Sometime before 1990, I first heard about this "newfangled thing called the Internet." I had been an application programmer in a prior life, but since then had graduated from law school and acquired a cynical streak a mile wide. I looked at the phenomenon, thought it was cool, and proceeded to ignore it. After all, it was a relatively simple technology-demonstrator which did not offer much in the way of opportunities to generate legal fees.

Then the World Wide Web happened. The transformation of the Internet into a mass medium caught many people * myself included * by surprise. Now it was time to catch up.

I tackled the subject in earnest in early 1994. In those days, the Internet was so sparsely populated that the Sysops at Delphi.com would put up a weekly page listing all of the interesting domain names that had been registered during the preceding week. There were rarely more than two dozen of them.

I was frankly puzzled by the question of Internet Governance. It was hard to find reliable information on the subject in those days. Many people regarded the Internet as a self-organizing chaos phenomenon. I never really bought into this proposal. However, since I was a lawyer by trade (and a busy one at that) I did not find the time to truly get my arms around the subject.

Then The Internet Draft happened. In 1996, the late Dr. Jonathan Postel issued an Internet-Draft which proposed an expansion of the top level domain name space. I immediately saw that here was the confluence of several important topics in which I had an interest both financial and intellectual.

I learned of the formation and work of the IAHC too late to do anything but pose some pointed questions to the Committee. I recognized from the start that my failure to get wind of the process was due to my own inattention, the process having been publicized in the manner that was then current in the Internet Community. My attention therefore turned to the substance of the IAHC's recommendations, which I criticized, but ultimately came to understand.

I induced my law firm (Eaton & Van Winkle) to subscribe to the GTLD-MoU for several reasons. First, because participation in PAB offered a grass roots route for participation in Internet Governance. Second, because that participation offered an opportunity for me to learn about Domain Name Policy and ultimately to publicize my technical bend of mind to the most relevant crux of the Internet Community. And third, not because I thought the GTLD-MoU "got it right the first time" but because I really did (and still do) subscribe to the Internet paradigm of Deliver . . . Use . . .Refine.

Of course I underestimated the degree to which resistance would emerge to the GTLD-MoU. I have come to understand that there are two kinds of obstructionists in this game: those whose oxen are gored by the emergence of competition in this arena, and those who are piqued because Internet policy is not 100% consonant with their own personal preferences.

The first set of opponents are the big commercial interests which are generally satisfied with the status quo. Their trademarks are relatively secure and it's relatively painless to keep an eye on them. Their sinecures are enormously profitable, howbeit gained by usurpation of public property. And their armies of lawyers are ready, willing and able to use the legal mechanisms of the United States to inflict repeated abuses comparable to the roadrunner.com imbroglio.

The second set of opponents are paparazzi whose lives seem to revolve around the Internet as though the DNS were somehow as important as, (to be obvious) Kosovo or (to be trivial but frank) whether Milky Way bars are improved by the new caramel.

The net result may well be that we have proven that the Internet is ungovernable, and that the only paradigm that has a prayer of success is the ORSC model: ISPs will get their root information from the zone servers that their users want them to, and/or people will configure their own DNS clients to query alternate roots. The result of that phenomenon is that how domain names resolve will depend on whom you ask. This is a bad outcome.

An obvious alternative to the foregoing is that the United States Congress will tell us where to get root information. This is a bad outcome.

Another alternative * one which is obvious in principle but darned prickly to implement * is the establishment of a legitimate method of Internet Governance. When the United States constitutional convention set out to write a new constitution on a blank slate, it acted in excess of its authority. It was an illegitimate usurpation of governmental authority. Questions of legitimacy * of ICANN, or of any constituency which emerges under its auspices * will remain for a long time. Those questions will not soon be solved. The Founding Fathers of the United States acted illegitimately when they published the Constitution. When William the Conqueror (and most other dynastic founders in the history of England) established his rulership over England, he acted in excess of his legitimate authority. Similar episodes can be found throughout political life. As political scientist Robert A. Dahl wrote, decisions about what is or is not legitimate are made, in the first instance, by!
force or power, and ratified by time.

The most obvious alternative to corporate dominance of Internet Governance is to make sure that individuals as such have a voice in the process. The problem posed by this lies in the fact that a single person can carry dozens of different Internet-based personae. To control this phenomenon, as well as to take advantage of the provision in the emerging schema of Internet Governance for input from "domain name holders," it has been posited that "Individual Domain Name Holders" form a possibly coherent cluster. Because of the technical and financial barriers to securing a qualifying domain name, it will not occur that every member of the Internet Community will be included in this cluster. However, the barriers are very low and do not require the investment of thousands of dollars.

So, to come full circle, those members of the Internet Community who wish to see the domain name war decided by actors other than the existing insiders need to mobilize their power and influence. Since the Internet is ultimately a forum for the exchange of information, it is incumbent upon us to advance our agenda persuasively and responsibly.

