RE: [ALSC-Forum] Misstatements concerning IFWP

[Cade,Marilyn S - LGA]

Gee, I had hoped it was a joke about "aging".  Archieves may still be
flawed, Jeff and others, since it is always hard to get "all" views
included... 

:-)

Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 1:22 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: 'hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu'; forum@atlargestudy.org
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Misstatements concerning IFWP


Marilyn and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Happy to contribute. I agree some who were involved in the IFWP were also
> involved in the BWG, ... as I recall.  :-)
>
> However, unlike some on this list, I am,  of course aging, and have to
> resort to not only memory, but NOTES, to ensure that my memory doesn't
fail
> me.

  Two suggestions:
1.) Take massive doses of Ginkgo Biloba - An herb that improves memory.
2.) Do an intensive review of the IFWP Archives.  And do it frequently..

>
>
> What is that we are "proving" again?

  That Mike Roberts torpedoed the IFWP process with disinformation.

>
>
> That we all had some similar and some divergent interests and views?

  Yes, and we still do.

>
>
> MC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu
> [mailto:hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 4:55 PM
> To: forum@atlargestudy.org
> Cc: recipient.list.not.shown; @wsscan.att.com
> Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Misstatements concerning IFWP
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> This is an extremely useful posting.  Many thanks for making the effort to
> write this out.
>
> (For those who missed it, Mike's message refers to the recent
> "Cyber-Federalist No. 11: The Future of Democracy in ICANN: A Critique of
> the ALSC Draft Report.")
>
> Mike has illuminated what is, in the opinion of many, the key issue in
> today's debate:   As a condition for the "privatization" of the DNS in
> 1998, what commitments were made for user representation?  And: Do the
> recommendations of the ALSC respect those commitments?
>
> I think we all need to understand those commitments.  I hope to post
> another focused piece on this as soon as I can.  For now, I am grateful to
> Mike Roberts for articulating his perspective on the events of 1998.
>
> On a related note:  perhaps it is not for me to say, but my
"misstatements"
> don't seem very significant.  :-)  OK, the events that I call "the IFWP"
> were really "the IFWP and the subsequent Department of Commerce brokered
> compromise among the key stakeholders."  Etc.  Overall, it seems that the
> analysis withstood some tough scrutiny!
>
> In a friendly manner, I would like to suggest that there may be some
> "mischaracterizations" in what Mike has written.  His characterization of
> the IFWP process stands in sharp contradiction to that Larry Lessig, who I
> believe helped host the process through the Berkman Center and who ICANN
> later nominated to the Board.  Lessig wrote:
>
> "... IANA resisted setting its document against another in a context that
> it could not control. As negotiations about the final meeting proceeded,
> IANA recruited members of the IFWP coalition to withdraw the request, and
> it finally succeeded in getting NSI to agree that any meeting should be
> delayed until IANA had a chance to strike their own deal. The result is
> stalemate in the IFWP process, and, if clocks count, a victory for IANA...
> Decisions about corporate structure are not technical; they are not
matters
> taught at MIT. They are legal and political - judgments about governance -
> and no single group has special standing in their formation. Rather than
> something different, IANA gives us politics as usual: Insiders, in closed
> meetings, answering to ideas and arguments as only they think best. Not a
> promising start for the process of self-governance on the Internet."
>
> The questions remain: What commitments were made, and are today's ALSC
> proposals consistent with those commitments?
>
> My answer is: The commitments made in 1998 derived from the BWG's vision
of
> user involvement;  that was an open and inclusive vision.  The ALSC's
> proposals are not consistent with such commitments.
>
> Given the quality of Mike's contribution, I will try to craft a more
> detailed account of what happened in 1998.  The historical record here is
> very important.
>
> Sincerely,
> Hans Klein, CPSR
>
> References
> ========
> Cyber-Fed No.
> 11:  http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/cyber-fed/Number_11.html )
> Larry Lessig: "A Bad Turn for Net Governance"
> http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,1718,00.html
>
> At 12:49 PM 9/19/2001 -0700, Mike Roberts wrote:
>
> >There are misstatements of historical fact concerning IFWP in Professor
> >Klein's recent CPSR post to this Forum which I believe require
> >correction.  I was a co-founder of IFWP, a member of its Steering
> >Committee, and, through the generosity of Educom, a co-fundor of its
> >expenses, and thus have first hand knowledge of the events in
> >question.  Others with similar background, including Professor Tamar
> >Frankel (IFWP Chair), Barbara Dooley, and Marilyn Cade, are also
potential
> >sources of information concerning IFWP history.
> >
> >Background
> >
> >In April, 1998, as the Magaziner interagency committee was preparing to
> >publish the government policy document on management of the DNS that has
> >become known as the White Paper, a number of individuals with Internet
> >provider and policy affiliations who had been involved with the White
> >Paper process discussed the need for a means by which the affected
