[ncdnhc-discuss] Fw: [GTLD Registries List] gTLD Restructuring Proposal

[Jim Fleming]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <jeff.neuman at neulevel.biz>
To: "'Jim Fleming'" <jfleming at anet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: [GTLD Registries List] gTLD Restructuring Proposal


> Mr. Fleming.  I wanted to take this discussion off the list.  You have made
> your point about ipv8 for so long now and it has absolutely no relevance to
> the discussion on ICANN Governance or restructuring.  It is a technical
> discussion that should be kept for those technical forums. 
> 
> Please, and I am trying to ask this nicely, keep your comments to the
> discussion at hand.  I would like to keep you on this list and I know you
> have valuable insight to add, but please do not use this list to advocate
> the same issues you have in other forums.
> 
> Again, I know you have valuable feedback to give, so keep the discussion on
> point.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Fleming [mailto:jfleming at anet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:48 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; gtld at gtldregistries.org
> Subject: Re: [GTLD Registries List] gTLD Restructuring Proposal
> 
> 
> You seem to be missing several years of history. The industry is about
> where it was in 1997. Five years have been lost, because people were
> told back then to step aside and give the U.S. Government a "few months"
> to solve things. Those months turned into years. Now that 2002 is almost
> here, it is time for people to get back on schedule.
> 
> http://www.dot-biz.com/History/
> 1995 $50 per name/year .COM Charging Begins, .BIZ Proposed 
> 1996 ISOC Meets, .BIZ Registry #1 Starts, IAHC/WIPO Launched 
> 1997 NSF, ISOC, IANA, IAHC & CORE Delay the Entire Industry 
> 1998 eDNS .BIZ Making Progress, Postel Dies, ICANN Formed 
> 1999 The World Waits for the U.S. Government's DOC & ICANN 
> 2000  ICANN Selects .BIZ from 40 Beauty Pageant Contestants 
> 2001  .BIZ Added to IPv4 Legacy Root Servers, Registry #2 Started 
> 2002 2002:<IPv4>:0000:0:212 - BIZ Planned for IPv8
> ----
> 
> This may help...
> http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/
> http://www.RepliGate.net
> 
> The Netfilter Project: Packet Mangling for Linux 2.4
> http://netfilter.samba.org
> 
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
> IPv16....One Better !!
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <jeff.neuman at neulevel.biz>
> To: <gtld at gtldregistries.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 9:58 AM
> Subject: [GTLD Registries List] gTLD Restructuring Proposal
> 
> 
> > All,
> > 
> > The gTLD Registries put forth a position paper on the restructuring of
> ICANN
> > in Early October.  I have copied the proposal into this e-mail below.  In
> > light of the final ALSC Report issued last month, the gTLD is
> re-evaluating
> > its proposal to ensure that this is still the view of the constituency.  I
> > would ask that if anyone on this list that has any comments, please let us
> > know.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > 
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> > Chair, Registry Constituency
> > e-mail: Jeff.Neuman at NeuLevel.biz
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > gTLD Registry Restructuring Proposal 
> > October 4, 2001 
> > Principles
> > The gTLD Constituency believes the following principles should be kept in
> > mind as the ICANN community considers possible restructuring options:
> > 1. The most important role of the Board is to recognize the
> > existence of documented consensus supporting policies that become
> mandatory
> > pursuant to established contracts with registries and registrars. The role
> > of the Board is not to create and impose policies in a top-down fashion,
> > much less allow anyone other than the Board to impose policies on those
> who
> > have agreed to participate in and abide by the results of the ICANN
> > consensus policy process.
> > 2. The Board should contain an array of "representative"
> > voices. These voices should include Board members selected by (a) those
> who
> > are bound by contract to comply with ICANN policies and (b) those
> > predictably and substantially affected by such policies. The Board should
> be
> > constructed to assure that "consensus" is truly achieved.
> > 3. Similarly-situated entities should be treated similarly. In
> > particular, registries and registrars (whether gTLD or ccTLD) competing in
> > the global marketplace should be subject to the same rules.
> > 4. Both commercial and noncommercial domain name registrants,
> > who are bound by ICANN policies through contracts that flow down through
> > registries and registrars, should have representation on the Board.
> > 5. If Supporting Organizations are created to reflect the views
> > of particular groups, those SOs should be required to help bear the costs
> of
> > the ICANN process (recognizing that such contributions should not create a
> > bar to participation by particular SOs).
> > 6. If Supporting Organizations are created to reflect the views
> > of particular groups, there should be some new cross-SO mechanism to
> > facilitate inter-SO deliberation on policies that might affect various SOs
> > and to generate documented consensus (on the basis of which the Board
> could
> > take action).
> > 7. ICANN consensus policies imposed by contract on registries,
> > registrars and registrants, and other substantive Board actions with
> policy
> > implications, should be clearly limited as to subject matter, addressing
> > only issues for which central and coordinated resolution is necessary to
> > assure stable interoperability of the domain name system.
> > 8. The Board should remain at a reasonable size (to facilitate
> > meaningful deliberation) and should have an odd number of members (to
> avoid
> > deadlock).
> > 9. No substantial restructuring of the Board and/or the DNSO
> > may or should occur without the consent of those who have contractually
> > agreed to abide by ICANN policies established pursuant to the present
> > structure.
> > 10. ccTLDs should sign contracts that require them to abide by
> > consensus policies on issues for which central and coordinated resolution
> is
> > necessary to assure stable interoperability of the domain name system.
> > 11. Restructuring actions designed to reflect recommendations of
> > the At Large Study Committee, proposed creation of a ccSO, and other
> > proposals to reform the DNSO should all proceed at the same time and in
> the
> > context of a comprehensive plan that serves the principles set forth
> above. 
> > ---------------
> > Proposal
> > The gTLD constituency sets forth the following suggestions as a basis for
> > further discussions:
> > 1. A group of Producer SOs should be created to reflect the
> > views of those bound directly by contracts with ICANN. These SOs should
> > include: (1) a ccTLD Registry SO, (2) a gTLD Registry SO (with separate
> > representation for sponsored and unsponsored TLDs), and (3) a Registrar
> SO.
> > (These Producers are all significantly impacted by ICANN policy decisions
> > and also provide up to 90% of ICANN's funding at the moment.)
> > 2. The User community, including both commercial and
> > noncommercial registrants of domain names, should have a role in selecting
> > an equivalent number of Board members. Users could play this role through
> > one or more Supporting Organizations. Two separate SOs for commercial
> users
> > (including large and small businesses and trademark interests) and
> > noncommercial users (including individuals and nonprofit organizations)
> > could be created, each of which would select three Board members. Or the
> At
> > Large SO suggested by the ALSC could be created, selecting six Board
> members
> > from each of six geographic regions.
> > 3. Additional Board seats should be available to reflect the
> > views of those who are not included in the previously described SOs and
> who
> > are predictably likely to be substantially affected by ICANN policies.
> Such
> > groups could be treated as either additional Supporting Organizations or
> as
> > advisory committees, and the Board members selected might be chosen in a
> > variety of different ways. Such groups could include ISPs and ASO and PSO
> > members. The number of such representatives should be determined with a
> view
> > towards manageability and assuring an odd number of Board members. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------
> > Participants on the gTLD Registry Constituency public mailing list are
> requested to not cross-post messages.
> > 
> > 
>