MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE EVENTS

1
MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE EVENTS

• LAINA RAVEENDRAN GREENE
• Managing Director, GetIT Pte Ltd
• Chair of APPLe
• Coordinator of SINCPEC INFOTEL

laina_at_getit.org
www.getit.org
2
EVENTS LEADING UP TO WHITE PAPER

• other private initiatives to create new TLDs and
  to have new root servers, e.g.. ALTERNIC, eDNS,
  name.space
• increasing use of .com, mainly due to problems
  associated with .us
• increasing use of domain names as trademarks
• domain name hijacking cases
• trademark disputed and controversial handling by
  NSI, leading to pressure to change existing system

3

• January 1996- Delegation of iTLDspaper was
  drawn up by Jon Postel, Randy Bush and Brian
  Carpenter- proposed the creation of multiple,
  exclusive, competing top-level domains (up to 50
  new registries for about 150 new TLDs)
• Proposal raised much criticism from Internet
  technical community. There was even a suggestion
  to go back to numbers
• May96- Dublin meeting controversial
  confrontation between ITU, ISOC and CIX (ITU
  tried to get .int)
• June 1996, the paper redrawn as Postel draft,
  which was endorsed, in principle by the Internet
  Society (ISOC) Board of Trustee -slightly revised
  only

4

• Postel Paper was discussed at INET96 in June1996
• APPLe meeting in Montreal, June 1996 brings
  together all the various parties e.g.. CIX, INTA,
  ISOC, ITU, ILPF, etc. to discuss the future of
  Internet Governance
• Aug96- further redraft
• Sept96- IAHC idea first mooted by Executive
  Director of ISOC at Harvard Information
  Infrastructure meeting (where I had presented a
  paper on Internationalizing Internet
  Governance)
• Nov96- Press announcement of creation of IAHC
• February97 after brief comment period, gTLD
  Final Report announced

5
SOME PERCEIVED CONCERNS

• PROPOSALS DEVELOPED WITHOUT DUE OPEN
  CONSULTATION
• LEGITIMACY OF FORA AND PARTICIPANTS- who elected
  them?
• INVOLVED -LEGITIMACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
  NEEDED
• CONCERN HAVING IANA AND ISOC AS VETO POWER FOR
  CORE AND POC, IN ITS EXISTING FORM
• TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON TRADEMARKS
• ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGE PANEL- MORE RIGHTS
  PROTECTED HERE THAN EXISTING NATIONAL PROTECTION

6

• May 1997- ITU signing ceremony of gTLD MOU
• June 1997- ITU Council discusses issue- US, EU
  and other countries have concerns. Only agree to
  depository role of ITU, not to substance of MOU
• July 1997- as part of the US Framework of
  Electronic Commerce call for the privatisation of
  DNS to allow for competition and international
  participation, the Department of Commerce issued
  a Request for Comments on DNS. By the August 1997
  deadline, over 430 comments were received
  totalling 1500 pages

7
APIA COMMENTS ON RFC

• POINT 1. Applaud open consultation of US Dept of
  Commerce
• POINT 2. New legitimate structures needed to
  reflect the commercialization and
  internationalization of the Internet. (market
  forces)
• POINT 3. Internet governance should not just
  focus on domain names
• POINT 4. Domain names should not be presumed to
  be trademarks
• POINT 5. More international consultation needed
  to ensure attention to cultural sensitivities and
  the needs of the developing world..
• POINT 6. Prudent solutions only after open
  consultation, and technical solutions not legal
  ones should be pursued first.

8

• WIPO consultative meeting on domain names and
  trademarks on 1st Sept97. APIA submitted its
  comments to WIPO.
• October 1997- deadline for CORE Registrar
  applications. Deadline was further extended
• October 27th- deadline to ITU Members to respond
  to ITU Request for Comments

9

• Oct- Dec97- ASSESSMENT OF INPUT TO RFC AND US
  GOV DECISIONS ON NEXT STEPS
• EXPIRATION OF NSI CONTRACT FOR .com, .net, and
  .org end of March 1998 (extended to Sept98)
• Meanwhile, we see amendments to IAHC, CORE, POC
• 30th January 1998, the National
  Telecommunications and Information Administration
  (NTIA) an agency of the Department of Commerce,
  sends out a proposed rulemaking for DNS for
  comments, commonly referred to as the Green
  Paper. By the March 1998 deadline, more than 650
  comments were received..

