Domain Name Handbook.gif


Contents | Special Features | News | Order | Glossary | Opinions | Acknowledgments | Contacts


Global Incorporation Alliance Workshop
International Forum on the White Paper - Americas
Hyatt Regency Hotel - Reston, Virginia - July 1-2, 1998

This page contains informal notes from several participants of the GIAW Charter Stakeholders' Workshop entitled "Toward an Internet Assigned Numbers Entity". Other pages on this website post:

We present these notes in the spirit of communicating the concerns and consensus that emerge from the workshop. These are individual observations and do not represent the views or opinions of respective companies, organizations, or affiliations. We thank the on-scene volunteer correspondents for generously sharing their notes on the days' events with other members of the Internet community. We have posted the comments in reverse chronological order but they are also linked by the name of each correspondent.

PETER RONY: Day 1 / Day 2
DAVID SCHUTT: Day 1 / Day 2
Draft Report from Working Group A
Draft Report from Working Group D (v.2)
Background Notes and Consensus Resolutions
Draft Report from Working Group E

July 5, 1998 - 11:58 p.m.

Eric Weisberg, General Counsel, Internet Texoma

Subject: Consensus/on reflection

First, the words of another participant, Peter Veeck. "It may be a slow start, but it will be a short race."

The slow start was clearly intentional and well engineered. I interpreted that control as "bad." I did not want some unseen "they" keeping us from voting our true consensus and then distilling and announcing "our" agreement at the end of the process. However, on reflection, I am very comfortable with what happened, especially since we did agree upon the basic principles of our charter -- OPEN, TRANSPARENT, and FAIR governance.

Let that accomplishment be recognized and honored before we get lost in the details.

Additional accomplishments:

The meeting was very well attended and everyone had a chance to offer her ideas and express his concerns. Indeed, everyone had a chance to lead in the deliberations. I think that every interest which is currently participating in the governance discussion was represented. And, I saw a lot of people leave the meeting happy with the process -- especially the big players who can not be ignored. No one was threatened by any action taken.

I think we came to realize that this entity cannot be the author of trademark law nor the venue for its resolution. Individual registries and and web-hosts cannot serve as judges of what is appropriate or legal. That realization will simplify the task of creating the entity, tremendously.

And, we agreed on a structure for the new entity -- councils to develop policy proposals in each area of governance, which will then be forwarded to and reviewed by the entity's board. We agreed on three initial councils and stipulated that others would be created as the need arises. We will start with a "Names Council," an "IP Council" (which Kim Hubbard reported is being formed by the three registries), and a "Protocols Council" which we saw as being the IETF.

There was also agreement that IFWP is not the only legitimate process and that it will work with any assembly (including one held on-line) attempting to address the governance issues.

Also, we got a much better feel for each other, especially our diversity. I changed my mind about several people, removing them from my filters. In other cases, I found that I had misjudged their views. For instance, I completely misjudged NSI's position on ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers). Wasn't it Don Telage who spoke against the IP registries having votes on the entity's board, arguing that it was a conflict of interests? Didn't he also object to the self-replacing nature of the ARIN board? I would never have believed it if I were not there.

Finally, we agreed to work expeditiously to resolution.

The main issue we avoided acting upon was the creation of an interim board. I proposed that we elect five people who could serve and invite each of the other meetings to do the same. I don't think anyone suggested that an interim board should be chosen by some less "democratic" process. But, there was objection to taking any action before other meetings were held. I suspect that was the correct result. Creating an interim board is a sensitive issue and can prove divisive at this formative stage, especially since we are talking about substantive action affecting various interests involved in our process--ending the NSI contract. That will apparently be left to NSF (National Science Foundation).

Thus, on reflection, I am not sure what more the GIAW could or should have done last week. We may complain about the slow pace, but I cannot point to any improper result. We had a good launch. We did not trip on our shoelaces.

The bottom line for me--it appears to be a good, solid process which will get us where we need to go, TOGETHER. I am proud and appreciative that I have been allowed to play some part, and recognize that this, in of itself, was an extraordinary occurrence. This is not true with most global enterprises. It is now up to us to keep the train on track so it may arrive at the agreed upon and intended destination.

Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
Internet Texoma


July 3, 1998 - 5:35 p.m.

David S. Weitzel - Senior Engineer, Mitretek Systems

Subject: The cyber-cowboys checked their guns at the door

I was the ad hoc rapporteur for the July 2nd, 1998, Implementation Session at the IFWP-Reston workshop. In a thumbnail, the discussion focused on the structure and make-up of an interim board and subtending councils. Of special concern was the process for deciding the composition, representation, and formation such entities and the powers that they would have during a transition process.

As time allows and as long as the discourse remains professional, I will commit to following the threads in these forums ( and DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS. NTERNIC.NET), or any other appropriately open forums, on the topics raised during the Implementation Session and as reported out to the general session on the afternoon of July 2nd. I believe the real-audio of the general sessions are available at the IFWP web site. It is my understanding that text transcripts were created of the general session and may also be made available soon.

Mr. Craig Simon, a Ph.D. candidate at University of Miami who has been studying the DNS as part of his dissertation research, was the recorder of the Implementation Session. Mr. Gene Crick, from the Texas ISP Association, also facilitated. Mr. Simon and I will review his notes on the session and post them to the above lists as soon as possible. Hopefully this can occur before The July 7th meeting in Brussels. I'm sure there will be errors in our reporting. Please correct us and accept our apologies in advance. Facilitated real time meeting notes should be considered in the future. Due To the ad hoc process, we were not prepared to take them.

As for the concept of consensus, I am reminded of the well worn phrase "I know It when I see it". Rather than engage in a debate on the subject I will Simply say, I have been a long participant in telecommunications guidelines creation through the various ATIS committees on electronic commerce, EDI, and numbering. So, as a model I used the one most familiar to me. Is it better than others? I doubt it. Did it work for the Implementation Session? Yes. When a consensus call was made (occasionally phrased in the negative) anyone who felt the desire to have a "point noted" recorded was allowed to make such a request and it was honored. My experience has shown me over the years that some of these "points noted" are the most critical items in the record. Often time will show the original consensus was not a sufficiently informed one and the "point noted" is the nugget upon which the ultimate consensus will be built.

Next I will say I saw a lot of reserved judgment. That is to be expected in a trust building exercise such as this one. From my experience and knowledge, just as trust had to be created among new players as the telecom industry deregulated long distance (and currently is deregulating local services) trust must be built here. I encourage all to find a thread and start again to weave the fabric together. The more that can be developed by Sept 30th to show an open process in forward motion the better. I especially encourage those who took the opportunity of the post-lunch random-draw comment period to describe strawman models of the interim and final board and council structures to document them and post them to these groups or provide URLs for where they can be found. Others with such models should similarly post the models or provide URLs.

I will say that in my opinion, despite some egos of epic proportions, no one in the room believed those assembled represented the entire Internet. The IFWP/GIAW meeting in Reston is but a new first step. Nothing more. Stakeholders who cannot attend such meetings must have a voice and forums for input. How they can be represented as both interim and final decision are made and structures are created should be part of the process discussion.

It is my intention to take the agenda items proposed during the Implementation Session and invite any interested party to discuss them on the list so that they can, if possible, be further refined to assist those attending the IFWP-Europe meeting being coordinated with INET '98 and those attending the IFWP-Asia meeting being planned for Singapore in August. All are welcome to join in this discussion. It is my hope that the discussion can remain professional and civil as the worldwide Internet industry works through this trying transition period.

My availability has not yet been determined for the IFWP-Europe meeting in Geneva meeting later in July. Hopefully, I can attend the meeting in Geneva and pass the baton to those who are continuing the implementation process discussion at that time. Most importantly, I respectfully request those sponsoring IFWP-Europe to post an early draft agenda and schedule soon. If I can be of assistance please let me know.

Finally, I will say please don't be naive or paranoid, nevertheless where possible take the high road.


David S. Weitzel
Sr. Engineer
Mitretek Systems
"Innovative technology in the public interest"


July 3, 1998 - 1:29 p.m.

Peter Rony - co-author, The Domain Name Handbook

Report Day 2: The Day 2 agenda of the IFWP meeting consisted of a working session (9 to 11:30 AM), a lunch break, an afternoon working session (1:30 to 3:30 PM), reports (3:30 to 4:30 PM), and concluding remarks (4:30 to 5:00 PM), specially by foreign attendees.