/asbestos on> I am not opposed to the continued leadership of the Internet Society in this whole process. I believe that ISOC's influence on the domain name war has been beneficial, introducing a degree of legitimacy that would not otherwise have been achieved. I remain committed to preserving a role for individuals as such to govern the Internet. I also believe that the Individual Domain Name Holder constituency is ill-served by establishing criteria for membership which can be and are in fact met by a significant number of Fortune 500 Companies. While I applaud and welcome the participation of organizations in this aspect of the process, I believe that the cluster identified by the phrase ¡Individual Domain Name Holders' should be specified on the nature of the domain name registrant, not that of any of the contacts found in the associated records.
**********************************************************************

Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> /asbestos on> <...> I remain committed to preserving a role for
> individuals as such to govern the Internet. I also believe that
> the Individual Domain Name Holder constituency is ill-served by
> establishing criteria for membership which can be and are in fact
> met by a significant number of Fortune 500 Companies. While I
> applaud and welcome the participation of organizations in this
> aspect of the process, I believe that the cluster identified by
> the phrase ?Individual Domain Name Holders' should be specified
> on the nature of the domain name registrant, not that of any of
> the contacts found in the associated records.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make on Tuesday. Allowing in
those who are associated with domains not held in their own names could open
the IDNO up for capture. Others have made convincing arguments for letting
in sole proprietorships (liability issues, anti-personal domain rules in
some TLDs), but I believe that is far as the exceptions should go.

From: dstein@travel-net.com

To: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>,
<terastra@terabytz.co.nz>, <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>
Subject: Re: [IDNO:119] Support Statement
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 14:02:47 GMT

Well said!!!
(yeah, I could do without the ISOC support statement but in the interest of
compromise I can live with it)

> Statement of Kevin J. Connolly on Internet Governance and Support for
the Individual Domain Name Holders as a logical constituency.
>

<snip>

From: "John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>
To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>, "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:130] RE: Support Statement
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:59:53 -0500

If you had been reading my messages closely (including those you quote
below), you would have noticed that I have already stepped back from the
specific position you object to. However, I remain convinced that the
IDNO's credibility as an organization representing individuals requires some
sort of ownership-based restriction, lest it become a catchall for all
domain holders.

 

> While it may be true that the DNSO is more powerful than the general ICANN
> membership, it is also true that the stated rationale for the existence of
> Supporting Organizations is to limit discussions of the issues they are
> responsible for to those who have a tangible stake in their outcome (a
> potential future stake doesn't count). If the ICANN Board were to adopt an
> IDNO constituency proposal that effectively opened the DNSO to all comers,
> it would be tacitly admitting that its entire structure is a sham. That is
> not going to happen.

Matters affecting domain names *do* have an impact on those who don't have
'em yet. Such things as cost, privacy exposure, and liability do matter
to those who are thinking of obtaining a name.

So I wouldn't write potential holders off at all.

(I'm not saying that we must open the doors that wide, but I'm just saying
that it is an issue to be considered and not to be dismissed simply
because of some fear about what the ICANN board would or would not do.)

> While you and many other members of the IDNO may believe that Supporting
> Organizations and constituency divisions are wrong, you must be capable of
> recognizing that any constituency proposal that implicitly questions their
> legitimacy is certain to be rejected by the current ICANN Board.

No I am not so certain of that. Indeed I see the current constituency
structure as so ill conceived that it could readily collapse into a heap.

> This organization has a choice. We can stand on principle and fail,
> or compromise and have a chance at success. Advocacy of the latter
> course of action is not defeatism, but rather pragmatic realism.

I'm not about to abandon my principles.

As far as I'm concerned I've compromised all I'm going to.

The ICANN board needs this group to succeed. They are already under much
fire (from folks we don't often hear about, like NTIA) for the failure of
openness.

As I've said before, one should not compromise with one's self before
giving the opposing side the opportunity to concede the issue first.

--karl--

>I'm not particularly concerned that the IDNO would be taken over by
>unthinking zombies sent forth by AT&T to dominate and control.
>
>If one wants this effort to amount to anything it should adopt inclusive
>approaches to membership, not exclusionary ones.

I very strongly agree with you, Karl.
We are NOT in danger of capture if we allow only *people* in.
We are a constituency of *people* , not organizations and not corporations.
Even if Bill Gates himself wants to join, he cannot capture anything beyond
his single vote as a person.
One person will not have more than one vote, no matter how many
registrations he owns.

We can make this abundantly clear in our charter.

A company, such as Procter and Gamble does not belong in the IDNO, period.

I will strongly oppose those who will want to keep *people* out for no
other reason than that their DN is registered to a company.
On the other hand, I will listen to arguments that will increase our chance
to be accepted by ICANN, although that is not what I call a genuine
bottom-up self-organizing.
We ourselves should be the ultimate judge of what it is that constitutes us.

At this point in time, it cannot be said that any of the approved
constituencies has room for the typical interests of the individual DN
owner, either because they have only organizational members, or because
they typically represent the interests of corporations.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

 

At 19:59 3/06/1999 -0500, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>If you had been reading my messages closely (including those you quote
>below), you would have noticed that I have already stepped back from the
>specific position you object to. However, I remain convinced that the
>IDNO's credibility as an organization representing individuals requires some
>sort of ownership-based restriction, lest it become a catchall for all
>domain holders.
>

John,

Have you read our charter? www.democracy.orn.nz/idno/organiz.htm

Your are welcome to suggest any improvement in the language on that point.
"Ownership" is indeed central.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

To: "John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>,
"Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:134] Re: Support Statement

At 18:38 3/06/1999 -0500, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>While it may be true that the DNSO is more powerful than the general ICANN
>membership, it is also true that the stated rationale for the existence of
>Supporting Organizations is to limit discussions of the issues they are
>responsible for to those who have a tangible stake in their outcome (a
>potential future stake doesn't count). If the ICANN Board were to adopt an
>IDNO constituency proposal that effectively opened the DNSO to all comers,
>it would be tacitly admitting that its entire structure is a sham. That is
>not going to happen.
>
John,

I had a similar discussion in Berlin with the .au registrar.
First of all, opening the door to all comers, just means: opening the door
to 3 more seats on the Names Council to represent these comers. They will
be our responsibility. Would that be too much? If the idno constituency
represents those interests (no, *people*) who care about *their* domains,
is that not what representation on the NC was intended for?
Or should the NC be only for registrars, TM interest and businesses, with a
token and fractious Non-commercial (impossible to define) constituency
thrown in?