10
5th June 1998-
US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Management of Internet
Names and Addresses commonly referred to as the
White Paper DNS Statement of Policy
11
DIFFERENCE FROM GREEN PAPER

• The White Paper removed three areas
• substantive regulatory provisions, including but
  not limited to a variety of specific requirements
  for the membership of the new corporation and for
  registries and registrars
• the creation during a transition period of a
  specified number of new generic top level domains
• minimum dispute resolution and other procedures
  related to trademarks

12

• Privatising IANA and NSIs root server
  functions, handing it over to an international
  not-for-profit corporation. Those functions that
  are still under supervision or ownership of
  the US government- controversial point since de
  facto (moral authority) lies with Internet
  community as a whole, while de jure with US
  government.

13
EXISTING IP ADDRESSES HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE
IANA, A US Government subcontractor
AFRNIC? LA-NIC?
ARIN IP addresses for Americas does not do
domain names
RIPE IP addresses for Europe/ Africa and ME- does
do domain names
APNIC IP addresses for AP does not do domain names
MEMBERS
MEMBERS
MEMBERS

ISPs, CONFEDERATION OF ISPs, CORPORATE USERS,
ETC..
14
EXISTING DOMAIN NAME HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE
ROOT A SERVER (.)---------NSI
underNSF,
Global TLDs .com, .net, .org (NSI)
country TLDs .sg, .my, etc (national NICs
or persons) e.g. SGNIC
special TLDs .edu, .mil, .gov (US government)
Intl TLDs .int (ITU)
SLDs ibm.com, getit.org, etc. usually companies)
SLDs .com.sg, .org.sg, etc. (usually access
providers)
SLDs ntia.gov, etc (gov agencies)
SLDs wipo.int (intl org)

mrkt.ibm.com,etc
singtel.com.sg, etc.
doc.ntia.gov
hr.wipo.int
15
FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT OF THE WHITE PAPER

• Purpose of the new corporation
• To set policy for and direct the allocation of IP
  number blocks
• To oversee the operation of the Internet root
  server system
• To oversee policy for determining the
  circumstances under which new top level domains
  would be added to the root system, and
• to coordinate the assignment of other technical
  parameters as needed to maintain universal
  connectivity on the Internet

16
WHITE PAPER NOT ABOUT INTERNET GOVERNANCE- BUT
NARROW ISSUES OF MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
OF INTERNET NAMES AND NUMBERS

• Principles to guide US government in deciding
  which new entity to enter into agreement with
• Stability- should not disrupt current operations
  or create competing root systems
• Competition- market mechanisms that support
  competition and consumer choice
• Private bottom-Up coordination- private sector
  action is preferable to government control
• Representation- should have functional and
  geographic diversity in its decision making

17
WHITE PAPER- ELEMENTS FOR NEW ENTITY

• INCORPORATION-Headquartered in the US, and
  incorporated in the US as a not-for-profit
  corporation. It should have a Board of Directors
  from around the world.
• INTERIM BOARD/INCORPORATORS-Should include
  representatives of regional Internet number
  registries, Internet engineers, computer
  scientists, domain name registries, domain name
  registrars, commercial and non-commercial users,
  Internet service providers, international
  trademark holders and Internet experts highly
  respected throughout the Internet community.
  There should be substantial representation from
  around the world.

18
ROLE and TERM OF INTERIM BOARD (to be enshrined
in Charter, Bylaws etc)

• to be appointed, on an interim basis, consisting
  of individuals representing the functional and
  geographic diversity of the Internet community.
  ..could serve for a fixed period, until the Board
  of Directors are elected and installed and they
  will not themselves serve on the Board for a
  fixed period thereafter
• to establish a system for electing the Board of
  Directors that insures that the new corporations
  Board reflects the geographical and functional
  diversity of the Internet (bottom-up elections
  from members or open to all)
• to develop policies for the addition of TLDs and
  establish the qualifications for domain name
  registries and registrars

19
BOARD OF DIRECTORS (to be enshrined in Charter,
bylaws)

• STRUCTURE-
• a) Board of Directors-should be balanced to
  equitably represent the interests of
• IP number registries,
• domain name registries,
• the technical community,
• Internet service providers,
• Internet users (commercial, not-for-profit and
  individuals)
• from around the world
• restrict government representation on the Board
  of Directors without precluding governments and
  intergovernmental organisations from
  participating as Internet users or in a
  non-voting advisory capacity

