Domain Name Handbook
DNS NewsDomain DisputesU.S. PolicyICANNMailing ListsArchivesTable of ContentsReviews & CitesViewpointAcknowledgmentGlossarySpecial FeaturesBooklist

Contact | Order | Site | News | Disputes | Policy | ICANN | Lists | Archives
Contents | Reviews | Viewpoint | Acknowledgment | Glossary | Special Features | Booklist
IFWP: International Forum on the White Paper - ASIA/PACIFIC
Singapore - August 11-13, 1998
Orchard Hotel


IFWP: Singapore Report on this Site

Other IFWP: Singapore Links


The following notes from the Singapore IFWP are posted with permission of the respective authors.

Singapore notes - August 14, 1998

Laina Raveendran Greene
Yesterday (13th August) was the last day of the Asia Pacific International Forum on the
White Paper meeting. There were about 150 participants, mainly from the US. While this meeting may not have appeared to produce the kind of concensus documents as they did in Reston, and Geneva, from my opinion what was key was the fact that many people in the US were hearing developing countries and Asian views for the first time.
Half way through the meeting, having had informational sessions and having heared from the key stakeholders in the US, the developing country and AP participants got together over lunch to dicsuss issues of concern to them. After this lunch, when the delegates resumed for the Plenary, the front row seats were reserved for the developing country and AP participants, and they were able to speak up. Rather than have them line up behind a microphone to speak (which is neither in most of their cultures and is a little intimidating), the mic was passed around to the delegates in the front row. It was VERY interesting to hear the views of China, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Korea, etc etc. The meeting was a great demonstration of the need to accomodate and be patient with cross cultural issues.
Many in this region felt it was too early for them to develop concensus points since some were hearing the issues for the first time. Others were key stakeholders too busy crisis managing, introducing Internet for the first time, etc to have time to dedicate to follow the tons of e-mail over these issues. Others were concerned that issues did not consider developing country interest- therefore regional representation was important. Some others were concerned about the fact that disqualifying governments on the Board, may disqualify a lot of "private sector" from this region,which by culture and definition has heavy government involvement, most ccTLDs NICs especially.
Having their input itself was very useful. If the IFWP stands for inclusiveness and openess, then certainly many more new voices were heared for the first time. There was not however enough regional representation given the brief notice people had for this meeting, and there was a talk of the need to mobilise the region even greater to ensure we have a voice in the process. The new IANA will greatly impact this region, and we need to make sure we are not ignored. The concern was therefore how will this input be considered in the IFWP process.
Interestingly the Europeans found they had much in common with some views expressed, and some exchange here will be beneficial indeed. At the end of the day, there were those US and in-the-know players that were upset that more was not done, while there were others who were open enough to acknowledge that the key success was the hearing of new voices. Luckily there was many of the latter around, for us to feel that the Singapore meeting did fulfill some
key objectives.
The next regional meeitng will be in Buenos Aires, and I think that the representatives from that region who were at our meeting were encouraged by the process. They too have their region of wide interests, and with some players just catching up with the game. I would strongly encourage key stakeholders who want the process to have legitimacy, to go to that meeting and LISTEN to what people there have to say. The regional meetings are a good informational meeting, but more importantly, a great source of input into this process. A good listening ear will certainly help the process gain legitimacy.
Just some thoughts I thought I would share. The transcripts and documents I was told will be out by next week. So look out for it at either the website or the website.
Some other important developments from my point of view....when we had a small BOF session for the lawyers, NSI indicated to us that they are not assuming that they will be the ones who will redraft their input, but they are offering it to IFWP, and are merely trying to help reflect the consensus of the group.
Also, after a long evening session of "legal session", it appeared that IANA also would not claim that theirs was the only draft. They were willing to work with NSI and others to come up with a version that better reflects the concensus of the meetings....good strat at least for this region, for those who are confused as to which is the "legitimate" draft that they are to comment on.
Laina Raveendran Greene


