Message sent to Tom Bliley 7/8/99 >July 8, 1999 > >The Honorable Tom Bliley >Chairman, Committee on Commerce >United States House of Representatives >Room 2125 Rayburn House Office Building >Washington, DC 20515 > >Dear Chairman Bliley: > >As an interested party to the effect ICANN could have on the policies and >operation of the Internet, I feel obliged to forward to you information >regading the formation of the ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization. >The DNSO, as you know, was formalized during the recent ICANN meetings held >in Berlin. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many others at the core of >the debate regarding ICANN and its practices, that ICANN has not acted in >either a professional manner nor in good faith. It has become abundantly >clear that the ICANN Board of Directors has a specific path they intend to >follow, regardless of input from individuals, companies and industry >organizations. > >I present this information to you as an individual citizen, as an owner of >my own company with Internet interests, as a member of the management of >Diebold Incorporated, and as an associate member of the Top Level Domain >Association. I am very disturbed by the methods demonstrated by ICANN, and >more by their lack of open decision process. I have little confidence in >ICANN and their ability to promote real consensus in the Internet community. > >Below I have included several memos which outline one of the several paths >to open dialog and constructive debate which have been completely ignored. >I have, on several occasions, received personal assurances by ICANN Board >members regarding these topics. Not once have I, nor any member of the >organizations to which I am party, ever been engaged in discussion on these >relevant topics. > >I encourage you to further explore ICANN and its methods and engage in >discourse with responsible, respected Internet contributors. I believe you >will find that the current path being pursued by ICANN is not in the best >interests of the Internet community and its future. > >Respectfully, > >Gene Marsh > >attachements (below) with notes to follow > >++++++++++ >Diebold Incorporated >Building Global Services Capabilities >(330) 498-2670 >++++++++++ >Message announcing the Top Level Domain Association: > >Release message: >++++++++++++++++ >For immediate release: > > UNIONTOWN, OHIO, April 26, 1999/ -- An group of organizations >today announced the formation of the Top Level Domain Association >(http://www.tlda.org), an association designed to provide a clearing >house and coordination point for organizations with a registry >interest in new Top Level Domains on the Internet. The group would >also constitute the first TLD registry group for providing a voice >to ICANN, the organization chartered with management direction for >Internet IP addresses and domain names. > Top Level Domains (TLDs) are the designations after the "dot" in >Internet domain names. To date, there are typically three commonly >used TLDs: ".com", ".net" and ".org" The TLDA will promote the >development, use and management of additional TLDs, and work with >other organizations, such as ICANN, the IETF and others to ensure >their smooth deployment. > According to Richard Sexton of VRx Network Services, interim >primary spokesman for the TLDA, "The Internet offers great potential >for individuals and business around the world. Domain names are a >key to understandable and identifiable locations on the Internet. A >coordinated effort to support additional TLDs is essential to the >future growth and success of the Internet and e-commerce world-wide. >The formation of the TLDA is the beginning step to assure additional >TLDs are addressed in a manageable fashion, and that organizations >with an interest in TLD registry functions have their concerns heard." > Details of the TLDA organization and its functions are >forthcoming, according to Gene Marsh, president of anycastNET >Incorporated and interim secretary for the TLDA. "We envision the >TLDA operating in a very open fashion. Participation will be sought >from every interested party. The more ideas we have to consider, >the more informed our views will be." > "It's about time this group was formed" commented Einar Stefferud, >chairman of the Open Root Server Confederation (ORSC). "I feel this >fits with the objectives of the ORSC, and fully support the effort" > A Technology Company, Inc. founder Jason Hendeles wrote, >"The domain name business has a window of opportunity. If the players >can remain focused on the task at hand and continue to make small >steps forward, we may have an opportunity to innovate and benefit from >this new industry." > Ed Gerk, Coordinator of the MCG, an international open group on >security and certification standards that has participants from 28 >countries, notes "Security in various forms is often cited as a >barrier to open new Internet top level domain names, but the MCG >supports Internet security asa form of understanding not of >confinement. The TLDA will, expectedly, provide an open forum for >such understanding to be developed and tested." > > Initial TLDA associate organizations will be: > >VRx Network Services >anycastNET Incorporated >Iperdome, Inc. >Image Online Design, Inc. >Network Management Associates Inc. >A Technology Company, Inc. >Open Root Server Confederation Incorporated (ORSC) >North American Root Server Confederation (NARSC) >MCG > > Many other organizations have been contacted, according to Sexton. >"Over the next few weeks, you should see a number of other >high-profile groups joining the TLDA. We hope to open discussion >forums within the next few days as well." Any group with an interest >in participating in the TLDA efforts