I have been asked to pass this along to the ORSC and IFWP lists. It was written in reply to a message from Milton Mueller on BWG. Best...\Stef ------- Forwarded Message From: Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [bwg-n-friends] [Fwd: ICANN Press Release 08-FEB-99] Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 22:01:00 -0800 Milton -- You need to make these points on more public lists, as BWG is too insular to ignite enough reaction. Your interpetation is exactly what I predicted to Esther that this PR would generate, and the fears you raise are the same as mine. First, they are only selected Registrars for the NSI Regulated Registries (.com, .org, .net). But the ICANN PR does not say this, so we are at liberty to assume the worst, of course. I strongly faulted ICANN for putting it out in this form. I need backing on this, so you should take it public just as it was written. Actually please forward it so as to show the original date stamp. Now, the problem I see is that by setting this up for NSI, it will very likely leak over to all other TLDs, including the ccTLDs if ICANN can cut a deal with the GAC the help Goverments to get and maintain control of their ccTLD administrations. All this is just step after step towards taking control of the Internet identifier system, and through that control to get control of the users and customers. The end result is that some day you might not be allowed, by law, to get an IP address without a Govt sanctioned DNS name, and that is how govts will handle control of access to IP dialtone;-)... Control of the ID space is the key to controlling use, ala the phone system. Have you ever tried to get telephone dialtone without first contracting for a number from the phone company? So, here we go along the way to the top of the slippery slope! Cheers...\Stef >From Milton's message Tue, 09 Feb 1999 10:53:17 -0500: } }This release raises some interesting questions about the relationship }between ICANN and the DNSO. } }ICANN is implementing a domain name policy before a dnso is formed. I }thought SOs "had to be" represented on the ICANN board because the }Corporation just didn't have the "technical expertise" to make these }decisions on their own. But in fact it seems to be perfectly feasible for }Mike Roberts and NSI and NTIA to work out an agreement, now doesn't it? } }I wonder what all the fuss over the creation of a DNSO is about? First, I }consider it a foregone conclusion that the ICANN board will select dnso.org }over the Paris draft despite the former's small base of support. But aside }from that prediction (you heard it here first), what real influence will the }DNSO have? ICANN is locking into place a shared-registry model for gTLDs. }ICANN will make agreements and policies and the DNSO will merely recommend }them. The DNSO will have no financial resources and ICANN will. If there is }a conflict who will win? } }It is only a matter of time before ICANN discovers that it can make }substantial amounts of money by running the DNS as a controlled cartel--note }the language about fee structures below--and that will make it even more }insulated from any input. }--MM } }Internet Assigned Numbers Authority wrote: } }> ICANN Releases Draft Accreditation Guidelines for Domain-Name }> Registrars-Proposal to be Available for Public Comment at www.icann.org }> }> Los Angeles-In a first step towards establishing fair and consistent }> guidelines and procedures that will increase competition and global }> participation in domain-name registration services, the non-profit }> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today is }> releasing for public comment a draft proposal for the accreditation of }> Internet domain-name registrars. The draft includes criteria for }> selecting the five registrars who will test the system for a two-month }> period beginning at the end of April. }> }> The proposed accreditation guidelines, comprising nearly 30 pages of }> detailed analysis and proposed standards, will be published on ICANN's }> Web site (www.icann.org) today for public comment and suggestions. The }> final version of the guidelines will provide requirements for }> accreditation of domain-name registrars in the .com, .org and .net }> top-level domains (TLDs). Following public comment submitted in }> response to today's posting, and comment and discussion at an open }> meeting in Singapore on March 3, 1999, ICANN's initial board will }> consider adoption of the proposed guidelines or a revised version. }> }> "We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with the Internet }> community to create a stable but competitive market for domain-name }> registration services in these three important domains," commented }> Esther Dyson, interim chairman of the ICANN board. "One of the major }> reasons for the creation of ICANN was to foster fair and open ground }> rules in the domain-name system, and we are now approaching a major }> milestone in achieving that goal. We aim to design a system that }> promotes the stability of the Internet and is capable of evolving in the }> }> future." }> }> The immediate development and adoption of accreditation guidelines is }> necessary to implement an agreement by Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) to }> develop a system that allows multiple registrars to register names in }> the .com, .net, and .org TLDs in competition with NSI. Since 1993, NSI }> has been the sole provider of direct domain-name registration services }> in these TLDs as part of a cooperative agreement with the U.S. }> Government. In the interests of opening the process to robust }> competition, a recent amendment to the cooperative agreement paved the }> way for other companies to register unique second-level domain names on }> behalf of their customers in the NSI-maintained TLD database (the }> "registry"). }> }> NSI initially will open the database to five registrars as part of a }> test phase in which the shared registration