Personal observations: Singapore, on balance

Jay Fenello, President of Iperdome, Inc.
Now that I've had a chance to recuperate, here are some personal observations on Singapore.
My report begins with the Tuesday panel discussion. It was designed to give some background to those who were new to the White Paper and the IFWP process.
Originally, the panel was only going to include members of the "old guard." Thankfully, this format was changed, and over 10 different presenters gave a short overview.
For my part, I described this debate as one of two competing philosophies, each with the best interests of the Internet at heart, each with diametrically opposed beliefs. I concluded with what I considered to be the most important factor for success of the IFWP -- that of balance. It was a theme that would be repeated many times in Singapore.
Next, the WWccTLD people presented their plan for the new Names Council. When they were done, I pointed out that they forgot to include Network Solutions in their \organization (significant, because they administer more than 2/3rds of all domain names in existence), nor did they include any of the prospective registries that have been waiting to enter this new industry.
[I understand that the WWccTLD group agreed that they made an oversight by excluding these and other groups at the Names Council meeting. I did not hear this directly, nor have I seen this officially confirmed.]
As the afternoon session ended, I saw a small group of people meeting in the back of the room. Wondering what was going on, I jumped in to discover what appeared to be some lawyers trying to decide what they should discuss at their evening session.
One suggested that they prepare a graphic that could help people visualize the new organization, the various councils, and how membership and other organizations might be represented in the New Corp. So I gave him a copy of my own graphic "A Representational Framework
for Internet Governance," which I just happened to have with me :-)
The next morning, this diagram actually ended up being used in a presentation -- not because it was the answer, but because it covered all of the bases. It showed the decision making bodies of the New Corp as boxes, it showed potential stakeholder groups as circles, and it showed how each of the boxes were controlled by each of the circles.
[As an aside, I've noticed an ongoing debate about representation on the lists. I'd like to reiterate
my belief that both need to be represented, one as the "general membership" class, and one as the
"representative membership" class. This again results in balance, which is necessary to prevent capture.]
This session concluded with a discussion about other possible representational structures, and their corresponding diagrams.
[As another aside, Iperdome will be happy to host other diagrams of representation for the New Corp. We will also make changes to our existing diagram based on suggestions. Please contact me directly if you would like contribute.]
The last day, we had the breakouts on the Names Council and the Address/Protocols Councils. Although I was not there for most of it, the Names Council turned into quite a food fight. Eventually, it looked like some consensus was reached, but I'll leave that for others to report.
Personally, the most valuable part of the whole trip occurred at an informal dinner the final night. There, one of the Australian government representatives and I had a lively debate about for-profit vs. non-profit registries. Eventually, we came to a mutually agreeable consensus. In many ways, it was a perfect mirror of my experience in Geneva -- people will support reasonable positions when they are given all of the facts.
In general, though, this was not like the previous two IFWP meetings. There were no consensus calls to speak of, and there were no new issues of particular interest to the region.
One local described it as "when worlds collide -- the brash Americans, the arrogant Europeans, and the polite Asians. While the MoU supporters and the new stakeholders threw food at each other, your gracious hosts were trying to figure it all out."
On another level, however, it was one of understanding. I not only understand this region better now, but I've made some new friends that I want to help in any way I can.
At the same time, they too have gained much understanding. Not only about the controversy, but also about the passions and the cultures involved in this debate.
In closing, I found the members of the Asia-Pacific region to be friendly, very polite, and very reasonable in their approach. Balance, it would appear, is a concept that is well understood -- and supported, in this part of the world.
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.

AP-IFWP Panel Discussion Notes

Jay Fenello, President of Iperdome, Inc.

My name is Jay Fenello, President of Iperdome, Inc., a prospective registry for the .per TLD.
I'm very thankful for this opportunity to speak here today.
For this section, I'm going to try and provide some perspective on the gTLD-MoU, the White Paper,
and the IFWP process. Over the next couple of days, you will hear a great many opinions on these topics. Some call t the "great debate," while others call it the "great food-fight."
So what's it all about?
On one side of this debate, you have the "old guard." They are the engineers, academia and
others who were instrumental in building the Internet, and instrumental in making it the success that it is today. They include the IANA, the ISOC, POC/PAB/CORE, etc.

On the other, you have the new stakeholder communities. These are the businesses, the trademark holders, and the advocates for privacy, free speech and other social issues. They include Network Solutions, Iperdome, the DNRC, etc.

Both sides have strong beliefs. Both sides want what's best for the Internet. Most importantly, *both* sides are right!

So, as we go forward, let's realize . . .
This is *not* about who is right and who is wrong -- this *is* about balance.
  • Balance between Domain Name holders and Domain Name Registries,
  • Balance between IP Address holders and IP Registries,
  • Balance between Trademark holders and Domain Name holders.

In short, balance between *all* Internet users, and *all* Internet providers.

In closing, I'd like to reiterate the goals of the White Paper as stated by Becky Burr:

"We are looking for a globally and functionally representative organization, operated on the basis of sound and transparent processes that protect against capture by self-interested factions, and that provides robust, professional management. The new entity's processes need to be fair, open, and pro-competitive. And the new entity needs to have a mechanism for evolving to reflect changes in the constituency of Internet stakeholders."

Thank you for this opportunity to speak here today.

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.