The assembled participants created three working groups to tackle three new topics,

Group D. Implementation
Group E. Domain Names/Trademarks
Group F. Security/Privacy

Terry Calhoun (Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) created audio tapes of the group reports and concluding remarks; these tapes will be transcribed and made available on the IFWP web site. No recordings were made of any of the working group deliberations, but notes were taken. Each workshop had a scribe, so detailed notes may become available.

David Weitzel (Mitretek Systems) provided a clear and vigorous report about the deliberations associated with Group D. The group brainstormed Dr. Tamar Frankel's page on implementation and recommends the following additions to Dr. Frankel's paper:

(a) Legal Format
(b) Site of Jurisdiction
(c) Who are the organizers and incorporators of the new Board?
(d) Statement of consensus and commitment
(e) Process
(f) Responsibility and scope of interim board
(g) Proposed slate for interim board
(h) Eligibility to vote, and voting method
(i) Articles, bylaws
(j) Mechanism ???? decision

Group D Consensus, v 1.0 items were:

* Organization -- U.S. corporation, profits no person(s)
* Interim (and Final) Boards -- clear limits on authority, ????
* Interim Board does not select final Board
* Interim Board recommends process if none specified previously
* Interim Board nomination and selection are separate processes
* Councils: Names, (IP) addresses, protocols
* Councils include existing registries
* Continuing discussion: include both online and physical discussions
* Interim Board will not add new TLDs

Group D non-consensus issues were:

* Interim Board chosen for inclusion, credibility
* "Straw Poll" website for all candidates
* Board voting -- associate members
* Direct appointment -- nomination: self, other
* Restricted charter to contain risk
* Define Board members' roles; limits on authority

Also, it was suggested to allow United States organizations help us draft key legal documents. (We need legal skills in drafting the new Entity legal documents)

The author of this report attended the two Group E working sessions, moderated by Gabe Battista and Jason Hendeles. Group E required a substantial amount of time to focus on the creation consensus deliverables.

As reported by attorney Diane Cabell late in the afternoon on July 2, Group E reached consensus on the following items:

1. The new Entity (a.k.a. "NewCo", or "the Board") should gather and provide information regarding cyber piracy/cyber squatting as well as trademarks.

2. Group E recognizes that individuals and businesses have rights to "names" that are not based solely on trademark law.

3. The new Entity should encourage the development of various, rapid, alternative dispute mechanisms.

4. The new Entity does not resolve disputes.

5. Group E supports creation of a subordinate "names council"; Group E recommends additional discussions focused solely on the formation of the names council

(a) Handle Trademark/Domain-Name interactions
(b) Set minimum data requirements for ???? [ ^ see comment below ]
(c) privacy
(d) protection for new Entity
(e) recommendations for liability

6. Group E recommends a process for three "councils":

(1) names council,
(2) number council, and
(3) protocol/IP council.
7. The new Names Council can make recommendations to the new Entity regarding dispute policy.

Jason Hendeles reported the following Group E consensus on the process for the three councils:

A. Define responsibilities of three councils (names council, number council, protocol/IP council).
B. Councils will define terms, issues, and variables.
C. Councils will gather information from global community.
D. Council will prioritize information/issues.
E. Councils will make recommendations to the Board of the new Entity.
F. Board of the new Entity will ratify/approve recommendations of councils.
G. Board will re-evaluate problem issues then pass them back for reiteration.

Finally, Group E felt that WIPO was only one source for ideas and recommendations on dispute policies.

Danny Weitzner (Center for Democracy and Technology) reported the Group F deliberations.

No white board, itemized list was available for the participants. Accordingly, the information below may be subject to correction. The Day 2 transcript of the afternoon reports should be consulted for accurate information.

The new Board should have a right to ????? on privacy issues. [NOTE: sorry, folks; "????" is my best attempt not to mislead you]

Consumer Privacy

1. All entities under the jurisdiction of the new Entity (a.k.a.. NewCo) should comply with the 1990 OECD ( Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) principles, which is a statement of baseline guidelines for fair information practices (provide notice, no unrelated use of information, no unnecessary collection of information, no unnecessary retention of information).

