Re: [ifwp] Re: Position of the SOs vis-a-vis ICANN

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 10:18:51PM +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
> [...]
> > There are at least three ways to handle the ICANN/SO relationship:
> >
> > 1     ICANN is one corporation and the SOs are other corporations,
> >       with the councils, part of ICANN, mediating between the two,
> >       and the SOs either peers (IETF, the ccTLDs) or subordinate
> >       (gTLD registries, RIRs).  I believe that the first IANA
> >       proposal fell into this general category.
> >
> > 2     ICANN is one corporation and the SOs are other corporations,
> >       with the SOs appointing ICANN board members.  This is the
> >       least acceptable approach from an accountability point of
> >       view, and appears to be the model followed by the current
> >       ICANN bylaws.
>
> Nowhere in the ICANN bylaws does it state that the SOs will be
> separately incorporated.
>
> > 3     ICANN is one corporation and the SOs are part of it, with
> >       the SOs acting as ICANN's membership classes.
>
> OK, though they might not be the only member classes, of course.
>
> >       So the IETF, for example, would simply be folded into ICANN.
>
> Not OK, and it's hard to understand where you came up with such a
> bizarre idea -- *no one*, as far as I know, has proposed that the
> IETF (or the RIRs) would be folded into ICANN.  The idea that the SOs
> are part of ICANN is completely orthogonal to the (weird) idea that
> the IETF (and perhaps the RIRs) would simply be folded into ICANN.

  First of all Kent, you assertions that no one has proposed that the
IETF or the RIR's be folded into the ICANN is false.  John Postel
did this very thing in both draft-2 and Draft-3 bylaws.  Not to mention
that it has been discussed on this very list on more than one association
by more than one participant.  It was also discussed at the first IFWP
conference as well.

  However we agree that this notion would be a bad idea.

>
>
> >       This gives
> >       you greater accountability, at the expense of (probably)
> >       destroying the IETF and the RIRs.
>
> So you make the SOs part of ICANN (for greater accountability,
> efficiency, uniformity of transparency rules, and lots of other good
> reasons), but you don't fold any current organizations into ICANN
> (which means that they don't get "destroyed" by being politicized
> etc.) Instead, the various current organizations are simply "members"
> of the appropriate SO -- sometimes very special members, with
> particular sidebar contractual relationships with ICANN.  But all current
> organizations maintain their current identity.

  "Very special members"?  Hummm.  This is interesting notion Kent.
wouldn't that be a conflict of interest according to the law?  Any contractual
arrangement with the IETF, RIR's, or DNS registry organization that is
part of a SO, would be a bit improper to say the least.

>
>
> There is no need for a separate shell corporation for each SO, and,
> as you point out, having separate shell corporations lessens
> accountability.

SO's as separate corporations, has good and bad aspects to it.  At any
rate, any automatic recognition of any existing traditional internet
organizations by default would constitute a violation of the White 
Paper on several obvious counts.

>
>
> In particular, the DNSO model is like this:  The DNSO is part of
> ICANN (like a division in a corporation).

Which DNSO are you talking about?  As far as I am aware, there is
no "Official" DNSO yet.

> The parties who elect to
> become members of the DNSO are organizations and individuals who
> have an interest in DNS matters.  The DNSO elects a Names Council
> that mediates between the ICANN board and all the organizations and
> individuals who are members of the DNSO.  This is just like your
> model #1, except that the blanket DNSO corporation is simply ICANN.

  This notion is a bit backwards Kent.  Until there is an Individual Membership
Organization as part of the ICANN and incorporated into the bylaws not
SO can be created and still meet the requirements of the White Paper
in the respect to the "Bottom-up" Stakeholder/user base which the
ICANN bylaws must meet.  This would require that the Individual Membership
Organization would need to approve any SO structure before enactment.

>
>
> I haven't seen the RIRs work so far, and the last I heard they
> weren't making it public.  Scott Bradner's I-D
> (draft-ietf-poisson-pso-bl-01.txt), "Bylaws for a Protocol Support
> Organization" specifies bylaws for a shell corporation that would be
> the PSO, but the shell corporation might as well simply be ICANN
> itself -- it would work very much the same, without the overhead of a
> separate corporation, a separate Board, etc etc.

  And last I heard Scott had said publicly that
draft-ietf-poisson-pso-bl-01.txt,
was not approved and there was no consensus on it to date.

>
>
> > I have heard all three of these proposed, with many variants of each.
> > In 2 and 3, substitute "councils" for "SOs" if you wish.
>
> The names make no difference, of course.
>
> [...]
>
> > > > We don't need a DNSO in the sense that you are using it. We need a
> > > > membership for ICANN.  And we need a names council to mediate between
> > > > ICANN and the DNSOs, which would be (1) the ccTLD registries;
> > > > (2) Network Solutions, the only existing gTLD registry, (3) CORE,
> > > > which should be allowed to register names in gTLDs as soon as is
> > > > practical, and (4) possibly other gTLD registries.  These DNSOs would
> > > > be real supporting organizations.  That is, they would support ICANN by
> > > > paying money to it.
> > >
> > > Nice theory, but that isn't what is called for.
> >
> > Now that's what I call a cogent argument ;-)
>
> I didn't think it would be necessary to go through the ICANN bylaws
> and show where they contradicted what you described.  In particular,
> the bylaws state that there will be three SOs, there will be *a*
> DNSO, and that DNSO *will* create a Names Council.

  Yes the current ICANN Draft bylaws do say this.  But the NTIA is
not yet in agreement that any SO's need to even exist or should exist yet.
So this is not defiantly a done deal to date.

> This is a pretty
> basic conflict with what you describe.  Spinning theories of perfect
> organizations may be entertaining, but what you describe isn't what
> is called for in the bylaws.  It's pretty plain English.

  As already stated, the bylaws are not yet etched in stone yet Kent.
Also, pretty plain english....

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                 "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com                       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
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208