Subject: Re:IAB comments on Green Paper

From: Daniel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:07:52 +0000

Brian,

I have been forwarded your reply to the Dpt of Commerce's Green Paper on
domain names.

I am the Vice-President of the French Chapter of ISOC and have been very
active in discussing DNS issues over the last years.

While I certainly acknowledge that there is no consensus among IETF
members, which means that everything should still be open for discussion, I
urge you to consider the very negative impact on Internet governance your
(however noncommital) endorsement of the GP might have, mostly outside the US.

The GP implies that the US administration has the power to decide which
changes are to take place in a key area. This is *extremely* offensive to
non-US internauts and may bring about negative reactions by foreign
governments, which will do no good to the cause of the Internet.

I know IETF and the IAB mostly deal with technical issues (not always,
though: thik of encryption). However, take into account that the US GP
makes no mention of international organizations and its application will
give prominence to US law and courts in all kinds of litigation regarding
gTLDs. This is unacceptable by foreign governments and firms.

The GP sets a very bad precedent for Internet governance. Please consider
this.

Yours,

Daniel Kaplan

---------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kaplan                            Consultant
[email-masked]
5, rue de la Véga    -   75012 Paris    -    France
T. +33 (0)1 5333 8881         F. +33 (0)1 5333 8882
---------------------------------------------------
Fete de l'Internet, 20-21 mars, www.fete-internet.fr

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:58:56 +0000

Read it again please:

> The IAB generally welcomes the proposal to replace US
> Government funding of the central technical administration
> of the Internet by a new non-governmental body with widely
> based, international participation. The IAB, as a technical
> group, will not take a position on details of the public policy 
> aspects of the proposal.

This recognises the *fact* that the USG has been funding the IANA
since it was created. That's all. 

  Brian (and just as European as you)