2. All entities should be aware of risk to personal privacy through analysis of the DNS databases.

Law Enforcement Access

Law enforcement access should only be made in compliance with the legal processes of the jurisdiction. (NOTE: Lawful processes vary from country to country, and perhaps even from state to state).

Technical Security

1. Root zone data should be appropriate, authenticated with security protocols.

2. Secure procedures for portability of domain names between registries and registrars . (NOTE: To avoid slamming.)

The IFWP-Reston conference ended with summary remarks by Dr. Frankel, who first stated that printed transcripts of the Day 1 plenary session and end-of-day reports were available at the registration desk {NOTE: A list of attendees, alphabetized by organization, was also available.] All of these printed documents will be soon available on the IFWP .ORG web site. Dr. Frankel summarized that we were "to meet, to focus, to agree on some things. For the process, we would select groups and select moderators. We have achieved our objectives:

* 200 different participants over the 2-day conference
* some participants from abroad
* some good and new ideas
* some results
* one permanent achievement: we are beginning to build trust
* we are independent
* this is a beginning
* this is unique"

Following Dr. Frankel's summary, participants from abroad were invited to speak to the assembled participants. The reader is referred to the Day 2 transcripts for accurate versions for all of these comments. I was particularly impressed with the eloquence of the comments by Pindar Wong (VeriFi, Hong Kong), by Laina Raveendran Green (etIT, Singapore), and by John Wood (Prince, London).

"IFWP should represent a process of inclusion. Be part of the process --online, offline, . . . "
-- Laina Raveendran Green
"At the end of the meeting, we had very rapid consensus, not as much on substance as on principles such as fairness, openness, . . . . TRUST! In Asia, with a wide set of cultures, we can offer a way of trying to build consensus, to try to know other human beings at a human level. The Asia IFWP meeting will be held on August 12, 1998 at the ANA (All Nippon Airways) Hotel in Singapore."
-- Pindar Wong
"What did we do? We have a deliverable. We talked and we agreed. We agreed to continue. We will melt down our swords and create plowshares. Focus upon what we agree. This is our last, best chance. We have decided to come up to bat and let us play ball. See you July 24-25 in Geneva"
-- John Prince
By Peter Rony
^ Comment from David Schutt, Speco,Inc.
To the best of my recollection, I believe what ???? referred to in

"Set minimum data requirement for ?????" [see above]

was the minimum necessary accurate contact information that had to be collected at the time of application for a domain and made publicly available. Some TM interests stressed that to address legitimate TM disputes, they had to have someone that they could serve with papers, and this meant that there had to be at least some kind of accurate, publicly available contact info. What kind and how much yet to be determined. How this info was to be stored and where was not discussed as far as I remember.


July 2, 1998 - 11:50 a.m.

David Schutt, Speco, Inc.

Subject: Group E, Domain Names/Trademarks:

Morning's Work: I think that there is a general recognition that there is a problem (surprise!), but the problem set is still ill-defined-. One clear consensus that emerged was that there was a definite need for the new entity to act initially as a sort of information clearinghouse to help define that problem set and to identify and help clarify issues.

The second thing that seemed to become clear was that the new entity needed to encourage the development of various dispute resolution processes, but there was no clear feeling on whether or not the new entity should take on dispute resolution responsibility itself. (at least in reference to domain name and trademark issues.)

(speaking as an individual)
David Schutt
Speco, Inc.


July 2, 1998

Jonathan Zittrain, Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School

One person's notes from Group A: "A Profile of a Future Entity"

A collective attempt was made to list the functions of the new entity. (At times there was confusion whether the "entity" was the interim group/board specified by the white paper or the final organization.) Brainstorming produced a lengthy list; the group then sought to consolidate the list, subsuming some ideas under others when a given idea's contributor was so persuaded.

Once consolidated, the group attempted to see where there was unanimity--either "in" or "out" for each of the potential functions. "In" would mean that the group agreed a given function should belong to the new entity, "out" would mean that the function would expressly not be part of the new entity. When the group couldn't agree on "in" or "out" a function was deemed a "maybe," slated for more discussion or clarification. (One suggestion was, instead of a public system of up and down voting at the session, a "red dot" system of cumulative voting be used, so that participants could allocate a fixed number of votes among functions. This would allow participants to vote "extra" for those areas they felt strongly about, with correspondingly fewer votes left over to place in favor of other functions.)

