Subject: regarding potential new IANA initial board members

From: Jon Postel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:47:15 -0700 (PDT)

Hello.

There has been some discussion of candidates for the initial board for
the new IANA organization.  While the current suggestions being
circulated are appreciated, i don't think they provide the kind of
board that would be most desireable.

A key responsibility of the new IANA board is to see that policies and
procedures are developed in a fair and open manner, not to rehash all
the arguments and positions that go into developing those policies and
procedures.

Many of the current suggestions are people with strongly held views
about what the answers should be.  These people should be involved in
developing the policies and procedures in the various supporting
organizations and councils, particularly the domain names council.

We have been talking all along about finding people with senior
executive experience, to sit on a "blue ribbon" board, people who have
been "above the fray", and are "open minded on the issues".

The kind of people that make more sense to me for the board are
university presidents, retired CEOs of major corporations, well known
public interest advocates, or retired diplomats.  And remember, that of
the 9 initial board members at most 4 can be from north america, so
more top quality suggestions from the rest of the world are needed.

--jon.

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:45:36 +0200 (MET DST)

On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, Jon Postel wrote:

> more top quality suggestions from the rest of the world are needed.

thank you dr.postel for clarifications

i justs wanted to ad that this groups of persons you sugested should/could 
also have global internet knowledge and vision if posible :-)

it would be desayerable to have also some hard core internet people on
this policy and procedures preparation interim board  
just for the case that this board does something about the internet :-)

as you dr.postel not intend to be on the "than board"-if yes than i also
would apreciate it   but does it makes good sense to have you on the 
policy and procedure interim board ?

for me definitely YES !!

thanks

> --jon.

sascha

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:45:36 +0200 (MET DST)

for me definitely YES !!

thanks

sascha

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 13:07:05 -0700 (PDT)

> the arguments and positions that go into developing those policies and

First of all, as always, we are not creating a new IANA.  We are creating
a significantly larger entity which is stepping into the shoes of both
IANA and NSF. It will be overseeing issues with which were never part of
IANA such as issues of trademark and domain names.

One must ask, however, who is the appropriate body to make these choices?

A) Who is to chose between the various proposals now on the table in
addition to the joint Network Solutions/IANA documents?

   People may not be aware, but there at least two well formed
   alternatives to the Network Solutions/IANA documents.  One from the
   EFF and one that was written by a group we call the Boston Group (of
   which I am a member.)

   At least the latter of these is being formally submitted to the
   United States as an alternative to the Network Solutions/IANA documents,
   which we consider lacking in certain critical areas.

   For details see either:

	http://www.cavebear.com/bwg/
	http://www.mama-tech.com/boston/

   The Boston Group documents have also been brought to the attention of
   the IAB.

   I might also mention that there is a body of opinion to the effect that
   the only legitimate body to determine which set of proposals should be
   adopted is the Internet Community, as a whole and in all of its parts.

   As such, no one who is submitting a proposal should be entitled to
   judge whether its proposal is "best" among those submitted.  Doing so
   would almost certainly raise questions of impartiality, especially
   should those deciding have a clear and direct financial interest in the
   outcome.

B) Who is to choose the Initial Board members?

   Let me suggest that any such decision should be made by the Internet
   Community and not subject to arbitrary limitations or private choices.

		--karl--

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 13:07:05 -0700 (PDT)

For details see either:

		--karl--

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 00:24:20 +0400

I second that !!!

/Pete

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 00:24:20 +0400

I second that !!!

/Pete

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:34:58 +0200 (MET DST)

> One must ask, however, who is the appropriate body to make these choices?

one may think that becouse such "internet community" organisation as you 
understand it does not exists yet and for the reason of practicity as iana
already for some time manages this field that iana should be one of the
instances wich should make some "infrastrucutre" "decisions" for building
up a platform where all the other proposals wich you mentioned could be 
broath in recognised and posible implemented 

in my understanding is that exactly what dr.postel is trying to do and
what he is proposing 

>    Community and not subject to arbitrary limitations or private choices.

it is eayser demanded and sayed and much more dificult to realise

what is "internet community" karl   is endles arguing and discussing 
and having 10 diferent decisions the "internet community"  yes it is but
it is not the moment for that yet  there must be short term decisions and
implementation and than slowly we have to start to build up mechanisms
of the internet community at large  

thanks
sascha

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:34:58 +0200 (MET DST)

thanks
sascha

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 13:48:48 -0700 (PDT)

> understand it does not exists yet ...

It's easy to come up with a body who comprise an initial cut at an
Internet Community.

Take a large basket.

Add to it all the names of people on the IETF mailing list or who have
attended an IETF meeting in the last two years.  (This means that
everyone reading this list is a member.)