system will be launched, }> evaluated and improved. Rather than participating in the test as one of }> }> the five registrars, NSI will continue its existing registrar operations }> }> during the test phase. After completion of the test, NSI will be }> required to provide equal access to registry services through the shared }> }> registration system to all accredited registrars (including itself) at }> prices to be agreed upon by the U.S. Government and NSI under the terms }> of the cooperative agreement. The price charged by NSI for registry }> services will be based on NSI's costs, plus a reasonable return on its }> investment. }> }> Key elements of the proposed guidelines on which ICANN is soliciting }> comments include minimum technical, operational and financial criteria }> for entering the registration business; requirements for portability of }> domain names among registration companies; protections against fraud and }> infringement of intellectual property rights; data security, privacy, }> and protection; and special technical requirements to protect the }> stability and operational integrity of the Internet. ICANN is seeking }> public comment on these proposed criteria, as well as on a proposed fee }> structure based on an initial accreditation fee and an ongoing charges }> on regisration volume. }> }> Because testbed participants will be required to provide enhanced }> technical and engineering support to interface with NSI during the }> testing phase, the proposal specifies additional criteria for selection }> of the five testbed registrars. The early accreditation of these }> registrars for the test period is not intended or expected to give them }> any competitive advantage. Indeed, they will be required to devote }> significant time, expertise, and resources to ensure the success of the }> testing process, and they must be prepared to publish operational }> information as part of the test evaluation. }> }> "Much of the material in these proposed guidelines reflects planning and }> }> analysis done by others in recent years," said Michael Roberts, ICANN }> interim CEO and head of the proposal drafting effort. "We've pulled }> that thinking together, updated it to reflect the agreement between }> ICANN and the government, and tailored it to the needs of NSI's }> agreement with the U.S. Government for the introduction of competition }> in the .com, .org and .net domains. ICANN thanks all those who }> contributed." }> }> As with any other change in Internet management, the introduction of the }> }> guidelines will be controversial. "We recognize that implementing }> changes in the domain-name system will be a contentious issue," said }> Interim Chairman Dyson. "The point is to make the transition fair, and }> the results fair. As long as everyone knows the rules and can play on }> the same terms, we will have achieved that. As the initial board }> considers comments on the guidelines, we will work hard with the }> Internet community to develop guidelines that strike everyone as }> reasonable, sound, and transparent." }> }> Along with the draft guidelines, ICANN also is posting several other }> policy drafts and documents on which it is seeking public }> comment-including a draft conflict of interest policy, a draft }> reconsideration policy, and applications received from entities seeking }> recognition as ICANN Supporting Organizations. }> }> About ICANN: }> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a }> new, private, non-profit, international corporation formed by the global }> }> Internet community to assume responsibility for managing Internet }> technical coordinating functions including domain-name system (DNS) }> management, IP address block allocation, the coordination of the }> assignment of technical protocol parameters, and root server system }> management, now performed by, or on behalf of, the U.S. Government. }> }> ICANN was created by the global Internet community in response to }> "Management of Internet Names and Addresses," a U.S. Government }> statement of policy issued in June 1998, that invited the global }> Internet community to form a new, private sector organization to }> undertake management of Internet domain-name system functions. In }> November 1998, ICANN entered into an agreement with the U.S. Government }> }> to design and develop the methods and procedures that should be in place }> }> to transition DNS management responsibility to the private sector from }> the government. It is expected that this transition will be completed }> by September 2000. }> }> ICANN's initial board is led by interim chairman Esther Dyson, and has }> members from six nations. This initial board, with assistance from }> staff and several committees, is working to pave the way for a smooth }> and stable transition to private sector management of technical }> management functions. The day-to-day management of ICANN is led by its }> interim President and CEO, Mike Roberts. The initial board members will }> }> be succeeded by board members elected by four different constituency }> groups, collectively representing a broad range of the Internet's }> technical and user communities around the globe. }> }> -30- }> }> ICANN contacts: }> Esther Dyson }> Interim Chairman }> +1 (212) 924-8800 }> [EMAIL PROTECTED] }> }> Michael M. Roberts }> Interim President and CEO }> +1 (650) 854-2108 }> [EMAIL PROTECTED] }> }> Sean Garrett }> Director of Technology Policy Communications }> Alexander Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide }> +1 (415) 923-1660, 170 }> [EMAIL PROTECTED] }> }> Europe: }> Patrick Worms }> Vice President, Technology Communications }> Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, Brussels }> (+32-2) 545 6609 }> [EMAIL PROTECTED] }> }> Asia: }> Patricia Ratulangi }> Senior Associate, Technology Practice Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, }> }> Singapore }> +65 2779563 }> [EMAIL PROTECTED] } } } ------- End of Forwarded Message