With brief attempts at clarification, followed by quick voice votes to see if there was agreement on "in" or "out," the following list was produced:

Functions of the new entity

"A" or "in":

1. Set policy re IP #.
2. Maintain coherent root zone system.
3. TLDs (including delegation [procedures?]).
4. Oversight of registrars and registries (non-economic).
5. Establish organizational structure including [a model for] financial survival.
6. Establish a limited scope of policy issues.*
7. Minimize barriers to entry.*

"Maybe" (no unanimity on "in" or "out"):

1. "Other" technical parameters (protocols) and IETF coordination.

n CON: fear that "other" could be construed broadly; perhaps say "related technical parameters"?
n. PRO: the white paper calls for this function

2. Trademark issues (U.S. & international).

There was confusion over what was meant by "trademark issues"--did it mean "take trademark issues into account when expanding or restructuring the domain name architecture" or "set up a trademark dispute resolution mechanism independent of national/regional courts"? True ambivalence within the group on the latter; some thought this would be a necessary (or at least useful) function of the entity, while others were certain it would be a big mess better left to existing legal systems.

3. Coordinate County Code TLDs.

To what extent should the non-generic TLDs be governed by this new entity? Should the new entity be able to assign (and revoke) management of respective ccTLDs from given countries and their representatives? Should it be able to further define policies for ccTLD registration and management?

No consensus reached.

4. Dispute mechanisms [from entity policies/decisions]; review and appeal.

No consensus reached on what this would mean, and whether the entity itself should set up its own dispute/review/appeal mechanisms or have them imposed externally (by a body like this one) from the moment of inception.

5. Uniform standards for registrars & registries.

Some disagreement here. Includes the thought that the entity might want to impose minimum "best practices" for registrars. Unclear how this differs from "Oversight of registrars and registries," which is "in," above.

6. Identify privacy and security issues; appropriate use standards.*

Confusion over meaning of this; fear about excessive delegation of authority to the entity.

"Out": None.

Other notes

There was confusion between "functions" and "guiding principles," with some thought that a couple suggested functions (see the *'d ones in "in" and "out") were really guiding principles that we might try to agree on. For example, the "minimize barriers to entry" captured the thought that, say, policies about registrars set by the organization ought to be designed to allow as many as reasonably/safely/technically possible. "Establish a limited scope of policy issues" was, to some, the idea that the organization shouldn't be able to constantly expand its mandate beyond some sort of initial "grant" from the internet community. (One thought was put forward that the organization should be allowed to reserve the potential to make policy in certain areas, particularly as this might help it preclude regulation in those areas by national governments, while choosing to forbear actually making any policy in those areas.) Thus a recurrent constitutionalesque theme was to what extent the entity should be one of limited, enumerated powers, i.e. what functions should be off the table no matter what the entity would later decide about its own scope.

The group, when it reconvenes, might try to work out the "maybes" in the functions and then seek to go through the same generation, clarification, and consensus-seeking process for "principles" for the new entity.

Elaboration of Functions (principles by which to execute functions?)

1. IP assignment policy

Reasonable, equitable
Minimal barriers, portability
IANA & regionals are subordinate

2. Root zone system

Maintain coherently, best interests (?)

3. new TLDs

New corporation has authority to create effective, equitable policy
Clear limits to authority
Maximize competition
ccTLD to be considered
Jonathan Zittrain
Harvard Law School
Lecturer on Law
Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society


July 2, 1998 - 1:08 a.m.

