SUBJECT: Review of Representation of Constituencies in the gTLD-MoU Policy
Oversight Committee
PREFACE:
The Domain Name Rights Coalition (DNRC) is a public interest organization
which has followed and critiqued the IAHC/iPOC since its formation. DNRC
represents the interests of entrepreneurs, small businesses and individuals
on the Internet. Its Board of Directors includes Kathryn Kleiman,
President, an Internet and telecommunications attorney in Alexandria,
Virginia, and previously a data communications analyst on Wall Street,
Michael Doughney, co-founder of DIGEX, a large Internet Service Provider in
Beltsville, Maryland, and Mikki Barry, co-founder of InterCon Systems
Corporation, the earliest manufacturer of Internet connectivity software
for the Macintosh platform in the 1980s, and an Internet attorney. DNRC
submitted extensive comments to the Notice of Inquiry of the Department of
Commerce and these comments can be found on the DNRC website at
http://www.domain-name.org and on the Department of Commerce website at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname.
DNRC calls for iPOC to suspend this private request for comments -- Review
of Representation of Constituencies in the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight
Committee (this proceeding) -- as well as its other private requests for
comments now taking place. The timing for these proceedings is premature
and the limited audience which follows iPOC is far too small to justify
creation of far-reaching rules by iPOC.
IPOC must suspend this proceeding at least until issuance of the report of
the U.S. Department of Commerce which is expected on November 1, 1997 --
less than a month away. The Department of Commerce (DOC) conducted a
Notice of Inquiry which succeeded in reaching many parts of the far-flung,
diverse, and multi-faceted Internet community. The DOC successfully used
the U.S. Federal Register, the DOC website, listserv announcements and
phone calls to contact a wide range of organizations and individuals to
notify them of the proceeding. Although expedited, the proceeding allowed
over a month and a half for evaluation of the questions and formulation of
responses. Those participating knew that the U.S. Government has a track
record in responsible management of the Internet as well as public
accountability in its decision making process. The Internet community
awaits the DOC report as the next step in the formulation of the transition
of Internet governance.
While we thank the individuals who have served on the IAHC and iPOC, it is
only right and responsible for iPOC to yield to the Department of Commerce
at this time. IPOC is a private group and, in light of the entrance of a
powerful, legitimate and representative governmental body, should suspend
its private comment and discussion periods at least until the Department of
Commerce report is issued. Perhaps after this date, the iPOC may be able
to attract the attention of the Internet community which it seeks to
represent.
QUESTIONS:
1. How many people do you think can constitute a functioning Policy
Oversight
Committee?
[1-5 __] [5-10 __] [10-15 __] [15-20 __] [20-30 __] [Other (specify number)
X
[See DNRC comment below] ]
Question 1 puts the cart before the horse. The Department of Commerce
report will help us to better understand the many stakeholder groups of the
Internet community and provide a basis for structuring a committee
representative of these stakeholders. Deciding size upfront is not
important as a large committee certainly can manage through smaller
sub-committees, electronic lists, and other representative subgroups. A
policy board should not disenfranchise people in the name of efficiency.
2. Which interest classes require representation in the gTLD-MoU Policy
Oversight
Committee?
End-Users [yes X] [no__]
Internet Service Providers [yes X] [no__]
Telecommunications Companies [yes X] [no__]
Public Interest Groups [yes X] [no__]
Business and Advertising Interests [yes X] [no__]
Content Providers [yes X] [no__]
Internet Technical Infrastructure Interests [yes X] [no__]
Software Suppliers [yes X] [no__] -- if business involves Internet
software
Trademark Community/Law [yes X] [no__]-- those sections involving
Internet issues
Intergovernmental Interests [yes X] [no__]
Domain Name Registrars [yes X] [no__]
Other [See DNRC answer below]
Educational interests including universities, high schools and elementary
schools must be represented. Also research institutes must be represented.
These organizations helped to build the backbone of the Internet and their
ongoing involvement and leadership will continue to provide great value to
the Internet community.
DNRC repeats its concern that broadening representation alone will not
provide legitimacy to the iPOC or any private group which seeks to govern
the Internet. It is the decision making process, the accountability to the
public and the checks and balances from other parts of the Internet
community that will make the Internet governance system a democratic one.
The iPOC is not now democratic and these proposals will not make it so.
