Honorable William M. Daley
Secretary of Commerce
c/o Karen Rose
Office of International Affairs
Room 471
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
United States Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Sir,

I speak my own opinion, but in this submission I wish to speak for many ordinary holders of Internet Domain names.
My credentials are a law degree from a European university, an Internet-dependent business that makes me an occasional domain name registrant , a long standing interest in the DNS issues and a passion for democracy.

I am a typical ordinary Internet user, neither and old hand engineer nor a "newbie".
My economical interest is the stability and security of my virtual Domain.
I am not a citizen or a resident of the United States, but I realize that the decisions of the United States government today can affect my future business and life on line.

I am grateful to have had the chance to actively participate in the ifwp process that you have created in order to mobilize people like myself.
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposals for a new Authority structure that you are currently considering.

I have studied the diverse drafts that have been submitted to your office and observed the way they have come about.
This is my endorsement of two of them.
1. In the event that political reality would dictate the IANA draft as a point of departure I hope that you will favourably consider the amendments of the "Boston Working Group", (See http://www.mama-tech.com/boston/) which reflects a fair amount of consensus of the participants in the open discussions of the ifwp process.
It is, in contrast to the 5th iteration of the IANA draft, the product of an open process.

While I personally would have preferred Articles and Bylaws providing for a full fledged membership organization with a guarantee for individual membership, the time frame did not allow for the consensual creation of such a comprehensive document.

2. The last product of the open process, built upon the consensus achieved for the BWG draft and in many ways the result of cumulative improvements on it, for which credit should go to the EFF, Bill Semich, the drafters themselves and other contributors to the ifwp process, is the draft submitted on October 9 , by Einar Stefferud and Dan Steinberg of the ORSC.

I would support this draft. It meets the objectives of the White Paper. Compromise should make a merged BWG and ORSC document possible.

A membership structure is defined in the bylaws. Some discussion about this structure would still be needed, but it is the only draft who does not defer the creation of such structure to the (interim) board.
The Supporting Organizations do not elect the board, but the members do.
It contains the best language yet to guarantee due process, fiscal responsibility and respect for the rights of individual Domain Name owners.
This submission is posted at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/orsc/bylaws.html
Articles of Incorporation at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/orsc/articles.html
Cover letter at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/orsc/articles.html

I wish to express my thanks to all who have put in unpaid hours of selfless work to make these drafts and the volume of comments on them possible.

Long term stability of any Authority is dependent on the widest possible base of its constituents.

Please oversee that the majority of the members of the Board of the NewCo, or the directors of whatever structure that may finally win the day, will be accountable to a broad internet community with the ultimate power to vote them in- or out of office.
This would be your gift to the world.

Thank you for your consideration.

Joop Teernstra LL.M.