should contact Richard Sexton by >email at [EMAIL PROTECTED], or Gene Marsh by email at >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >++++++++++ >Message before ICANN Berlin meeting requesting open discourse, and response >from Esther Dyson: > >Yes, we have been listening. We have been listening and thinking so hard we >haven't always had time to respond. But you should see some reasoning as >well as some results over the next few days. > >Esther Dyson > > >At 12:24 AM 24/05/99 -0400, Marsh, Miles (Gene) wrote: >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>Esther, >> >>The past few weeks have passed with a flurry of messages back and >>forth on a number of critical topics. During this time, the >>principals involved with the ICANN process have been unfortunately >>missing from much of the discussion. This is an unfortunate fact. >> >>As usual, there has been the regular ration of excited, flamboyant and >>overreactive banter on the lists. There has also been a great deal of >>well thought discourse regarding these issues. It is with great >>trepidation that we await the results of Berlin. Those who can make >>it to the meetings hope to have their voices heard. Those of us who >>cannot are hoping someone has been listening. >> >>The Internet is, in large measure, the result of the forward thinking, >>creative people who have been commenting on the issues. Hear their >>voices. Embrace the discussion. Open the processes. This is your >>time to become hero, legend, leader. >> >>Or to fail. >> >>You have all the choice. >> >>+++++ >> >>Gene Marsh (GM8419) >>interim secretary, Top Level Domain Association >>president, anycastNET Incorporated > > >++++++++++ >Message requesting reconsideration of TLDA efforts: > >*** PGP Signature Status: good >*** Signer: Miles Eugene Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >*** Signed: 5/27/99 8:43:37 PM >*** Verified: 6/2/99 1:03:34 PM >*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** > >Esther and the ICANN Board of Directors; > >The Top Level Domain Association (TLDA) submits this memo for >immediate reconsideration of the TLDA as an ICANN recognized gTLD DNSO >constituency as defined in the ICANN Bylaws (including published >amendments). It is the position of the TLDA that its organizing >efforts have met or exceeded ICANN requirements for consideration, and >that further delay in recognition is both contrary to published ICANN >bylaws and detrimental to the best interests of the Internet >community. > >Upon reviewing the published ICANN Bylaws, we find no provision for >the exclusion of a constituent of the gTLD DNSO based on its status as >a functioning gTLD registry. The TLDA represents organizations with a >bonafide, demonstrable interest in the formation, organization, >management and operation of gTLDs. This interest has been shown by >the long term involvement of the constituent TLDA associate >organizations and individuals in gTLD topics. Many of these entities >have been directly involved in said topics for more than four years, >with established, copyrighted potential TLDs. > >Below are sections of the published ICANN Bylaws, with appropriate >notes following each section. > >*** >>From New Article VI of the ICANN Bylaws: >"Section 3: SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION FORMATION >(a) The initial Supporting Organizations contemplated by Section 1(b) >of this Article VI shall be formed through community consensus, as >reflected in applications or similar proposals to create an initial >Supporting Organization. The Board shall recognize that consensus >through the publication and subsequent adoption, by a two-thirds (2/3) >vote of all members of the Board, of amendments to these Bylaws >establishing the Supporting Organization. Such amendments shall, in >the Board's judgment, (1) be consistent with these Bylaws; (2) ensure >that the full range of views of all interested parties will be fairly >and adequately reflected in the decisions of the Supporting >Organization; and (3) serve the purposes of the Corporation. Upon the >adoption of such Bylaw amendments, the Supporting Organization shall >be deemed to exist for purposes of these Bylaws. Once accepted by the >Board through the amendment of these Bylaws and the failure of the >Board to disapprove any subsequent decisions by the Supporting >Organizations or their constituent bodies, the procedures of the >Supporting Organizations shall prevail in the case of any >inconsistency with any other provisions of these Bylaws." >NOTES: >The first sentence in (a) refers to formation through community >consensus. The currently proposed gTLD DNSO constituency reflects the >participation of a single community entity, with no defined provision >for additional constituents, nor direction from the Board to include >other pertinent organizations and individuals as constituents. This >is clearly in defiance of the published direction. >The second sentence refers to a board process which will vote on the >establishment of the SO. I am not aware of any vote taken regarding >the TLDA. If such a vote was taken by the Board, it was certainly >done without regard to the Bylaws and without notification to the >organizing parties of the TLDA. >*** >NEW ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION >"Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES >(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own >criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall >be excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of >participation in another Constituency. The Board shall recognize a >Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described in (b) >below) by a majority vote, whereby the Constituency shall be deemed to >exist for purposes of these Bylaws." >NOTES: >The TLDA has met all published ICANN self-organization criteria. We >believe that our proposal has not been thoroughly or fairly >considered, and that the board should immediately review the potential >of recognition as set forth in the potential paths detailed below. >"(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for >recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will >be posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The >Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or >on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the >purposes of the Corporation. In the event of a staff recommendation >that the Board should recognize a new constituency, the Board shall >post that recommendation, including a detailed explanation of why such >action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public >comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new >Constituency until after reviewing all comments received." > >NOTES: >The TLDA has, and hereby again, petitions the Board for recognition as >a legitimate constituency. We believe the appropriate DNSO for our >participation is the gTLD DNSO. We are, however, willing to consider >an alternative proposal from the Board. It is our belief that the >value of the TLDA and its represented organizations and individuals is >more important than the DNSO group with which we are associated. > >The last sentence in (d) refers to a review of public comments >regarding any proposed constituency. Public comment has been >overwealmingly positive regarding the formation the the TLDA. >*** > >The TLDA believes that ICANN has the responsibility to itself and the >Internet community to address the gTLD constituency issues we bring >forward with all due haste. We further believe there are several >potential paths which ICANN could pursue: > >- The addition of the TLDA as a constituent of the gTLD DNSO, creating >a second represented entity, and filling an additional Names Council >Representative seat. >- A mandate to NSI to pursue a single compromise gTLD DNSO >constituency with the TLDA and others who demonstrate an appropriate >interest. >- A review and reconsideration of the TLDA proposal as THE gTLD DNSO >constituency, with special consideration to include NSI as a principal >organizing associate. >- Recognition of the TLDA as an additional ICANN DNSO constituency >representing gTLD issues including, but not limited to, those of gTLD >registries. > >We encourage all public comments to be forwarded to Esther Dyson, the >ICANN Board and to the TLDA interim secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). >The TLDA and its associate organizations and individuals would welcome >any discussion the ICANN Board deems as necessary for the further >consideration of these important issues. > >Your prompt consideration and response to this memo is greatly >appreciated. > >Regards, > >Gene Marsh >interim secretary, Top Level Domain Association >(330) 498-2670 > > >*** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** > >++++++++++ > >Message as follow-up to above request: > >*** PGP Signature Status: good >*** Signer: Miles Eugene Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >*** Signed: 6/2/99 12:40:11 PM >*** Verified: 7/9/99 10:11:05 PM >*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** > >Esther, > >I am a bit puzzled as to why I have heard nothing from you or ICANN >regarding the memo I sent you. I realize that you are very busy, as >are we all. Could you please forward a message regarding your receipt >of the memo, and any course of action which has been pursued=3F > >Regards, > > >Gene Marsh >Senior Network Marketing Manager, Diebold Incorporated >interim secretary, Top Level Domain Association > >++++++++++ >Message once again requesting action sent June 7, 1999: > >Esther, > >I hope that this finds you well. > >I have, I hope you will agree, always addressed you and the ICANN Board >with a great deal of respect and courtesy. In response I ask only for the >same level of professional courtesy. > >I have forwarded this message to you on 2 other occasions. I do so again >in hopes that you have, for some reason, not received it before, and will >give it the necessary attention with due haste. > >The organizations and individuals represented by the Top Level Domain >Association have a legitimate right to be considered for ICANN DNSO >constituency. I have detailed, in the message below, potential paths ICANN >might choose regarding this. I ask you again, professional to >professional, to address this issue and respond appropriately. > >Regards, > >Gene Marsh >interim secretary, Top Level Domain Association >president, anycastNET Incorporated > >++++++++++ >Response from Esther Dyson to above message: > >Gene - > >Sorry, I have pretty much been traveling since Berlin, and obviously this is >not mine alone to answer. I will try to get back to you shortly. (FWIW, I >got this one time before, but my mail server has been acting up.) I haven't >actually seen all the public comment you mention. > >Esther > >++++++++++ >++++++++++ > > >No further messages from ICANN. The public comment in question was READ BY >Esther Dyson at the Berlin meeting to the attendees, and was reiterated in >hundreds of messages on the IFWP discussion list (the principal Internet >discussion list for the White Paper and ICANN issues) > >The efforts of the TLDA will continue regardless of ICANN. The issue at >hand is not the recognition of the TLDA (although that would be >appropriate), but the lack of responsiveness by ICANN to the TLDA and >others. > > >++++++++++ >Gene Marsh >Senior Network Marketing Manager >Diebold Incorporated >Building Global Services Capabilities >