20

• ELECTION OF BOARD-Nominations to the Board of
  Directors should preserve, as much as possible,
  the tradition of bottom-up governance of the
  Internet, and Board Members should be elected
  from membership or other associations open to
  all, or through other mechanisms that ensure
  broad representation and participation in the
  election process.
• FUNDING- The new corporation will be funded by
  domain name registries, regional IP registries,
  or other entities identified by the Board
• STAFF-current IANA staff should provide
  continuity and expertise over the transition.
  Should also hire necessary expertise to bring
  rigorous management to the organisation

21
WHITE PAPER REFERENCE TO COUNCILS

• COUNCILS-The new corporation could rely on
  separate, diverse and robust name and number
  councils responsible for developing, reviewing,
  and recommending for the Boards approval, policy
  related to matters within each councils
  competent. The elected Board of Directors should
  have final authority to approve or reject
  policies recommended by the councils.
• PROCEDURE OF COUNCILS-If developed, should abide
  by sound, transparent rules and decision making
  processes, and protect against capture by a
  self-interested party and provide an open process
  for the presentation of petitions for
  consideration.

22
HISTORY BEHIND COUNCILS

• Separation of Name and Number Authority-
• Comments
• A number of commentators suggested that
  management of the domain name system should be
  separated from management of the IP number
  system. These commentators expressed the view
  that the numbering system is relatively technical
  and straightforward. They feared that tight
  linkage of domain name and IP number policy
  development would embroil IP numbering system in
  the kind of controversy that has surrounded
  domain name issuance in recent months.

23

• Response The concerns expressed..are legitimate,
  but domain names and IP numbers must ulitmately
  be coordinated to preserve universal connectivity
  on the Internet. Also, there are significant
  costs associated with establishing and operating
  two separate management entities.
• However, there are organisation structures than
  can minimize the risks identified by the
  commentators. For example, separate name and
  number councils can be formed within a single
  organisation. Policy could be determined within
  the appropriate council that would submit its
  recommendations to the new corporations Board of
  Directors for ratification.

24
PROCESSES OF NEW ENTITY, BOARD, COUNCILS ETC.( to
be enshrined in Charter, Bylaws)

• Procedures of a sound and transparent decision
  making process, which should be fair, open and
  pro-competitive
• basis for corporate decisions should be recorded
  and made publicly available
• procedures which protects against capture by a
  self-interested faction, for example
  super-majority or even consensus requirements
• procedures to allow the governing body to evolve
  to reflect the changes in the constituency of
  Internet stakeholders, e.g.. have an open process
  for the presentation of petitions to expand Board
  representation

25

• should have secure, stable and robust procedures
  for the operation of the DNS system and the
  authoritative root server
• procedures which provides for robust,
  professional management of the corporation
• Councils to have similar procedures, plus must
  allow for an open process for the presentation of
  petitions for consideration
• Councils send up to Board for approval or
  ratification
• Interim Board to set up election and voting
  procedures

26
OTHER ELEMENTS IN WHITE PAPER-FUTURE
CONSIDERATION BY NEWCO

• new corporation anticipated to adopt policies
  such as
• keeping registry databases and making them
  available
• domain name registrants to pay up front and agree
  to submit cases to certain jurisdiction
• submit to ADR if cybersquatting or cyberpiracy
  involved
• exclusion procedures for famous marks, etc..

27
RECOMMENDED TRANSITION STEPS
1) New not-for-profit organisation must be
established by the private sector 2) agreement
must be reached between US government and the new
entity 3) NSI and US government must reach
agreement on terms and conditions of NSIs
evolution into another competitor amongst
others 4) ask WIPO to convene an open
international process to develop a set of
recommendations for trademark issues 5) consult
with international community, including other
governments 6) cooperate with IANA, NSI, IAB and
others to review the root server system for
security, etc.
28
WHO IS THIS PRIVATE SECTOR AND HOW ARE THEY TO
BE ORGANISED, ESPECIALLY GLOBALLY???

• 1) New not-for-profit organisation must be
  established by the private sector- White Paper
  did not set out criteria nor procedure
• meetings were popping up all over the place
  Marina Del Ray, Reston, Aspen Institute, Geneva,
  etcconcern was how were they all linked? Which
  one to go to? Which was legitimate?Which would be
  recognised by Ira Magaziner?