>While the IDNO may have greater flexibility in defining "individual",
>acceptance by ICANN of a definition so broad as to encompass essentially all
>domain holders would raise many of the same questions about DNSO
>constituency divisions as admitting non-domain holders would for SOs.
>
It may encompass all DN holders, but what we stand for will typically not
be attractive to a corporation, who will have trouble getting even one
individual to "own" its domain name.

>While you and many other members of the IDNO may believe that Supporting
>Organizations and constituency divisions are wrong, you must be capable of
>recognizing that any constituency proposal that implicitly questions their
>legitimacy is certain to be rejected by the current ICANN Board. This
>organization has a choice. We can stand on principle and fail, or
>compromise and have a chance at success. Advocacy of the latter course of
>action is not defeatism, but rather pragmatic realism.
>
What compromise would you suggest, John? Isn't it much to early to talk
about compromising?

Frankly, being rejected by the non-elected ICANN board only enhances our
standing. I have already experienced it twice.

Standing on the principles of the White Paper will ultimately bring us
many more members.
The Cyberspace Association as an organization of individual stakeholders
will be an organization of relevance, sure of a place within a democratic
DNSO of a democratic ICANN.

If we are not going to have a democratic ICANN, why should we even bother
to be part of it?

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

 

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: [IDNO:137] Re: Support Statement
Cc: idno@radix.co.nz

At 02:35 PM 6/3/99 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>My question is whether the actual problem is worth the effort?
>
>(Unlike a lot of my questions, this is a real, not a rhetorical, question.
>;-)
>
>My own gut feeling is that when you take the individual out of the
>organization, a lot of people will act as individual people. For example,
>I'm a Cisco employee, but at the IETF, although there are a lot of Cisco

The IETF environment has a history and a process which mitigates against
most efforts to capture (although some will claim that there have been
exceptions) and "party-line" behaviors DO show up occasionally.

In any event, the concern is strong enough in this case, I believe to make
explicit rules for countering capture reasonable. My note's last paragraph
contained language intended to focus on 'individuals' while limiting the
extent of their influence.

Specifically, Candidate statement of criteria:

A "member" owns one or more name registrations. A member may designate a
representative. A member has only one vote in IDNO, for all of their
registrations. Registrations are related if they share the same
registration name or if the registrations share an organization
relationship. Related registrations may have only one membership.

d/

From: Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:138] Domain ownership qualifying for IDNO membership (was Re:
Support Statement)
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <v03102806b37cef39e84e@[202.27.208.11]>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 36b9a9bd88833302d9ec45d67296a70c

>Taking the term "individual" within IDNO, the challenge is to permit anyONE
>with a domain name (through whatever legal vehicle) to join, but not allow
>an organization (or person, for that matter) to be overrepresented. An
>obvious example of this potential is that Proctor and Gamble have
>registered a very large number of names and you don't want to give them one
>vote per name.

>Do you want to allow "Netscape.com" to have a different member from
>"AOL.com", even though AOL owns Netscape?

Maybe we look at who is the _beneficial_ owner of the domain.

Sole proprietorships have one beneficial owner. Family trusts have a limited number of (related) beneficial owners.

I set up radiodx.com for a club I am a member of. It is an incorporated society here in NZ, so legally (I think) the domain ownership is shared by the membership of the club. radiodx.com would thus not be able to join IDNO.

netscape.com is owned by AOL, but AOL itself has a number of shareholders, and if you trace them all up to the final beneficial owner, these people are not related to each other, and possibly don't know each other from a bar of soap. Thus netscape.com's owners could not be members of the IDNO (through their "ownership" of netscape.com, at least).

I'll leave it to the legal eagles to work out the fine print.

Andrew P. Gardner ZL2VOA 176.E 41.1S
Wairarapa, New Zealand http://navigator.co.nz/andy
Mediumwave DXer - Drake R8A
http://radio.net.nz - NZ's Broadcast Radio directory

Subject: [IDNO:136] RE: Support Statement
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:58:02 -0700

I guess I missed the turn you had made. However, I am a bit old
fashioned in the fact that I don't falsify records. It's simply too much
work to track which lie you told where. It also closes other legal
options. There is the issue of credibility and reputation. By the same
token, I don't use psuedonyms. I am who I say I am and that's all that I
am.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John B. Reynolds [mailto:john@reynolds.chicago.il.us]
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 1999 7:30 PM
>
> This occurred to me after my original reply:
>
> Even my the requirements I originally suggested would not
> bring the dire
> consequences suggested by Mr. Meyer, since they could have
> been satisfied by
> registering domains under one's name with a falsified
> address, or even under
> a pseudonym. This is, of course, a moot point, since I had
> already modified
> my position before Roeland objected to it.