In seeking a truly democratic/representative form of Internet governance,
DNRC along with the Internet grassroots organization NetAction, submitted
the following recommendation to the Department of Commerce on August 18,
1997:
[DNRC and NetAction] urge the creation of an Internet Council (IC) to
be created under the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 App. 2 Sec. 1-15. The IC should consist of
representatives of the Internet community, and include schools and
libraries, small and large businesses, small and large Internet Service
Providers, Internet public interest groups, and consumer groups. The IC
should be comprised entirely of private sector participants with Department
of Commerce representatives serving in an advisory manner. Creation of the
IC under the rules of the Federal Advisory Committee Act will provide the
IC with an open and democratic structure for its operation: meetings must
be announced in the Federal Register and other public notices, the meetings
must be public, and the public must be allowed to participate. It is
envisioned that the IC will hold public hearings to gain input on many of
the issues which trouble the Internet today.
Further, the Federal Advisory Committee Act structure will provide
accountability. Should it come to the attention of the press and the
public that collusion is taking place within the IC, or that Internet
policy is not be created by fair and open processes, then the public need
not appeal to the individuals themselves (the situation which we have with
the IAHC, who are also the iPOC). Instead, the public may report the
irregularities or illegalities to the Department of Commerce for
appropriate review, investigation and action.
The IC should be given responsibility for the commercial portions of the
Internet that the National Science Foundation is seeking to relinquish
without notice or hearing to private companies and individuals. While the
technical administration assignments need not change, A-TCPIP and NetAction
advocate the assignment of all policy making authority for the .COM, .NET
and .ORG domain names currently vested with NSI, and all policy making
authority for .US currently vested with IANA, to the Internet Council.
The IC also should serve as an advisory body to other government agencies
looking into questions which involve or impact Internet usage.
DNRC submits that the Internet Council would provide a transition for the
Internet through a balanced forum, with fair and balanced decision making
and accountability. It is DNRCs hope that iPOC would actively participate
in such a forum.
3. Which of the listed interest classes above do you think are
under-represented
in the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee?
End-Users X
Internet Service Providers X
Telecommunications Companies X
Public Interest Groups X
Business and Advertising Interests - unclear, but probably represented by
INTA
Content Providers - X
Internet Technical Infrastructure Interests - well represented
Software Suppliers -X
Trademark/Legal - over represented under present structure
Intergovernmental Interests -
Domain Name Registrars - X
Other (please specify) - Educational and research institutions,
entrepreneurs, small businesses and individuals on the Internet.
4. For each of the interests classes you have indicated as
under-represented in
the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee:
a) Should each representative be selected from groups within a class
(e.g., trade
or other associations) or directly from members of that class?
b) What is the appropriate procedure for nominating representatives for
each of
the classes that you have indicated are under-represented?
c) What is the appropriate procedure for selecting representative for each
of the
classes that you have indicated are under-represented?
d) What is the length of term each representative should serve for each of
the
classes that you have indicated are under-represented? If desired, please
include suggested mandatory term limits.
DNRC joins Question 4, subparts a-d, and responds that these questions are
premature. We predict that the Department of Commerce report will provide
guidance on how a democratic and representative group can be nominated and
selected for Internet governance. As Dr. Burket of the Legal Advisory
Board for the Information Market (EU-Commission DG XIII-E) stated at the
Center for Information Law and Policy Conference in Washington, D.C.,
October 7-8, 1997, governments play an important role in protecting citizen
interests. DNRC submits that private organizations such as iPOC, however
well intentioned, cannot play the same role.
5. Please discuss below any other considerations vis-`-vis the structure of
the gTLD-
MoU Policy Oversight Committee not covered in this questionnaire.
DNRC notices that iPOC continues to proceed through comment periods and
report/rule revisions without consensus and with undue haste. Thirty days
does not provide the Internet community with adequate notice to read,
discuss, and respond to the questions raised. As private groups repeatedly
stressed to the U.S. House of Representatives during the Domain Name
Hearing of September 30, 1997, the Internet is a well-functioning and
robust system. Rushed question periods are likely to lead to answers which
are not democratic and do not have the consensus of the Internet community.
Once again, DNRC urges iPOC to catch its breath and suspend this and its
other private requests for comment pending the upcoming report from the
Department of Commerce.
For more information regarding these comments, please contact Kathryn
Kleiman, Esq., President of DNRC, at kathrynkl@aol.com or Harold Feld,
Esq., Secretary of DNRC, at hfeld@cov.com.