A possible ammendment

Sat Apr 26 21:38:09 UTC 1997

EDNS discussions belong on the EDNS list.
NEWDOM discussions belong on the NEWDOM list.

I don't read either of those, because I'm a fan of Zelazny, Herbert,
and Asimov.  They do more realistic science fiction than Fleming and Deninger.

The NANOG list is for Network Operations issues relating to North America.
Note that this excludes eDNS, Newdom, and IPVhahah (sorry, Jim).

Ehud

>As I stated in an earlier posting:

>>We [eDNS] must recognize and address
>>the following to gain world-wide acceptance:
>>
>>        -       We too must open our house to an extended period of
>>                public, corporate, and gov't input.
>>
>>        -       We must merge the existing name space, and prevent
>>                any fracturing from occurring.
>>
>>        -       We must recognize that we are now the protector of the
>>                root.  Our actions this [last] weekend were the first step
>in this
>>                direction.  More are required.
>>
>>        -       We must take a leadership role in this process.
>>                (especially in light of the just released NSF report)

>As the first step in this process, I am posting for public comment
>a possible ammendment to the eDNS Charter on how eDNS might
>evolve into a self governing body, one that has the support of the
>entire Internet community.

>Before the flames begin, please realize that this is a continuation of
>a process that began within the eDNS operators list, a process that
>has resulted in at least four different competing and viable proposals.

>Your comments are very much appreciated.

>>In closing, we have a unique opportunity to bring stability to a process
>>that has been anything but.  Based on input received from some of the
>>major ISPs, I* organizations, and Gov't agencies, Iperdome is working
>>on a plan to accomplish all of the goals listed above.  We will
>>release our plan within the next couple of days.

>P.S.  This is not the Iperdome plan.  We will be issuing a public statement
>regarding the current DNS crisis by no later than Wednesday, April 30th.

>================================

>The eDNS Charter shall be modified to include provisions for self
>governance, and a procedure to change the Charter.  The newly
>defined stakeholders shall include:

>The Council of RNs	                1 Root Name Server, 1 Vote
>The Council of RAs	                1 Registration Authority, 1 Vote
>The Council of Registries        1 Registry, 1 Vote

>A decision to modify the Charter shall be authorized by a two-thirds
>affirmative
>vote of any two of the Councils, or a simple majority of all three Councils.

>A decision to vote on an issue shall be authorized by a simple majority of any
>single Council.

>eDNS members who are in more than one category may vote in each respective
>Council.

>Each Council shall be responsible for setting up their own by-laws and/or
>procedures TBD*.  They may expand their role to include other
>non-administrative activities (i.e. marketing), if they collectively decide
>to do so.

>Each Council shall be responsible for the rules and regulations for the group
>immediately below them.  Some examples:
>-       The Council of RNs might implement policies regarding
>        the approval and management of new RA applications.
>-       The Council of RAs might implement policies regarding
>        the approval and management of new Registries.
>-       The Council of Registries might implement policies regarding
>        the issuance of SLDs (ie. a code of ethics, etc)

>The Council of RNs shall be bound only to the eDNS Charter.
>As such, they shall have the authority to regulate themselves,
>unless and until the eDNS Charter limits these broad powers.

>* Each new Council shall be obligated to use an open process in the
>establishment of their by-laws/policies.  This process will be described
>in more detail in future postings.

>Commentary

>The Council of RNs
>	Since this is the smallest Council, each vote will carry the
>most weight.  Since it is at the top of the hierchy, each RN also has the
>most power.  As guardians of the root, this is as it should be.  This
>structure also eliminates the "hit by a bus" issue.
>	While only 13 Root Name Servers are viable given the current
>architecture, the Council of RNs does not need to be limited to 13 members.
>They may define the process whereby additional members may be admitted.
>	To merge the existing name space, and to prevent any further
>fracturing of the name space, the existing Root Name Server Owners could
>easily be invited to participate, effectively giving them immediate control
>over this powerful body.
>	NSI, IANA, and several educational institution and government
>bodies would qualify as RNs.

>The Council of RAs
>	This is the second smallest group.  They will have moderate power, and be
>supervised by the Council of RNs.
>	The IAHC would qualify as an RA under the current eDNS Charter.

>The Council of Registries
>	This is the largest group.  They are the front line to Internet consumers,
>and are supervised by the Council of RAs.
>	NSI would qualify as a Registry for at least three TLDs.

>Seperate Councils
>	In theory, members of each Council will share similar goals.  Here's a
>structure whereby they can work together on the issues that concern them the
>most.  A majority vote by any Council is all that's required to force all
>Councils to vote on an issue.

>Regards,

>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com