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: Re: [IDNO:135] Re: Support Statement
Cc: "John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>, <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
"Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>

At 02:40 PM 6/4/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>Your are welcome to suggest any improvement in the language on that point.
>"Ownership" is indeed central.

The current language does not adequately permit mechanical determination of
who is the 'owner' and it does not mitigate at all against capture. For
example, does a person get a separate membership for each domain name
registered? if not, that needs to be stated.

I've offered some additional constraining language, but it does not deal
with the mechanical determination of 'owner' All we have are
Administrative, technical and billing points of contact. How can you let
the "owner' be other than one of these?

d/

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: Re: [IDNO:133] We are a constituency of *people* (was:support
statement)
Cc: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>, idno@radix.co.nz

At 02:16 PM 6/4/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>I very strongly agree with you, Karl.
>We are NOT in danger of capture if we allow only *people* in.
>We are a constituency of *people* , not organizations and not corporations.

So, brandenburg.com qualifies me to join, since it is affiliated with my
unincorporated sole proprietaorship? But if I incorporate, then I can't join?

If this is true, then what is the "individual" domain name that Stef has,
other than nma.com?

I believe that the use of incorporation vehicles should not preclude
individuals.

d/

 

Subject: RE: [IDNO:134] Re: Support Statement
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 22:29:57 -0500

Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> At 18:38 3/06/1999 -0500, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >While it may be true that the DNSO is more powerful than the
> general ICANN
> >membership, it is also true that the stated rationale for the
> existence of
> >Supporting Organizations is to limit discussions of the issues they are
> >responsible for to those who have a tangible stake in their outcome (a
> >potential future stake doesn't count). If the ICANN Board were
> to adopt an
> >IDNO constituency proposal that effectively opened the DNSO to
> all comers,
> >it would be tacitly admitting that its entire structure is a
> sham. That is
> >not going to happen.
> >
> John,
>
> I had a similar discussion in Berlin with the .au registrar.
> First of all, opening the door to all comers, just means: opening the door
> to 3 more seats on the Names Council to represent these comers. They will
> be our responsibility. Would that be too much? If the idno constituency
> represents those interests (no, *people*) who care about *their* domains,
> is that not what representation on the NC was intended for?
> Or should the NC be only for registrars, TM interest and
> businesses, with a
> token and fractious Non-commercial (impossible to define) constituency
> thrown in?

That first paragraph was intended to address why the IDNO should be limited
to domain holders rather that admitting all individuals as Karl Auerbach
suggested (I didn't make that as clear as I might have). Both your response
and the IDNO charter appear to support this portion of my position.

>
> >While the IDNO may have greater flexibility in defining "individual",
> >acceptance by ICANN of a definition so broad as to encompass
> essentially all
> >domain holders would raise many of the same questions about DNSO
> >constituency divisions as admitting non-domain holders would for SOs.
> >
> It may encompass all DN holders, but what we stand for will typically not
> be attractive to a corporation, who will have trouble getting even one
> individual to "own" its domain name.
>
> >While you and many other members of the IDNO may believe that Supporting
> >Organizations and constituency divisions are wrong, you must be
> capable of
> >recognizing that any constituency proposal that implicitly
> questions their
> >legitimacy is certain to be rejected by the current ICANN Board. This
> >organization has a choice. We can stand on principle and fail, or
> >compromise and have a chance at success. Advocacy of the latter
> course of
> >action is not defeatism, but rather pragmatic realism.
> >
> What compromise would you suggest, John? Isn't it much to early to talk
> about compromising?

Perhaps. Karl and I have been arguing from polar opposite positions, while
the IDNO charter and probable consensus position lies somewhere in between.
This may have influenced my choice of language.

>
> Frankly, being rejected by the non-elected ICANN board only enhances our
> standing. I have already experienced it twice.
>
> Standing on the principles of the White Paper will ultimately bring us
> many more members.
> The Cyberspace Association as an organization of individual stakeholders
> will be an organization of relevance, sure of a place within a democratic
> DNSO of a democratic ICANN.
>
> If we are not going to have a democratic ICANN, why should we even bother
> to be part of it?
>

It may be necessary to push ICANN gradually toward greater democracy rather
than try to drag it all the way in one step.

Joop,

Since Nov98, they have always refered to themselves as the Initial
Board. So, it is not a surprise to me. As you know, I had already
expected some of what happened in Berlin. In the aftermath, I would hope
for some improvement in Santiago, but I would not expect it. That the
GAC is being effective is actually a negative. If anything, the ICANN is
more unapproachable than ever and they still don't have a visible source
of funding. Not that we'd ever know, since the books aren't any more
open than the rest of the ICANN.

I suspect that the ICANN isn't about privatization as much as it is
about Internationalization, always a Clinton soft spot. If that were
made public, the American people, and it's Congress, would be up in arms
over the whole issue. IOW, I'm begining to smell a rat. It is the one
thing that US Congress wouldn't tolerate with the IAHC and what stopped
the IAHC dead in it's tracks. Now we have all the IAHC players in
control and the GAC seems to be heading back to the Internationalization
persuasion. It may be a different format, but it is starting to smell
like old IAHC fish.

Most of the governments, in the world, do NOT have much respect for
individual rights. NA active IDNO would complicate things for them.