29
INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION BEGUN, Thanks to
Barbara Dooley of CIX, Dr Frankel and others
The International Forum on the White Paper- IFWP
process consolidating the various private sector
efforts has begun. First meeting was in
Washington DC from 1-2nd July 1998.
www.ifwp.org 2nd meeting- during INET98 in
Geneva on the 24th-25th July 1998. 3rd meeting-
Singapore 11-13th August 1998 at the ANA
Hotel 4th meeting- Buenos Aires August 20th 5th
meeting?????- to be decided
30

• concern over reinventing of White paper- seen in
  Reston and Geneva.see US government as arbiter
  and reach compromise after open consultation, if
  we reinvent then will never finish the process
• important also to see how different efforts piece
  together...

31
WORKSHOP DIVIDED INTO
GENEVA

• RESTON
• Group A-Profile of the new entity
• Group B-Board of Directors and Membership
• Group C-Members Rights and Liabilities
• Group D-Implementation
• Group E-Domain Names/Trademarks
• Group F-Security/Privacy

• Group A- Profile of the new Entity
• Group B- Membership
• Group C- Process of the Entity
• Group D- Address and Protocol Councils
• Group E- Names Council
• Group F- Domain Name and Trademarks

32
SINGAPORE MEETING

• Plenary sessions mainly on
• 1) Defining the new entity-
• a) Functions of the Future Entity
• b) Role and relationship of Board versus Councils
• c) Process of the new entity
• 2) Making the new entity work-
• a) Membership and accountability
• b) Funding issues
• c) Technical issues
• Workshop
• a) Address and Protocol Councils
• b) Names Council

33
Reston

• Group A(profile of the entity)- since moderator
  did not feel White Paper was binding, went on to
  reinvent Functions, conclusions reached include
• a) IP assignment and IP assignment policy , with
  guidleine such as reasonable and equitable
  assignment, minimum barriers to portability, etc
• b) responsibility for the root zone system, and
  obligation to maintain it coherently and operate
  it in interests of all parties
• c) authority to create new TLDs, in the best
  interest of the industry and users, maximise
  competitionalthough no consensus on impact on
  ccTLDs
• There was no concensus on role of regionals to
  Board, nor on whether there was a role for
  regional Registries once new IANA formed,
• d) fourth function mentioned in White Paper- no
  clear concensus,since not clear what that meant

34
Geneva

• Group A (Profile of the Entity)
• a) set policy regarding IP addresses, bottom up
  procedure from Councils, which Board accepts or
  veto
• b) set policies and procedures to maintain a
  coherent root zone system
• c) set policies and procedures for TLDs,
  including ccTLDs
• d) power to set policies and procedures to assign
  technical parameters
• e) set technical policies and procedures of DNS
  and oversight of registries and registrars
• f) set policies and procedures to determine own
  structure and finances

35
Reston

• Group B(Board of Directors and Membership)-
• a) approved notion of independent councils
  underneath the Board for names, numbers and
  protocols- We have policies for numbers, we have
  policies for protocols. There is no reason that
  we cant take the things that are working now and
  bring them in
• b) main contention is the names council
• c) agree that there should be an Interim Board
  before a Final Board, with limited powers
  (although as far as possible, if IFWP open and
  global participation, can be the incorporators
  instead of Interim Board)
• d) Board should have fair hearing panels, and
  process of checks and balances
• e) Membership- no clear concensus on whether
  there should be a membership.
• f) there should be qualitative criteria set up
  for Interim and Final Board members, although no
  concensus on numbers

36
Geneva

• Group B (Membership)
• a) yes, membership organisation of individuals
  and organisations(academic, commercial, users,
  IOs)- no concensus if individuals can vote
• b) membership classes??-definitely members from
  names, numbers and protocol councils,
  organisational members should fit these
  membership groups
• c) -Board should be elected both by membership
  groups as well as directly
• d) Members rights- right to elect Board, right to
  nominate, right to remove-
• other issues not answered- how can change
  Charter, period of membership, removal of
  members, responsibilities, costs of membership

