Difference between revisions of "Green Paper"

From ICANNWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
==Response to the Green Paper==
 
==Response to the Green Paper==
 +
===IAB Comments===
 +
On February 28, 1998, the Internet Architecture Board ([[IAB]]) through its chairman [[Brian Carpenter]] expressed several comments regarding the Green Paper to then White House Senior Policy Advisor [[Ira Magaziner]] which include:<ref>
 +
[http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199802/msg00044.html IAB Comments on the Green Paper]</ref>
 +
* The IAB supported the proposal of the Gree Paper for the creation of a new corporation that will take over the technical administration of internet from the U.S. government.
 +
* The definition of registry is confusing for the internet community and it needs clarification. IAB also emphasized that there are no technical limitations for the management of registration data base and suggested that U.S. government should allow self-governance for the new corporation and let it determine how many [[registries]] or [[gTLD]]s should be implemented.
 +
* The IAB is concerned about the proposed coordination responsibility of the new corporation with regards to the development of other technical protocol parameters as needed to maintain the connectivity on the Internet globally. Instead of using the word "development," IAB suggested to replace it with the word "assignment" to make it more consistent with the current relationship between [[IANA]] and [[IETF]].
 +
* IAB supported the current authority of IANA and expressed its willingness to provide technical assistance to strengthen that authority.
 +
 +
===DNRC Comments===
 
The Domain Name Rights Coalition ([[DNRC]]), a working group under the Association for the Creation and Propagation of Internet Policy ([[A-TCPIP]]) supported the Green Paper, however the organization identified  four key issues that needs to be addressed which include:<ref>[http://www.netpolicy.com/maglet980202.html Open Letter to Ira Magaziner, White House, from DNRC board members, regarding the newly released Internet Green Paper, February 2, 1998]</ref>
 
The Domain Name Rights Coalition ([[DNRC]]), a working group under the Association for the Creation and Propagation of Internet Policy ([[A-TCPIP]]) supported the Green Paper, however the organization identified  four key issues that needs to be addressed which include:<ref>[http://www.netpolicy.com/maglet980202.html Open Letter to Ira Magaziner, White House, from DNRC board members, regarding the newly released Internet Green Paper, February 2, 1998]</ref>
 
# Failure of the Green Paper to affirm that communication and free speech as the core principle in internet development
 
# Failure of the Green Paper to affirm that communication and free speech as the core principle in internet development

Revision as of 03:30, 13 October 2011

UnderConstruction.png

The Green Paper entitled A Proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses was released by the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) in the Federal Register on February 20, 1998 which calls for the creation of a new non-profit corporation to take over the management of the DNS.It also proposes competition and registration of domain names. [1]

Background

On July 1, 1997, President Bill Clinton instructed the Department of Commerce to privatize the management of the DNS as part of the administrations Framework for Global Electronic Commerce. The administration's objective is to increase competition and to encourage international participation. The Department of Commerce responded immediately to the President's instruction and issued a Request For Comments (RFC) which discusses the governments overall framework of the DNS administration, the creation of new top level domains (TLD), policies for domain name registrars and trademark issues on July 2, 1997. NTIA received 430 comments. The Green Paper was released by the NTIA based on the inputs provided by the internet community on the RFC. [2]

Proposals

The Green Paper proposed the establishment of a globally represented not for profit corporation to handle the technical management of the DNS. Stability, competition, private, bottom-up coordination and representations should be the guiding principles in establishing a new organization that will handle the DNS of the internet. [3]

Response to the Green Paper

IAB Comments

On February 28, 1998, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) through its chairman Brian Carpenter expressed several comments regarding the Green Paper to then White House Senior Policy Advisor Ira Magaziner which include:[4]

  • The IAB supported the proposal of the Gree Paper for the creation of a new corporation that will take over the technical administration of internet from the U.S. government.
  • The definition of registry is confusing for the internet community and it needs clarification. IAB also emphasized that there are no technical limitations for the management of registration data base and suggested that U.S. government should allow self-governance for the new corporation and let it determine how many registries or gTLDs should be implemented.
  • The IAB is concerned about the proposed coordination responsibility of the new corporation with regards to the development of other technical protocol parameters as needed to maintain the connectivity on the Internet globally. Instead of using the word "development," IAB suggested to replace it with the word "assignment" to make it more consistent with the current relationship between IANA and IETF.
  • IAB supported the current authority of IANA and expressed its willingness to provide technical assistance to strengthen that authority.

DNRC Comments

The Domain Name Rights Coalition (DNRC), a working group under the Association for the Creation and Propagation of Internet Policy (A-TCPIP) supported the Green Paper, however the organization identified four key issues that needs to be addressed which include:[5]

  1. Failure of the Green Paper to affirm that communication and free speech as the core principle in internet development
  2. A diverse representation is needed to the Board of the proposed new structure
  3. The Green Paper must clearly explain how to achieve accountability and transparency and provide opportunity for the internet community to comment on ongoing policy developments
  4. The Green Paper needs to provide a better option in implementing Trademark Law

References