THAT INVOLVES NOTICE AND HEARING OR
     AN OPPORTUNITY OF PRESENTING VIEWS.

======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (d) answer we would offer the following;

  The process to which this must be accomplished should be as diverse
and encompassing as can be possibly done and constantly viewed for improvement.
    
       i. BOARD MEETINGS CAN BE CLOSED, EXCEPT FOR
     MEETINGS CONSIDERING POLICY DECISIONS IN
     WHICH PRESENTATIONS ARE MADE. THESE SHOULD BE
     CONDUCTED OPENLY, AS SUCH MEETINGS ARE UNDER
     THE SUNSHINE ACT.
------------------------------------------------
A.2.d.i. Comments:

  ======  Our comments, questions and/or recommendations
To question #2 part (d.i.) answer we would offer the following;

  Andy and all board meetings or committee meetings should have minutes
must be published for the Internet community to review and post or 
input comments as and where that Stakeholder community sees fit.  These
Minuteness must be published on multiple forums.


------------------------------------------------

     e.  ESTABLISH A BROAD-BASED REPRESENTATION OF
     THE INTERNET COMMUNITIES (IN THE U.S. AND
     ABROAD) AS A WHOLE, AND MEDIATE AMONG  THE
Received on Sun Jun 28 1998 - 21:18:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Nov 29 2014 - 00:00:09 UTC