From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO-ANNOUNCE:7] Accepting an interim seat on the Names Council, from one of
NSI's

Dear supporters of the IDNO,

I am passing on to you a letter that I received today from Don Telage.
I propose that we accept his offer.
I would like to nominate for the interim Karl Auerbach and if somebody
would like to nominate me, I would accept too.
Karl may still be out of email reach, so I don't know if he will accept.
NSI has to inform ICANN in 2 days, so we can have a quick vote on this.
Please go to the voting site. There are 2 questions for you to answer.
ACCEPT THE OFFER? (yes/No)
YOUR PREFERRED CHOICE of candidate. (preferential choice)
Whoever has forgotten login and password, please email me right away.

Please vote on this urgently. I have promised Don Telage a reply in 36 hours.

P.S. While you are at the polling booth , you might as well think about the
level of membership fee for the IDNO. I have put up a question and a
series of figures for you to ponder.

*********
the letter:

Mr. Joop Teernstra
Mr. Gene Miles

Joop, Gene: NSI is disappointed by the lack of recognition of the TDLA and
IDNO constituencies in Berlin. It seems inconsistent with the White Paper,
and reflects our growing concern over capture of the Names Council by
established players and big business. This fact, together with the fact that
the bylaws allocate 3 Names Council seats for the gTLD constituency, has
lead us to conclude that we must act to rectify this omission. We have
therefore concluded that the proper action for NSI is to offer (with no
strings attached) a voice on the Names Council to each of these
constituencies through two of the gTLD seats until your constituencies are
independently recognized. If you are interested in this offer, please let
me know ASAP, and tell me who your representative is. I must respond to
ICANN within 2 days. I will send you details in a subsequent e-mail.
Sincerely, don

Donald N. Telage, Ph. D.
Senior Vice President and Director
Network Solutions, Inc.

Board of Trustees of ARIN
don@telage.com <mailto:don@telage.com>
dont@netsol.com <mailto:dont@netsol.com>

(703) 742-4707

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap puller of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

 

To: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>, <idno@radix.co.nz>,
<idno-announce@radix.co.nz>, <karl@cavebear.com>
Subject: RE: [IDNO-ANNOUNCE:7] Accepting an interim seat on the Names Council, from one of NSI's
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:42:24 -0500

Yes! This is a step toward recognition!

I hope Karl Auerbach will accept the nomination AND I am pleased to nominate
Joop Teernstra.

We obviously need to move quickly on this. Are there other nomination?

Kevin M. Kelly
http://www.KMKelly.net

 

From: Rex <linux@traveling.com>
Reply-To: linux@traveling.com
Organization: Traveling.Com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: idno@radix.co.nz, idno-announce@radix.co.nz
Subject: [IDNO:198] Nomination of Joop Teernstra for interim seat on the Names Council,
References: <199906090258.OAA13984@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <375DF49A.2179@traveling.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: c525c3b7a8a837a3b73988e8c78ca2ed

I Rex T. Barnes would like to nominate Joop Teernstra for the interim
seat
on the Names Council

rex@traveling.com

At 22:42 8/06/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>Yes! This is a step toward recognition!
>
>I hope Karl Auerbach will accept the nomination AND I am pleased to nominate
>Joop Teernstra.
>
Thanks Kevin.

>We obviously need to move quickly on this. Are there other nomination?
>
The preference voting will act as a nominating process.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap puller of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners

 

On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Kevin M. Kelly wrote:

> I hope Karl Auerbach will accept the nomination AND I am pleased to nominate
> Joop Teernstra.

i second the nominations for both joop and karl. having been involved in a
process like this - though not internet related - many times, i can
emphatize with the personal effort and sacrifice needed. our hopes are
with the both of you. good luck !

By the grace of God, /\_/\ "All dogs go to heaven."
dinesh@alphaque.com (0 0)

From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: idno@radix.co.nz
Subject: [IDNO:201] Re: Accepting an interim seat on the Names Council, from one of
NSI's
In-Reply-To: <4.0.1.19990609131541.01b11750@pop.clear.net.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906082303070.4438-100000@npax.cavebear.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: c5bbd910e1194b96b60ef26de3e5ea51

> I am passing on to you a letter that I received today from Don Telage.
> I propose that we accept his offer.

> I would like to nominate for the interim Karl Auerbach...

I'm back[*].

And I am honored beyond words.

I'm not sure whether to accept -- Joop is, in my mind, the leader of this
group and has put far more effort into it than I have. I've just helped
here and there.

We also need to think very hard about what NSI's offer means. Does it
come with hidden strings or, possibly worse, does it come with
opportunities for others to brew up all kinds of conspiratorial theories
or otherwise say that the IDNO has sold out to NSI?

Given the depths to which much of this debate has fallen, we need to take
a great deal of care to avoid those "appearances of impropriety".

So give me an evening to cogitate on this.

--karl--

[*] From Vancouver, BC, where I give a technical presentation at on
implementation experiences with RTP/RTCP (RFC1889/1890) at an IEEE
Communications Society event. [Which was rather interesting given that I
was a Cisco person talking about streaming multimedia in the same session
in which a Microsoft person talked about Quality of Service networking --
kind of a reversal of roles.]