Add the names of everyone who is named in the whois databases of NSI, the
various ccTLD mangers, ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC.  (That means that people who
have domain names and IP address blocks are members.)

Add every attendee of NANOG or person on the NANOG mailing list.
(Non-North America equivalent groups and lists should also be added.)
(This means that people who operate networks are members.)

Add the names of the people who commented on the NTIA Green Paper, the EC
proposal, the WIPO proposal, or who attended any of the IFWP meetings
around the world. (This means that interested parties are members.)

And allow any other person who wants to be included to send e-mail to some
well publicised collection point (or use a web page) and say "I'm a member
too."  (This means that anyone who wants to take the effort to be a member
can be one.)

The word of the day is "inclusion".

		--karl--

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 13:48:48 -0700 (PDT)

Take a large basket.

		--karl--

---

From: Michael Ridley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:04:36 -0700

---snipped list of people who would be included---
> The word of the day is "inclusion".

Sounds good to me, but, how do we weigh votes?  Do I get the same vote
as the CEO of AT&T?  Is it a generic representative democracy type 
community, or is there some electoral college?

-- 
Michael Ridley
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Ridley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:04:36 -0700

---snipped list of people who would be included---

-- 
Michael Ridley
[email-masked]

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:37:23 -0700 (PDT)

> > The word of the day is "inclusion".

By-the-way, it was an oversight, I also think all members of ISOC should
be included in the initial membership.

> community, or is there some electoral college?

Yes, your vote would have the same weight as that of the CEO of AT&T. Your
vote would count as much as mine.  Why shouldn't it?

People should gain influence through the intercourse of ideas and reasoned
debate and persuasion, not through mere position.  What matters is how
many people you can convince to follow your ideas.

(It should not be discounted that people in large entities have
significant means by which to persuade people to the merits of their
ideas.  We need not add to that advantage by giving those same people a
built-in additional voting power.)

Regarding an electorial college type system, which I interpret as having a
body of representatives who we elect, who in turn do the final election
for the members of the Initial Board: 

I'm easy, I'd go with either approach long as the body of representatives
was sufficiently large so that there could be a reasonable diversity of
points of view regarding who would be selected for the Initial Board.

		--karl--

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 18:37:23 -0700 (PDT)

--karl--

---

From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:16:51 -0400

>   adopted is the Internet Community, as a whole and in all of its parts.

The Internet has become so huge and so diverse there no longer is an
Internet community in the useful sense that once existed.

There was a time when the people in the Internet knew and trusted one
another and at least a basic grasp of the issues was relatively widespread.
 That doesn't even being to be true now.  By far the vast majority of
Internet users, who I would think are included under the umbrella of
"community," don't have the vaguest clue how such an organism should be
organized.

This is not a time to invoke democracy.  To have a hope of working to the
good, democracy depends on educated voters constrained by a Constitution
that keeps the majority from oppressing and destroying the minority.  Such
an environment does not exist relative to the Internet.

Our only hope is that people of wisdom and good will can prevail through
the muddle of conflicting claims of authority and that a sufficient quorum
of world governments will recognize the resulting organization and allow it
to wield the power it needs to keep the Internet operational and reasonably
free of those who would destroy it for their own personal power and gain.

I certainly don't consider the past leadership of the Internet as flawless
but all told they haven't done so badly.  I trust them to shape the future.

	Bob

---

From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:16:51 -0400

Bob

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:23:02 -0400 (EDT)

Bob Stewart  wrote:
> Our only hope is that people of wisdom and good will can prevail
> through the muddle of conflicting claims of authority and that a
> sufficient quorum of world governments will recognize the resulting
> organization and allow it to wield the power it needs to keep the
> Internet operational and reasonably free of those who would destroy
> it for their own personal power and gain.
>
> I certainly don't consider the past leadership of the Internet as
> flawless but all told they haven't done so badly.  I trust them to
> shape the future.

 They will be paralyzed without
 the passionate dedicated and
 direct participation of the new
 generation of people whose lives
 are inextricably wrapped up in
 the new vision of the Internet.
 Postel and his allies represent
 a dwindling number of people.
 Excluding the most vital and
 create forces from this process
 dooms it to obscurity, mediocrity
 and obsolesence. We will simply
 work around the "oldbie" obstructions
 and work out our own, independant
 solutions via software, hardware
 and political means of our own.

 Bob Allisat

 Free Community Network . [email-masked] . http://fcn.net

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:23:02 -0400 (EDT)

Bob Allisat

---

From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:46:31 -0400

> the new vision of the Internet.

The only new vision of the Internet that I've seen is the one overwhelmed
by the con artists and get-rich-quick schemers who have no interest
whatsover in the community or the users other than as a cash crop.

