Subject: Structuring IANA: A Few Questions to Be Answered

From: [email-masked] (steve)
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 17:50:24 -0700 (PDT)

July 18, 1998

TO: Comments@IANA
FROM: Stephen J. Page
RE: Structuring IANA: A Few Questions to Be Answered About Individual
Stakeholder Rights and Freedoms

IANA,
        If one uses the idea of "governance" as in Constitutional
governance as a framework, we need to look at setting things up in a way to
protect the rights and freedoms of individuals FIRST, while serving the
society as a whole.  (A society is only a large number of individuals, so
protecting the rights of individuals should be foremost in our minds.)
This can be done by recognizing that all individuals (regardless of
non-attendance at the meeting) are stakeholders in the process.
        Contrast this approach to the approach of IANA, summarized by the
comments at the top of www.iana.org's transitional web page:

                "Dedicated to preserving the central coordinating functions
of the
                                    global
                        Internet for the public good."

Some fundamental questions to be asked by the to-be-named
Board of Directors of IANA and others:

1.From what law has U.S. Govt given IANA the right to be 'dedicated to
preserving the central coordinating...'?

2.Does "central coordinating functions" mean "government"?  If so, where is
that stated?  What governing body of law is being used to bring order,
which is what laws do?

3.Supporting the New IANA, what framework will be used to supporting the
continued need for protections of rights and freedoms recognized in U.S.
Constitution?

4.What does the "public good" mean?  Is it defined anywhere?  Who defined it?

5.Who defines "public"?  Is it a global public or is it a
geography-dependent public?  How many people constitute the 'public'?  200?
250 Million?  6Bn?

6.Whose public does this refer to?  American? German? Swedish? Albanian?
Who decides?  Is there a plan formulated for informing the public, however
defined?  Has anyone formulated such a plan?  What are the mechanisms for
assessing such plan(s).

7.Who participates in determining what is "good" for the public?  How is
the input received?  Is there a mechanism for building 'consensus' upon the
body of human knowledge that exists regarding what is "good" and what is
"not good" for individuals? (stakeholders)

8. What if the "public good" clashes with one individual's "good".  (The
classic conflict of 'individual' versus the 'state'.)  Who decides the
outcome of that clash?  U.S. law?  Chinese law?  IANA law?

9.What will be the relationship between IANA and Internic?  NSI?  How will
that change from the past?  With ARIN?  Will IANA control the governance of
IP numbers?  How data assets be accounted for?  Who owns IANA's database?
Who owns ARIN's numbers?

10.Is IANA, as a quasi-governing entity, allowed to own property?
Intellectual property? Addresses? IP Numbers?

11. How does that differ from IANA's owning property in the past?
Intellectual property?  Addresses?  Reservations (and/or allocations) of
specific domain names?

12.If so, under what law and jurisdiction does IANA have these rights?

13. If IANA will function as a quasi-governing body, what happens if IANA
asserts ownership of property which "for the public good" when it is owned
by an individual or a corporation? (IANA is placed into position of
competing with others.)

14. Does IANA have the right to "eminent domain" of property "for the
public good"?

15. If so, from which document does that right flow?  Is there recourse to
individuals/companies?

Stephen J. Page
MBA OD BSc
U.S. Data Highway Corp.
[email-masked]
T: 925-454-8624  F: 925-484-0448

(1)
Magaziner, Lessig Spar Over Domain Name Plan
                       (06/11/98; 2:46 p.m. ET)
                       By Mo Krochmal, TechWeb

NEW YORK -- Ira Magaziner, the Clinton administration's point
person on technology, said Wednesday the next few months will tell if
the U.S. policy of letting the Internet self-regulate will work.

Magaziner, who shared a forum with technology pundit Esther Dyson
and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, said within six months
the federal government will know if private initiatives on Internet
domain names are working. "If not, then we will have to review it
again," he said.

                 [snip]
                       But Lessig disagreed, saying the implications of
creating a special
                       non-profit agency seems like a substitute for
government, but one that
                       does not have to answer to an electorate.

                       "This is bizarre for a democracy," said Lessig. "Why
not just carve up
                       the government into private non-profit organizations
and be done with
                       it all? We are creating the most significant
jurisdiction since the
                       Louisiana purchase, and we are building it outside
the review of the
                       Constitution."

                       Magaziner bridled at the suggestion.

                       "In Washington, you need to act," Magaziner said.
"The contracts
                       were up in September and we couldn't let the
Internet dissolve. You
                       have to do something."

[remainder of article
at:http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/domnam/TWB19980611S0009