37
Reston

• Group C (Members Rights and Liabilities)
• Three classes of members, Board of Directors
  members, the members of the entity, members of
  the Internet community impacted by decision of
  the entity
• a) Rights- right to open records of significant
  issues before the Board, and right to respond
  before decision is taken by Board, right to vote
  e.g. simple majority of Board for routine
  decisions to supermajority of entire membersfor
  changes to Charter, bylaws or size of Board,
  right of registries and registrars to make
  business decisions, etc
• b) Liabilities- need for staff and Directors to
  take insurance to protect against suits etc, need
  to indemnify registries and registrars not for
  business decision but for if they acted in
  accordance to entities policies, etc
• No consensus on right to remove Directors

38
Geneva

• Group C(Process of new entity)
• a) There shall be an Interim Board, with clearly
  defined powers, and there should be criteria
• b) Interim Board will establish the new entity
• c) Interim Board to validate the membership and
  election processes
• d) Interim Board should have a six month life,
  extension possible, no later than Sept 2000,
  definition of powers still open
• e) The process of the new entity shall be open
  and transparent using the Internet to this end to
  the fullest extent possible
• No consensus on the fact that Interim Board
  cannot be on Initial Board

39
Reston

• Group D (Implementation)-
• a) There will be an Interim Board
• b) Power of Interim Board will be limited- not
  clear if just set up procedures for election of
  Board or actually write up bylaws etc
• c) Interim Board will not select Final Board
• d) Interim Board will define process upon which
  Final Board will be selected
• e) Interim Board, should not introduce new gTLDs
• f) public interests should be represented even in
  the Councils
• g) need to define membership and who incorporates
  are

40
Geneva

• Group D (Protocol and Names Council)
• not contentious, and reached a lot of consensus
  within existing RIR and IETF/IAB structure
• Group E(Names Council)
• very contentious and mostly decided issues such
  as right to recommend new gTLDs, TLD related
  issues, non-exclusive nomination for Board, forum
  for discussion among gTLDs and ccTLDs and a forum
  for dispute settlement between and among them,
  propose best practices for registrars, recommend
  changes to Boards functions and powers, etc
• Group F(Domain Names and Trademarks)
• cooperate with TLD registries to form daabase,
  and similar points from Reston.WIPO consultative
  process mentioned

41
Reston

• Group E (Trademarks and Domain Names)
• a) NewCo to gather information
• b) encourage development of ADR
• c) right to domain name not based on trademark
• d) Names Council will make recommendations to the
  Board, with input and info collected at large,
  and Board to ratify or approve, or send back for
  further refining
• Group E (Security and Privacy)
• a) adopt OECD guidelines on privacy
• b) law enforcement issues
• c) technical security

42

• Michael will tell you about Brussels consensus

43
SEE ALSO JOHN POSTELS PAPER AT
HTTP//WWW.IANA.ORG/DISCUSSION.HTML

• IANA encourages initiatives to build consensus
• offers some thoughts
• category of user should be further divided to
  commercial and non-commercial to ensure that they
  are properly represented
• should ensure Board is international, e.g. could
  have one per country only,etc
• Board member should serve in personal capacity
• Interim Board should not be elected but true
  consensus group
• ask for nominations to Interim Board to begin
• etc
• SEE ALSO DRAFT BYLAWS AT HTTP//WWW.IANA.ORG/BYLAW
  S2.HTML
• see also NSI draft bylaws
• see also Harvard concensus and working draft
  documents

44
quote from Ira Magaziner from Reston meeting
about the new entity and the process

• Its legitimacy has to come from a feeling among
  the major stakeholders that what is occurring is
  legitimate. So the most important, I think, piece
  to keep in the back of your mind, is no matter
  how much you may come to distrust or dislike
  somebody else thats a major stakeholder in this,
  youre going to have to come to terms with that.
  This process has to be inclusive, inclusive,
  inclusive, that is the key to its success.
• If more than two proposals, lock people in a
  room until they reach concensusGeneva meeting
  quote

45
quote from Tamar Frankel

• We are in the process of industry
  self-regulation. Models in other sectors have
  been based on certain conditions being present,
  especially with membership from different
  countries-
• homogenous membership,
• long term interaction among members,
• interest in maintaining group reputation by
  eliminating bad apples,
• credible threat of government regulation.
• These conditions are not quite there in the
  Internet World, therefore the creation of this
  industry self regulation mechanism in the new
  IANA will not be an easy task.

46
With GetIT youve Got IT
www.getit.org laina_at_getit.org
GetIT Pte Ltd 7th Storey, RELC Building 30,
Orange Grove Road Singapore 258352 Tel
7386929 Fax [phone]