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: [IDNO:210] NSI's interests
In-Reply-To: <199906091054.WAA26625@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
References: <199906090657.SAA20258@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <4.2.0.56.19990609071853.00a18d50@mail.bayarea.net>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 51badbcfe486dcc092767a0f6cfdd464

At 05:54 AM 6/9/99 -0500, Kevin M. Kelly wrote:
>Nevertheless, this is not an entirely altruistic offer by NSI. They clearly
>want to move the process forward. I think that all they expect to get from
>their support.
>
>Beside we have plenty of NSI skeptics on this list ;-) So I'm not too
>worried!

Might as well earn my keep...

NSI benefits from delay. This is not just my own opinion, or the opinion
of a few die-hard skeptics, it is Wall Street's opinion. The more delay,
the more entrenched NSI's market position. The more delay, the longer they
reap monopoly profits.

Hence, I am struck by the claim that NSI wants to move the process forward.

They have been careful to do very little to move it forward, in the last 3
years, and have worked quite hard, particularly through Washington, D.C.
lobbying and public fear-mongering, to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt,
to delay the process. I would strongly urge the group to step far more
carefully than you are seeming inclined.

Here is my own assessment of NSI's offer:

1. The group is seriously trying to develop itself as a representative of
Internet domain name holding individuals.

2. The group is quite young in that effort and quite small.

3. In my opinion, it is premature for the group to be named as a
representative. Recognition of being a representative group needs to come
AFTER reaching a sufficient 'mass', not before. For all of the enthusiasm
of the early members, take a look at the group's size and composition and
consider honestly whether it can yet claim that it has developed a broad
enough and large enough base of support to claim that it is a GLOBAL
representative for Internet individuals?

4. In Berlin, the ICANN Board specified ONE gTLD representative, until
there are more gTLDs. Hence, NSI's offer goes against a limitation and NSI
knows this.

5. NSI is, as usual, trying to create controversy. It is a brilliant
ploy, since it looks as if they are trying to be good guys while the ICANN
Board is likely to look bad. But NSI knows that that is exactly how it is
likely to play.

NSI gets to create a problem, add to ICANN's troubles, possibly cause more
delay, but look like good guys. That's pretty good bang for the buck.

Please do not aid NSI in this disruptive effort. Focus on growing the
organization and gaining constituency participation. Everything
constructive will flow from that.

d/

Firstly, I support both Karl and Joop as representatives.

Secondly, I commend NSI for their kind offer. Even if it is in their
best interest to foment an opposition, they NEED the opposition for
anti-trust reasons. If they are the only gTLD registry left standing, on
Sep00, then they have a DOJ problem the size of Microsoft's. However
misguided, they may sometimes appear, they mostly try to do the "right
thing". There is plenty of evidence for this. They are also not stupid,
being the one-and-only gTLD registry, is a dangerous situation from many
perspectives.

Thirdly, Kevin's point about the ISOC bashing should be considered. Not
all of us ISOC members are evil nor are we all academics.<grin>

Forth, when Dyson made that statemnent she unilaterally spoke in direct
opposition to the ICANN's own by-laws. If it sticks, there is clear
evidence of lack of process. When an organization doesn't even follow
its own rules, but rather the voice of a single individual, then it is
not an organization. It is a dictatorship and the single voice is its
tyrant. I also believe that Esther very much knew what she was doing
when she did this and did it anyway. This indicates that she is very
confident in her power-base. Sufficiently so that she cares less for the
opinions of others due to the appearance that their opinions do not
matter. The fact that she did it to the constituency that NSI claimed
sole membership of is irrelevant. There may be more members, in that
contituency, in the future (NSI would sincerely hope, remember, they are
naked, with no cover, and they have "incoming". Size isn't always a
"good thing" it makes one a better target, in their case, the only
target).

-----------------------------
Roeland M.J. Meyer
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
mailto://rmeyer@mhsc.com

I have been a NSI skeptic. Hated their policies.

I looked to the whole ICANN deal with quite a bit of hope initially and have
since been appalled and dismayed.

I (like many others) had started to turn a skeptic that tiny domain name
holders could hardly do anything about the whole thing but yet unable to
give up hope.

That having been said...

It was extremely heartening to see ICANN and NSI at loggerheads at Berlin
(as many of you know was participating online. And at cost of repeating
Great job - Joop and Karl !).

It lid a tiny flame of hope that the fight between them would explode and be
hard, tough and really nasty.

They are two devils from hell and we, the mere citizens of internet, would
benefit enormously from there clash as they will now 'need' the support of
'real' stakeholders to score points against each other.

NSI has done all the damage it can do. It has in recent time taken quite a
few knocks and find control slipping out of there hands.

ICANN seems to be hell bent on moving them to the irrelevant role of being
just another domain name issuers and in process 'Surping' NSI's traditional
leverages of - policy implementation, root server control and domain pricing
- without subjecting themselves (ICANN) to any kind of accountability or
mandate what so ever other than some spin doctoring in media.

Make no mistake NSI is bleeding and needs us and our movementum, legitimize
offered by the act of endorsing us (among other factors) to regain and
retain some hold on their levers and hence this offer and there sudden
change of being reasonable lately.

As thing stand, right now, compared to ICANN - NSI seems to be an angel to
me.

(Especially as we already have some competition fastly coming in place to
NSI on domain name issuance.)

Its in our interest to keep both of them on equal footing and at each others
throats (and most important alive !). General internet community can only
gain from their individual thrust at each other for absolute control over
internet.

