Subject: Re: An exercise in electronic democracy

From: "William Allen Simpson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 04:42:35 GMT

Thank you, Karl!

Unfortunately, because of the way that publication of Rules works in the
US, comments are unlikely to have a significant effect on the Rule itself.
The real comment period was last summer before the Rule was written, and
between Jan 30th and Feb 20th, when we were trying to organize
congressional pressure preventing publication in the Federal Register.

So, please post persuasive comments, but with your eye on publication in
the press, and sending copies to your local Congress-person (in the US)
or your government equivalent (elsewhere).  And that means type-written,
hand-delivered or mailed comments.  Electronic comments to Congress have
been discounted by earlier blatant spamming.

The Congress is in recess, and this is a good time to raise issues with
the local staff and meet the members.  Going to fundraisers is a good
idea, too.

We particularly need persons residing in Connie Morella (Science,
technology), Thomas Blyley (Chair Commerce) and John Dingell (ranking
member Commerce) districts to write comments and visit their local
offices.

				====

A Rule has the force and effect of law.

In addition to a lot of other details, this Rule covers "development of
... technical protocol parameters".  The "new corporation will act much
like a standard-setting body."

Unless the proposed Rule is withdrawn, in 30 days the IETF will be
officially outlawed and irrelevant in the US, except to the extent
permitted by this new US government sponsored corporation.

We had tried to persuade the IAB to exercise their responsibilities
under their Charter, and officially confirm the designation of Postel in
his IANA role, something they have never formally finished.  This would
have created a counter claim to the power to designate IANA.

Unfortunately, the IAB was unable to reach consensus that they should
support Postel.

The ISoc should deny confirmation for any IAB re-nominee that failed to
support Postel.

Had the IAB actually gotten their work done before Congress went to
recess, some members of Congress were willing to request scheduled
hearings on the proposed Rule for their return.  Had the Congress
scheduled hearings, the executive would have been on notice that there
was potential opposition, and publication in the Federal Register would
likely have been delayed until after the hearings.

Because of the IAB delay, no hearings have been scheduled for the 30
days before the proposed Rule becomes law.  The executive has won by
default.

According to the US congressional staff looking at the issue, the only
way to stop this now is for the legislature to pass a special bill or
rider that denies funding to Commerce to implement.  A hard row to hoe!
And unlikely to happen for several months at best.

> From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
> The US Government has just published a proposal to significantly alter the
> way that Domain Names, IP Address Allocation, and IANA functions are
> handled in the worldwide Internet.
>
> This proposal can be viewed at:
>
> 	http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.txt
>
> There is a relatively short period for comment (about a month.)
>

[email-masked]
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

---

From: Guenter Roeck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 22:18:04 -0800 (PST)

I know I am not very familiar with many details of U.S. law,
but maybe you could elaborate a bit on how this Rule would
"outlaw the IETF".

Thanks,
Guenter

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 23:02:36 -0800 (PST)

> A Rule has the force and effect of law.

Yes, administrative rules do have legal force, although they fail in the
face of conflicting statutes or if they are issued without statutory
authority.

I think (or rather, I hope) that you are overreacting.  The statutory
authority enumerated in the notice is sufficient for NTIA to proceed to
develop a policy.  But there is nothing in that authority to allow that
policy to proceed to the next step into implementation.

If anyone is curious, the procedure for these things is enumerated in the
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC 553.  It's pretty short and it's
available via:

	 http://law.house.gov/uscsrch.htm 

(That said, the mere fact of the Proposal does distract attention from the
fact that as of April 1, 1998, Network Solutions loses its operational
authority over the root zone and the .com/.net/.org/.edu/... top level
domains.  Yet there is no sucessor and the legal status of those domains
will lapse into legal uncertainty and nothing is being done by the US
Government in that regard.  The Proposal is going to keep that uncertainty
around for rather a significant time, much to the benefit of NSI's bank
account.) 

