A possible ammendment

Sat Apr 26 22:02:29 UTC 1997

On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 Jay at Iperdome.com wrote:

Please remove nanog at merit.edu from any other discussions regarding this
crap.

/cah

==>  
==>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
==>