I very strongly support that we take this opportunity presented to us and
make most of it without getting attached to either of them.

Both Karl and Joop would make excellent representatives for us.

They will be pretty soon all kinds of noises once we take this seat.

We will need Joop's invaluable manuevouring skills to navigate the pitfalls
ahead - negotiate with other groups and modulate pressures from ICANN.

Sri

***
My Background (if you are interested !)

A couple of years ago I was a small time 'techie' - bought a couple of
domain names and was busy tinkering with my tiny linux box and apache server
to get somewhere on the internet.

Blissfully unconcerned of the whole deal of domain name vs. trademark,
internet goverance, etc - read a couple of articles on and off on net. But
that was it.

Then before I knew it - I got hit in face with a pretty eloquently written
legal letters, attorneys, tiny window of time to respond intelligently to
them and had come close to be at the receiving end of NSI domain dispute
policy and all nine yards.

(Hence the start of my involvement in the whole issue and the vengence to
seek some fairness for Individual domain name holders !).

(You could take a peek at some of my comments at
http://wipo2.wipo.int/dns_comments/rfc3/0190.html)

From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>, idno@radix.co.nz
Subject: Re: [IDNO:196] Accepting an interim seat on the Names Council, from one of
NSI's
References: <199906090258.OAA13984@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: f6103ea3be1073a28e14bc66b002d43e

Of course you should accept it. I strongly support Karl Auerbach, but would also
urge that whoever you select be able to attend the Santiago meeting.
--MM

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Dear supporters of the IDNO,
>
> I am passing on to you a letter that I received today from Don Telage.
> I propose that we accept his offer.

o: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>, idno@radix.co.nz
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:221] Re: NSI's interests
In-Reply-To: <199906091442.CAA33020@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
References: <199906091054.WAA26625@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
<199906090657.SAA20258@tardis.patho.gen.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <199906100027.MAA27657@fep4-orange.clear.net.nz>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 4e472dc1cfd1bf47b520fc2e94942ed3

At 07:42 9/06/1999 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

>>Beside we have plenty of NSI skeptics on this list ;-) So I'm not too
>>worried!
>
>
>Might as well earn my keep...
>
Thank you Dave for your words of caution. They will be heeded.
But where do you stand yourself on the participation of Individual DN
owners in the DNSO?
You qualify for IDNO membership, yet you have not joined us.
Do you really want us to succeed?

<snip>
>Here is my own assessment of NSI's offer:
>
>1. The group is seriously trying to develop itself as a representative of
>Internet domain name holding individuals.
>
>2. The group is quite young in that effort and quite small.
>
>3. In my opinion, it is premature for the group to be named as a
>representative. Recognition of being a representative group needs to come
>AFTER reaching a sufficient 'mass', not before. For all of the enthusiasm
>of the early members, take a look at the group's size and composition and
>consider honestly whether it can yet claim that it has developed a broad
>enough and large enough base of support to claim that it is a GLOBAL
>representative for Internet individuals?
>
This appears to be an assesment of *us*.
Who we are and how numerous we are is of political value, sure, but what we
stand for is a principle:
that Individual DN owners are stakeholders in the DNS.
When the interim ICANN board decided to gerrymander the DNSO into
constituencies, the Individual DN owners should have been included and
given recognition as stakeholders.
AFTER that we can organize and grow as a group.

Only really motivated people join a group *before* they know that they are
going to get any representation.
Our critical mass is in our motivation.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap puller of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: idno@radix.co.nz
Subject: [IDNO:219] Working groups are forming
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-List-Software: listmanager v2.97pl1, Copyright (c) 1994-1998, M. S. Kucherawy
Errors-To: idno-errors@radix.co.nz
Precedence: list
X-Original-Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906091636180.7537-100000@npax.cavebear.com>
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: 156ca29e07ae967e4617d952400224ea

I've heard that the DNSO is now forming working groups to start dealing
with things like the WIPO report.

That's substantive material.

And ICANN's failure to recognize us puts us in a position in which when we
arrive, if ever, that decisions will have been made that will not be
reopened.

In other words, the game could be over by the time we get there.

We need to complain in very strong terms that this is inherently unfair
and prejudicial.

--karl--

Just out of curiosity, is there a browsable archive of this list?
If so, could someone send me the URL?

--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain

To: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:274] with copy to Don Heath
Cc: heath@isoc.org

At 13:00 11/06/1999 -0400, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>Ahem . . . I've been on the IDNO list since before there was an IDNO list
:-) and I can testify that DonHeathBashing is one of the oldest and most
revered threads in the discussion. Leaving aside the excursion into
JonPostelBashing (de mortuis nil nisi bonum not having penetrated the
consciousness of some domain name warriors) it's simply revisonist to
suggest that IDNO did not start out as a "Let's oppose the Don Heath view
of constituencies."
>
The only thing I remember is that I said that sadly Don Heath chose not to
talk to me in Berlin. This reflected my willingness to talk to him-- I
approached him and asked for some time to talk. He said "not now" as he was
with someone else and never came back to me.
Doesn't sound like bashing to me.
Interesting how you interpret the start of the IDNO. Do you call the Paris
Draft a "Let's oppose the Don Heath view of constituencies" document?
Kevin, let me tell you, as I am not on the ISOC list, I do not know what is
the Don Heath view of constituencies.
I'll have to take your word for it.