Peter Rony, co-author, The Domain Name Handbook

Revised Report from Day 1 of the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) (revised on July 6, 1998 according to the suggestions of Milton Mueller)

The Day 1 agenda of the IFWP meeting consisted a plenary session (9 to 10 A.M.), at which both Ira Magaziner, Senior Advisor to the President for Policy Development, and Dr. Tamar Frankel, a professor at the Boston University School of Law, spoke, and a statement from Jon Postel was read. After a brief morning break, the assembled participants created three working groups (10:15 AM to 12:30 PM),

Group A. Profile of the New Entity
Group B. Board of Directors and Membership
Group C. Members' Rights and Liabilities

Upon our return from lunch, the working groups continued their deliberations (14:00 to 15:30), after which each group reported its findings to the assembled participants. Terry Calhoun (Internet Editor for the Society for College and University Planning) created audio tapes of the entire plenary session and all three group afternoon reports; these tapes will be transcribed and made available on the GIAW web site. No recordings were made of any of the working group deliberations.

The author of this report attended the two Group A working sessions. Group A was the largest working group, followed by Group B and then Group C. It took a while for Group A to reach its stride, but finally it decided to brainstorm possible FUNCTIONS of the new organization. Why? Because "form follows function". Karl Auerbach moderated the afternoon and the beginning of the morning sessions; Haywood Torrence, Jr. (Bell Atlantic) moderated the brainstorming period. Twenty-eight brainstormed functions were created, some of which were merged with others to reduce the total number of functions to thirteen. Finally, votes were taken -- Affirmative, Negative, or Mixed -- to identify consensus functions. In this working group, consensus was achieved by a unanimous affirmative vote.

The functions, numbered 1 through 13 in the revised list below, incorporated the renumbering of some of the original functions (e.g., 15, 20, 22, 23, 24). Milton Mueller suggested clarifications by e-mail, which I have copied over the initial listing because his wording and clarity were superior to mine:

1. Set policy on IP numbers. This achieved consensus.
[By the way, responding to concerns about how this relates to IETF, by "set policy", we meant basically allocation and assignment of numbers, not messing with the protocols.
2. Operate root zone system. This achieved consensus.
3. Determine the number of TLDs. This achieved consensus.
4. Manage other technical parameters. This DID NOT achieve consensus.
5. Deal with trademark issues. This DID NOT achieve consensus.
6.Take over the management of country code TLDs. This DID NOT achieve consensus.
7. Non-economic oversight of registries and registrars. This achieved consensus.
(Note: "Non-economic" meant that we did not want NewCo to turn into a regulatory body that set prices and fixed the number of market participants.)
8. Run dispute mechanisms and appeals. This DID NOT achieve consensus.
9. Determine its own organizational structure and ensure sufficient financing. This achieved consensus.
10. Set uniform minimum standards, essentially a code of practice, for registrars and registries. This DID NOT achieve consensus. (see note 7, above)
11. Establish clear limits on the scope and power of the Board. This achieved consensus.
12. Identify privacy and security issues. This DID NOT achieve consensus.
24. Minimize barriers to entry. This achieved consensus.

The discussion during the afternoon focused only on the consensus functions. The pursuit of consensus was an excellent driver and filter for the Group A deliberations.

Progress for Group A was slower in the afternoon, at which time the group attempted to develop consensus guidelines associated with each of the consensus functions. Only three functions were discussed in the limited time available. The Group A report to all participants was as follows:


1. IP assignment and policy

a. ease of entry; reasonably equitable entry
b. minimal barriers; portability
c. oversight of ????
d. IANA and regional registries are subordinate to new organization

2. Root zone system

a. maintain coherence; maintain best interests of Internet and all Internet parties

3. nTLDs

a. effective, equitable policy
b. clear link to authority
c. Maximize competition
d. New organization has authority to create new TLDs.
e. ccTLDs may be considered (this guideline was left hanging)


4. Establish limits/scope of policy issues

5. Minimize barriers to entry

6. Establish organizational structure

a. Financially stable
b. Open dispute resolution
c. Organization evolution

Items a, b, c, d, and e can be considered as "guidelines" associated with the consensus functions.

The Group B report included the following consensus conclusions:

1. All processes must be open, fair, and transparent at all levels.

2. As a whole, the IFWP participants should act as the principle incorporators of the new organization. In other words, we can be considered to be the stakeholders.

[The author of this report advises readers to see the IFWP Transcript of Day 1, particularly Page 6, for the full discussion of the identification of stakeholders.]

3. There should be independent councils underneath the organization board. These three councils should focus on Internet names, numbers, and protocols.