The following individuals were participants at the IFWP: Asia/Pacific in Singapore on August 11-13, 1998. This list is distilled from the registration data posted at

Mr Adam Peake <>
Mr Adam Todd <>
Ms Adelene Yeo <>
Mr Adrian Stewart <>
Ms Agnes Lee <>
Mr Amadeu Abril i Abril <>
Dr Ang Peng Hwa <>
Ms Angela Chan <>
Mrs Anne-Kathrin Orth <>
Mrs Atreyi Kankanhalli <>
Mrs Azmah binti Abd Malik <>
Mr Bernard Turcotte <>
Mr Boon Hing, Khoo <>
Mrs Carolyn Lee <>
Mr Calvin Browne <>
Mr Cheah Cheng Poh <>
Dr Chen Lih-Shyang <>
Mr Chhay Ea <>
Mr Chuck Gomes <>
Mr Chun Wu <>
Mr Clive Flory <>
Mr Dan Steinberg <>
Ms Dani Kirkeby <>
Mr Daniel Kaplan <>
Ms Dao Thi Thanh Huyen <>
Mr Dave Crocker <>
Mr David Chou <>
Prof David Farber <>
Mr David M. Graves <>
Mr Desmond Ee <>
Mr Didier Hueber <>
Ms Djolakian Laurence <>
Mr Donald (Don) M. Heath <>
Dr Donald N. Telage <>
Mr Edmundo Valenti <>
Mr Einar Stefferud <>
Ms Eleazer Chia <>
Dr Emmanuel C. Lallana <>
Mr Eric Lee <>
Dr Erica Roberts <>
Ms Fay Howard <>
Ms Fiona Yeo <>
Mr Gabriel A. Battista <>
Mr Gabriel Accascina <> <>
Mr Gary Hayward <>
Mr Gerry Faigal <>
Dr Gihan Dias <>
Ms Hatsue Ogawa <>
Mr Homer Tan <>
Prof Hualin Qian <>
Mr Izumi Aizu <>
Mr j emmanuel disini <>
Mr J. Christopher Clough <>
Mr J. William Semich <>
Dr James Lee <>
Mr Jim Dixon <>
Mr Johar Alam <>
Dr John C Klensin <>
Mr John Wood <>
Dr Kanchana Kanchanasut <>
Dr Kate Lance <>
Mr Keith Mitchell <>
Mr Kenneth Neil Cukier <>
Dr Kido Takashi <>
Mr kilnam chon <>
Mr Kuo Wu <>
Ms Lafontaine Isabelle <>
Ms Laina R. Greene <>
Mr Lau Kok Keng <>
Mr Leni Mayo <>
Mr lim kian kim <>
Ms Linda Ma'moon <>
Mr Linh Tang <>
Ms Lorraine Anne Tay <>
Dr Manjeet Singh <>
Mr Marcel Schneider <>
Ms Margie Ong <>
Mr Mark Measday <>
Mr Martin Green <>
Mr Martin Maguire <>
Mr Masaya Toma <>
Mr Mathias Koerber <>
Mr Michael Schneider <>
Ms Mikki Barry <>
Mr Mohd Taufiq B Md Daros <>
Mr Naomasa Maruyama <>
Ms Naphtali Irene Tham <>
Dr Nii N. Quaynor <>
Mr Noel Mobiha <>
Mr Norbert Klein <>
Mr Oscar Robles <>
Ms Ou-Yang Shin-Chiung <>
Mr Patrick Fair <>
Mr Patrick Greenwell <>
Dr Paul Twomey <>
Mr Paul Wilson <>
Mrs Pensri Arunwatanamongkol <>
Mr Pindar Wong <>
Mr Qin Qian <>
Mr R.Shridhar <>
Mr Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim <>
Mr Rajesh Sreenivasan <>
Mr Randy Bush <> <>
Mr Richard Sexton <>
Mr Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Mr Robert Korzeniewski <>
Mr S. Chandra <>
Ms Sally Davis <>
Mr Sea Nareth <>
Mr Seungmin Lee <>
Ms Shariya Haniz Zulkifli <>
Mr Soh Kar Liang <> <>
Prof Sooyoun Lee <>
Prof Srisakdi Charmonman <>
Mr Stafford Guest <>
Mr Steve Silver <>
Dr Sunil Kumar <>
Mr Tadashi Miyamoto <>
Dr Tan Tin Wee <><>
Mr Teddy Affan Purwadi <>
Mr Tommy Ho <>
Mr Toru Takahashi <>
Mr Xu Chu <>
Ms Theresa C. Swinehart <>
Ms Tiong Lee Lan <>
Dr Tommi Chen <>
Dr Tsen Lee-Ming <>
Ms Wu Haixin <>
Ms Yaap Yong Siew <>
Ms Zhao Fu <>
Dr Zita Wenzel <>













DNS in Congress

Policy statements and Congressional testimony on private sector implementation of the U.S. government Internet White Paper.


International Forum on the White Paper

Meetings in Summer 1998 which culminated with the creation of ICANN.

Contact | Order | Site | News | Disputes | Policy | ICANN | Lists | Archives
Contents | Reviews | Viewpoint | Acknowledgment | Glossary | Special Features | Booklist
 The Domain Name Handbook: High Stakes and Strategies in Cyberspace
Copyright© 1998 Ellen Rony and Peter Rony. All Rights Reserved.