> >community could undertake and sustain a dialog about the formation of a
> >non-profit organization to seek recognition from the government to manage
> >the DNS and related functions. Subsequently, there was an organizational
> >meeting at Reston, Virginia in late June, a second meeting in Geneva the
> >third week in July, and two regional meetings in Singapore and Buenos
> >Aires in August and early September.
> >
> >On a parallel but separate track, Jon Postel, the IANA, was preparing to
> >submit his own proposal to the Department of Commerce for recognition of
a
> >to-be-formed nonprofit corporation to undertake the tasks laid out in the
> >White Paper. To assist him in this work, he engaged the [pro bono]
> >services of Jones Day Reavis and Pogue (JDRP), whose lead partner on the
> >assignment was Joe Sims of the JDRP Washington office. He also formed a
> >small advisory committee of well known Internet experts to complement his
> >personal worldwide network of colleagues and associates engaged in DNS
> >work. Jon met, usually telephonically, with Jones Day staff and with his
> >advisory committee on a weekly or more frequent basis throughout the
> >summer and early fall before the illness which resulted in his untimely
> >death in mid-October. Jon attended only one IFWP meeting, the one which
> >was held in Geneva in conjunction with INET98, but he made himself
> >accessible to hundreds of individuals in person and via email as planning
> >progressed.
> >
> >One of the principal tasks of the summer for Jon and his advisors was to
> >fashion a set of Bylaws for the new corporation that would be responsive
> >to the mission assigned to the new private sector corporation. Jones Day
> >provided initial drafts to Jon in May and June that were intended to be a
> >structural outline of provisions that would meet the statutory
> >requirements of the the typical non-profit corporation law of American
> >states, and also encompass the major requirements of the White Paper.
> >Early in the summer's work, a procedure was started in which the most
> >current version of the IANA proposed Bylaws was posted for comment. From
> >June until the time of recognition of ICANN in November, the
IANA-proposed
> >Bylaws went through seven formal drafts. They have been further revised a
> >number of times subsequently as ICANN's organizational structure has
> >evolved.  ICANN was incorporated in the State of California in late
> >September immediately prior to submission of the IANA proposal to the
> >Department of Commerce.  The Initial Board met for the first time and the
> >corporation commenced operations on October 25, 1998.
> >
> >Discussion
> >
> >The CPSR document says, in paragraph 3, "The ALSC ignores the agreements
> >hammered out in the 1998 International Forum for the White Paper (IFWP),
> >in which the U.S. government, the Internet user community, and a wide
> >variety of industry, government, and non-commercial groups agreed on a
set
> >of bylaws for ICANN. "
> >
> >This statement, and amplifying text later in the document,
> >mischaracterizes the events of the summer and fall of 1998 leading to the
> >formation and recognition of ICANN.
> >
> >(1) the U.S. Government took no formal role and a very small informal
role
> >in the development of ICANN Bylaws during the public comment and dialog
> >period from June through the September 30 deadline.  See Magaziner
> >statements in open sessions at INET98 and IFWP-Geneva re his desire that
> >the community develop a consensus proposal and do so rapidly so it could
> >be submitted to Commerce by a September 30 deadline. In addition to his
> >publicly stated desire for the community to do the work, there were legal
> >reasons why an Administration official could not be actively involved in
> >the proposal development process.
> >
> >(2) The Steering Committee of IFWP, as part of its initial operating
> >agreements, agreed that its sole purpose was to provide a forum for
dialog
> >and debate and to pursue public education and outreach to the extent that
> >its very limited resources allowed it to do so. This was for the obvious
> >reason that there were and had been many political factions involved in
> >controversy about the future of the DNS. Regardless of what the Steering
> >Committee might conclude on any given issue, organizations and groups
with
> >political convictions and leverage would pursue their own goals.  The
> >Steering Committee had little hope of controlling any of the political
> >actors, and indeed, most of its members did not even have sanction from
> >their organizations to speak officially.  During the latter part of the
> >summer, there were repeated attempts by a minority of an enlarged
Steering
> >Committee to obtain endorsement or some variation on endorsement of
> >specific proposals on behalf of the Steering Committee.  Ultimately,
> >disagreements over this point led to dissolution of the Steering
Committee
> >in September.
> >
> >(3) At no time did Jon Postel agree to accept Bylaw provisions other than
> >those he and his advisors and supporters had agreed on, although he was
> >very interested in the extent to which the community dialog could produce
> >consensus from what had been a highly contentious prior situation.  In
the
> >latter part of August and into September, there were numerous drafts of
> >competing sets of Bylaws circulating, with the major variants being those
> >of IANA, Network Solutions, and what became the Boston Working Group
> >(BWG).  The IANA and Network Solutions differences were worked out in
> >meetings in late August. The differences with the BWG were not worked
out,