The Internet doesn't need a new vision.  The old vision is a fine one:
cooperatively bringing powerful communication tools to as many people as
possible, without milking it for every ounce of personal glory and profit.

> a dwindling number of people.

On this we agree.

It does seem there is a dwindling number of people willing and able to make
wise thoughtful decisions based on what's right rather than what's best for
themselves.

> and obsolesence. 

Ignoring and villifying the previous generation is the surest path to
repeating history's most popular mistakes.

>We will simply

Speaking of popular mistakes.  This one is a classic way to insist on
making them and keep those who would do better busy trying to shore up the
structure rather than getting on with using the benefits and learning how
better to manage them.

	Bob

---

From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:46:31 -0400

On this we agree.

	Bob

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:01:00 -0400

> "community," don't have the vaguest clue how such an organism should be

See related articles about the "son of CDA" debate (or lack thereof) in
the NY Times recently. There probably is as much of an Internet
community as there is a "telephone community" or a "TV community" or a
"highway user community". The latter at least has the AAA (and ADAC and
...) on a national scale that has some tenuous justification of speaking
for their interests. (Although I don't think most AAA members realize
that they also pay for Washington, DC lobbyists.) Maybe if we got an
Internet organization that offered an Internet towing service and
triptiks, we'd have a chance at a widespread representation...

Just like all kinds of organizations, from truckers, oil companies to
the chamber of commerce to MADD, lobby for highway-related legislation,
we'll see similar "communities" (carriers, various moral-uplift
organizations, content producers, etc.) lobby for Internet-related
issues, with very different interests.

There probably is some interesting parallel to be made to the decline of
the various PC users group in the US, e.g., the Boston Computer Club.

Henning

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:01:00 -0400

Henning

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:58:00 -0400

> triptiks, we'd have a chance at a widespread representation...

Hmm.. I know I'd sponsor an organization dedicated to removing the
roadkill from the Infobanh.... ;)

The problem here is it would be tough to devise a Turing Test that
would unambigiously distinguish between roadkill and your potential
user base.....

I think the ISOC needs to step into this role, positioning itself as
a society of people clued enough to find out about its existence[1].

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

[1] Of course, then you appear a tad too Illuminati-ish. ;)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:58:00 -0400

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:27:09 -0400 (EDT)

> a dwindling number of people.

Bob Stewart
>> The only new vision of the Internet that I've seen is the one 
>> overwhelmed by the con artists and get-rich-quick schemers who
>> have no interest whatsover in the community or the users other
>> than as a cash crop.
>> (edit)
>> The Internet doesn't need a new vision.  The old vision is a
>> fine one: cooperatively bringing powerful communication tools
>> to as many people as possible, without milking it for every
>> ounce of personal glory and profit.
>> (edit)
>> Ignoring and villifying the previous generation is the surest 
>> path to repeating history's most popular mistakes.

 Indeed, there have been errors made.
 I have made my share of them and hope
 in future to avoid such behavior. Yet
 Mr. Postel and his collegues of the 
 IETF continue to ignore new voices.
 You continue to "shun" anyone and
 everyone who disagrees with your
 ideas or expresses dissent. So be
 it. It is you folks who are now
 repeating the errors of history.
 
 I am 39 years old, an old man in
 most Internet start-ups and recently
 incorporated WWW and new media entities. 
 An old man. Seven years ago I remember
 when it was all free from commercialism
 and, more importantly, free from NSI's
 $50 outrage fee. I remember how that
 fee came about and I (BA53) refused to
 pay for NON.COM and PCS.ORG to my own
 hardship out of principle. And I
 remember how Mr. Postel and company
 sat silently by when all of this did
 transpire. And I was not the one to
 furthermore allow NSI to rule over
 most of the working Internet through
 arbitrary rules and regulations there-
 after. 

 You all sat on your lumps despising 
 Alternic and the Domain Name Rights
 Coalition and any other protest or
 opposition motion. You sit on your
 collective lumps now as your fearless
 leader tries to impose his own version
 of totalitarianism in place of NSI's
 regime. One rule by edict replaced by
 yet another. And you have the gall to
 accuse me and others of ignominy?!

 Please refer to the ongoing and public
 discussion occuring right now over
 the emmerging form of Internet governance.
 A list of competant and capable people
 to sit on the IANA-2 Board of Directors
 is at http://fcn.net/nominations.html.
 You will see how the new leadership works.
 No secret meetings, backroom deals or
 Zeus-like demagogues. Just a bunch of
 people with a wide range of opinions
 trying to get along somehow. Nice change
 IMHO. You long beards should try it.

 Bob Allisat

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:27:09 -0400 (EDT)

Bob Stewart

 Bob Allisat