4. An interim board should be created quickly.
5. There should be fair hearing panels.
6. We should pay attention to checks and balances.

Non-consensus items were:

1. Membership
2. Composition of membership
3. Nomination/Selection of the Board
4. Powers and constraints associated with final organization Board
5. Wither IP? A non-consensus issue

The reader is referred to the transcript of the audio tape for the consensus and non-consensus items associated with Group C.

Some participants believed that to be successful with this organization-creation press, rather than having broad powers, the new organization should have limited powers.

By Peter Rony


July 1, 1998 - 6:14 p.m.

Jay Fenello, President, Iperdome, Inc.

Subject: Report from GIAW

Just a quick note. We have just finished discussing the first day's topics, and:

- No one is dead!
- No one is bleeding!
- No one is bruised!

Actually, things are going quite well :-) Even though there is still much work to do, everyone seems to be working together to address the many issues that we now face.

We separated into three working groups, and each group tried to find areas of consensus, areas of disagreement, and even some questions that have been overlooked. These were then presented to the entire group -- all of which were recorded and will reportedly be available on the Net sometime next week.

I'll try to post more later. Until then. . .

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.


July 1, 1998 - 5:32 p.m.

David Schutt, Speco, Inc.

Subject: It's working

Well, the end of the first day, and it's a start. There is so much to digest, I can't say much specific about what's happening just yet, but I do have notes that I'll try and distill later.

One thing I do want to mention is that there is a lot of talk about inclusion, open processes, and open procedures. I'm not sure if everyone realizes yet what it will take to make that happen, it requires a -lot- of work. There are already examples of what can happen if people rush and skip steps, things happen that aren't documented in some way, and that leaves the door open for accusations of back room dealing. I hope that there will be enough volunteer archivers to prevent these kind of things.

Last thing, now is the time to participate if you wish to influence events! If you wish to contribute, you won't be turned away. Even if you, yourself, can't help, spread the word that events are moving fast, and now is the time to contribute your skills, ideas, and just plain hard work.

(speaking as an individual)

David Schutt
Speco, Inc.


July 1, 1998 - 11:41 a.m.

David Schutt, Speco, Inc.

Subject: It's started

Wow. The first thing that struck me as I watched people come into the conference room was that there were a lot of suits being worn. I was afraid that this meant that there would be a lack of diversity in the attendees, but I was wrong. It turns out that at least in the group that I was attending,(A) a considerable variety of interests was represented.

A lot of folks have made the effort to travel from overseas. They want a seat at the table, and they are willing to push for it.

This also doesn't seem to be an old boys network, either. There's a lot of gender and racial diversity, too. Cool.

It turns out that the opening proceedings are being recorded, and that they will be published on a web site. So, I won't say too much about the specifics. Tamar Frankel made the intro, then we heard Ira Magaziner. He talked about creating a new type of institution, and what the USG could and would do to help things along. He also made some suggestions, and emphasized the importance of setting aside animosity and distrust for now.

I thought Jon Postel was in attendance, but he asked Tamar to read a statement of support for him. IANA is supporting the process and has a statement up on their website.

Tamar then explained why the agenda was structured the way it is. She also expressed some reservations about the success of this whole process, and why she had them. She then said that the Internet's existence and the conditions it creates may make a difference this time around.

Then we got to work.

(speaking as an individual)

David Schutt
Speco, Inc.


June 30, 1998 - 10:40 p.m.

David Schutt, Speco, Inc.

Subject: Very first impressions

My wife and I are now ensconced in the Hyatt Regency Reston. I have bumped into a couple of people who are here for the IFWP, but haven't had a chance to really talk with anyone yet. All I can say is that whoever picked the accommodations has good taste in hotels.

I believe there were originally some plans for online access to this event, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. There may be some telephone connections available, but I expect to be posting from my room. I'll try to get up here and send some notes as things happen, but I'm not sure how often I'll be able to do that. I wish all of the participants good luck.

(speaking as an individual)

David Schutt
Speco, Inc.

The Domain Name Handbook: High Stakes and Strategies in Cyberspace
Copyright© 1998 Ellen Rony and Peter Rony

Website developed and maintained by Ellen Rony - Alexander Works, Tiburon, CA