> >and the BWG submitted its own proposal for recognition.
> >
> >Ultimately, five competing proposals for recognition were submitted to
the
> >Department of Commerce by the September 30th deadline.  See
> ><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/background.htm>.
> >
> >(4) In late October, the Department of Commerce advised the University of
> >Southern California's Information Sciences Institute, the organization
> >through which the Postel proposal had been submitted, that it was
prepared
> >to enter into a contract with ICANN to perform the tasks outlined in the
> >White Paper provided that an effort was made to resolve a number of
issues
> >that were set forth in an October 20 letter. These included efforts to
> >close the differences which existed between the Postel/IANA proposal and
> >the BWG/ORSC proposals.  Subsequently, Esther Dyson, the newly elected
> >Chair of the ICANN Board, arranged for telephone conferences with members
> >of the ICANN Board and the BWG/ORSC groups which did result in some
> >accommodation to the views of these organizations.  The revised draft
> >Bylaws were adopted by the Board on November 6 as the corporation's first
> >formal set of Bylaws. They were further revised on November 21st in
> >connection with finalization of the Memorandum of Understanding with the
> >Department of Commerce.
> >
> >(5) The Dyson letter to Commerce of November 6, see
> ><http://www.icann.org/letter-pr06nov98.html>, transmitting the adopted
> >Bylaws, has the following quotation, which has been lifted out of context
> >by Professor Klein and other commentators on this list to support a claim
> >that the ICANN Board made a "commitment" to a directly elected group of
At
> >Large Directors, " The bylaws now make it clear that the Board has an
> >unconditional mandate to create a membership structure that will elect
the
> >At Large Directors of the Board, as proposed by the BWG and some other
> >commenters."  However, the same letter also contains the following text,
> >in two different places,
> >
> >" We have carefully considered this issue, and concluded that the
> >structure proposed in the October 2 bylaws -- with four separate
> >membership organizations each electing Directors and thus creating an
> >ICANN Board with a balanced representation of the various Internet
> >technical, commercial and user constituencies -- is both appropriate and
> >supported by the vast majority of Internet stakeholders."
> >
> >" We will move directly to devise a workable membership structure and
will
> >seek broad input on how this can be best done."
> >
> >(6) With regard to binding commitments of the Board to At Large, as set
> >forth in the November 6 Bylaws, the operative language is contained in
> >Article VI, section 9(c):
> >
> >"At Large Board members other than those serving on the Initial Board
> >shall be elected by a process to be determined by a majority vote of all
> >At Large members of the Initial Board, following solicitation of input
> >from the Advisory Committee on Membership described in Section 3 of
> >Article VII and other interested parties and consideration of all such
> >suggestions. At a minimum, such a process shall consist of nominations
> >from Internet users, industry participants, and organizations, and should
> >give consideration to such nominees. Such process shall call for election
> >of At Large directors by one or more categories of members of the
> >Corporation admitted pursuant to qualifications established by majority
> >vote of the At Large members of the Initial Board. Before any nominee is
> >added to a ballot of nominees submitted to the members for their
> >consideration, the Board shall establish (i) a process to determine if
> >support for such nominee is adequate to put such nominee's name on the
> >ballot and (ii) qualifications a nominee must have in order to be
> >submitted to the membership."
> >
> >Summary
> >
> >(1) There is no support in the historical record for the assertion that
> >"IFWP" produced agreements, much less consensus.  The discussions at the
> >four meetings sponsored by the IFWP resulted in changes, many of them
> >improvements, in draft proposals that circulated during the summer of
> >1998, but there was no convergence on one proposal and in fact several
> >competing proposals were submitted to Commerce at the end of September.
> >
> >(2) Changes to the draft [ICANN] Bylaws submitted by Jon Postel at the
end
> >of September were instigated by the Department of Commerce as a way of
> >resolving questions raised in the Postel proposal in terms of its
> >responsiveness to the White Paper requirements, and also in an effort to
> >close the differences among the competing proposals submitted to it, thus
> >potentially broadening the base of community support for ICANN.  These
> >changes were the result of private negotiations among the competitors and
> >the Department of Commerce and were, notably, conducted without
> >opportunity for public comment or participation.
> >
> >(3) The most significant commitment of the ICANN Board, made in the Dyson
> >letter to Becky Burr on November 6th, was: " We will move directly to
> >devise a workable membership structure and will seek broad input on how
> >this can be best done."
> >
> >As recorded in subsequent Board minutes and meeting archives, that
process
> >- "devise a workable membership structure" - has occupied the attention
> >and consumed the resources of the Board and the community continuously
for
> >the entire three years of ICANN's  existence and remains a challenge to
> >resolve today.
> >
> >- Mike Roberts
> >--

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208