On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 Jay@Iperdome.com wrote: Please remove nanog@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 ==>