		--karl--

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 23:24:11 -0800

> around for rather a significant time, much to the benefit of NSI's bank

Karl, the close of comments is March 23.  Note that they can be
reading the comments as they come in -- they don't have to wait until
Mar 23 to start reading and deciding which comments they like and
which they don't.  If Magaziner decides that the new comments don't
materially change things, the Green Paper can be in effect on March
24, setting official USG policy.  That policy continues NSI as the
monopoly registrar for those domains, indefinitely into the future. 
Implementation of other details of the policy can take a long time,
but I wager that NSI will be anointed before April 1.

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
[email-masked]			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 23:52:13 -0800

In the interest of presenting IETF members a quick summary of what the
US Government has in mind, the following excerpts are taken from the
Proposed Rule.  However, I encourage you to read the whole thing
*very* carefully:

  "We propose the creation of a private, not-for-profit corporation
  (the new corporation) to manage the coordinated functions in a
  stable and open institutional framework...."

  "The U.S.  government would gradually transfer existing IANA
  functions, the root system and the appropriate databases to this new
  not-for-profit corporation.  This transition would commence as soon
  as possible, with operational responsibility moved to the new entity
  by September 30, 1998.  The U.S.  government would participate in
  policy oversight to assure stability until the new corporation is
  established and stable, phasing out as soon as possible and in no
  event later than September 30, 2000. 

  "The new corporation should hire a chief executive officer with a
  background in the corporate sector to bring a more rigorous
  management to the organization than was possible or necessary when
  the Internet was primarily a research medium.  As these functions
  are now performed in the United States, the new corporation will be
  headquartered in the United States, and incorporated under U.S.  law
  as a not-for-profit corporation.  It will, however, have and report
  to a board of directors from around the world."

[from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm]

For interest, I present this excerpt from TABNet's submission to the
first round of comments:

  "Clearly, there must be checks and balances with the overall
  transition from NSI to another regulatory body.  Nonetheless,
  someone from NSI must be allowed the opportunity to bridge this
  knowledge gap during the governance transfer.  TABNet sees that
  person to be Gabe Battista, CEO, of Network Solutions."

[from #413, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/email/late.htm]

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:01:29 -0800 (PST)

> If Magaziner decides that the new comments don't

As mere policy, the plan can not cause any contractual relationships to be
formed with NSI, nor to assign property, nor anything else.

There is no statutory authority stated in the Fed Reg notice that enables
NTIA doing anything with NSI.

If that is tried, you will see other people, such as those who brought the
action against the 30% fund, come out of the wordwork to challange the
award.  And the challangers will almost certainly win.

		--karl--

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:28:11 +0000

Folks,

Kent Crispin wrote:
...
>   transition from NSI to another regulatory body.  

Huh? In what sense is NSI a regulatory body today?

  Brian Carpenter

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 08:38:40 -0800

> award.  And the challangers will almost certainly win.

I guess I view your example as making my case, unfortunately -- how
long ago was the 30% fund started?  How long can a wealthy company 
and a sympathetic government delay things?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:44:57 -0500

>The ISoc should deny confirmation for any IAB re-nominee that failed to

Is ISOC the root of all evil in this debate?

Since when is it an offense against nature for
an IAB member to vote their conscious?

Are you really suggesting that all IAB members
*must* vote the party line or they will be removed?

If so, then you might as well eliminate the IAB
altogether and replace it with something that
more closely matches reality ;-)

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com

---

From: Karl Denninger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:25:50 -0600

> 404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com

Why?

Leave all the *trappings* of what they like to claim is an open process in
place, just run it anyway you want.

Makes for a nice smokescreen.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([email-masked])| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/          | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 20:23:27 +0000

> >Unfortunately, the IAB was unable to reach consensus that they should

Who was "we"?
As a matter of fact the IAB note to Ira Magaziner states:

> 4. We support the authority of the current IANA, including that over
> the DNS root, throughout the transition period and we will be very
> happy to assist in any measures to reinforce that authority.

I do wish people would actually read what we write.
(Of course, some people may be having the hallucination that
there won't be a transition.)

> >The ISoc should deny confirmation for any IAB re-nominee that failed to

The IAB works by consensus, so this statement is pretty meaningless.

  Brian Carpenter