>Moreover, I've been underwhelmed by the silence that has met the
announcement that ISOC is formally considering whether to support a
constituency of individuals as such. For those who are bothering to pay
attention, the message I bring is this: it's better to influence Don
Heath's policy views than to try to convince the Internet Community to
ignore him. Here's a little hint: Don has mor influence with the ultimate
decisionmakers than any of the founding members of The Cyberspace
Association have; indeed, his influence over the process is probably on the
same order of magnitude as that of our whole membership taken in the
aggregate. What's more, he's no longer opposed to ISOC supporting an
individuals' constituency.

I also asked you privately to tell Don Heath that we would like to hear
from him. Didn't you do that? Why then complain about the lack of public
reaction on our list?

I think we all understand about Don's influence with the ultimate
decisionmakers. What IDNO in it's innocence stands for is the polite
request to be a small part (3 seats on the NC for crying out loud!) of a
democratic future decisionmaking structure, where those affected by policy
can have their representation.
If Don Heath is coming round to agreeing with that, we should be hearing
from him.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

 

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: Re: [IDNO:274] with copy to Don Heath
Cc: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>, <idno@radix.co.nz>,
heath@isoc.org

At 12:04 PM 6/12/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>The only thing I remember is that I said that sadly Don Heath chose not to

Joop, and everyone else,

Let me strongly encourage you all to stop this, and similar, threads
immediately.

It has nothing to do with the focus of this group and is sure to take
energy away from that focus and to add little but emotion.

The easiest way to stop the thread is for everyone simply to stop. No
responses to joop's note. No responses to my note. Just return to the
main programming.

d/

At 18:54 11/06/1999 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 12:04 PM 6/12/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>The only thing I remember is that I said that sadly Don Heath chose not to
>
>
>Joop, and everyone else,
>
>Let me strongly encourage you all to stop this, and similar, threads
>immediately.
>
Immediately, eh?

>It has nothing to do with the focus of this group and is sure to take
>energy away from that focus and to add little but emotion.
>
Why could it not lead to compromise and peace, Dave?

>The easiest way to stop the thread is for everyone simply to stop. No
>responses to joop's note. No responses to my note. Just return to the
>main programming.
>
Main programming to do what, Dave? Get ready for non-acceptance by the
interim ICANN board? No matter what we do?
You seem to know things that could save us a lot of time, energy and money.
Please share.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

Just got the following interesting message from Joop:

----- Forwarded message from Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz> -----

Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:44:27 +1200
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: Warning to Kent Crispin

At 10:52 11/06/1999 -0700, you wrote:

>
>I notice you carefully did not respond to my point as far as ICANN
>was concerned. In any case, "bashing" is a matter of tone as much
>as it is of content. It would be a pleasant relief to hear
>something in a positive tone from you.
>
Ad hominems as in the last line will not be tolerated here.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

----- End forwarded message -----

--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain

To: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>, Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>,
idno@radix.co.nz

My apologies for the tardy comment: I'm just back in town and catching up on what
happened this week.

It strikes me that NSI has launched a serious offensive on the Hill and in the press in
order to attack ICANN's board. This seems like a very sound strategy since the Board
looks a tad authoritarian in having asked NSI to restrict its constituency to one
NC member. Even a disinterested observer might ask how ICANN can craft such an exception to its
own rules.

They look all the more authoritarian in light of their refusal to reconize an individual's
constituency while pushing for quick action on the WIPO draft over the protests of
most commenters (many of whom, I was advised by Esther) had their comments deleted
from the posting site. Now would seem to be a good moment for the burning glare of publicity.

My only concern is this: if I were in Esther's shoes, and I truly didn't see any problem
whatsoever in the WIPO draft, I wouldn't hesitate to further withhold IDNO recognition now. She
can claim that NSI is at least as guilty as the board in dispensing two seats like patronage, suggest that
this solves the IDNO new constituency problem, and potentially have a less vociferous IDNO on the dispute
resolution process (because we're locked in with NSI).

Being so late to the fair, maybe I'll find out all this has already been discussed and resolved. Hope so.
This is a very interesting development!

Dennis Schaefer

Hi

Is there some list I should be on?

Joop - Forgive me for never finding the time to talk. I certainly
didn't mean any discourtesy.

Be careful about paying too much attention to Michael Sondow and Jeff
Williams. Even though I pay no attention to either, I am aware that
their favorite pastime is picking on me and/or ISOC. Actually, I
have gone out of my way in an attempt to help Michael, but he seems
rather to be more than a little suspicious. sigh

I can tell you this, I/we have some very altruistic principles, that
are posted on our web, and I live up to them. I nor ISOC have any
designs at all on ICANN, the DNSO, or the NCDNHC. We would dearly
like to see a consensus develop.

Best,
Don

To: idno@radix.co.nz
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: [IDNO:282] how about the charter and other tasks ahead

Dear members,

We were in the middle of discussing the charter and the parts that still
need filling in.
We also need to identify who can volunteer for what. Andy Gardner has
special talents to do publicity and has offered his help there.
All other volonteers please mail Sri, or myself. Later on we can turn the
volunteer position into something more formal.

Can we form a small team for the Charter draft? Karl, Dan, Kevin?
As a last item for the membership articles, I would like a brief discussion
on the desirability of having a 2 class membership structure to enable
people who are as yet without