RE: Submission of charter for POISON

[Jim Browning <[e-mail]>]

>From:  Erik Huizer (SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv)[SMTP:[e-mail]]
>Sent:  Friday, July 19, 1996 8:38 AM

>- ISOC Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation; These need to be published as
>  RFC(s).

Will POISSON be developing (or requiring) changes to these bylaws prior to 
their acceptance as RFCs?  With the authority granted to ISOC, I am very 
concerned that it has a very weak set of bylaws, which for instance:

A.  Do not state a clear purpose suited to its expanding role.
B.  Do not *require* election of trustees by its membership (Trustees can 
elect Trustees).
C.  Allow the Trustees to change the bylaws without a vote of the members.
D.  Do not require the reporting of activities or involvement of the 
membership in the decision process (requiring mailing lists would be nice)

The Charters, bylaws, and relationships established between the various 
entities need to be designed to survive the terms of individual Trustees. 
 This is best done by ensuring the participation and voice of the general 
membership.  An example of an ISOC action which has at least the 
*appearance* of being contrary to the relationships defined by the poised 
documents is the following:

>Resolution 96-05. International Top Level Domains
>
>RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Internet Society endorse in
>principle the proposal "New Registries and the Delegation of International 
>Top Level Domains", dated June 1996 by Jon Postel, and approve the role
>assigned to the Internet Society in this proposal. The Board authorises
>Postel, in his IANA role, to refine the proposal to include a business
>plan for review and approval by the Board.


The last sentence is troublesome, as it appears that ISOC is 
authorizing/directing the actions of IANA.  My understanding is that IANA 
acts independently of ISOC, as <draft-ietf-poised95-ietf-orgs-03.txt> 
states:

>The IANA functions as the "top
>   of the pyramid" for DNS and Internet Address assignment establishing
>   policies for these functions.


Given the volatility of the discussions surrounding iTLDs, not to mention 
the litigation over domain registrations and InterNIC policy, perceptions 
are extremely important, and this is creating troubling perceptions.  A 
proper response would be to ensure that ISOC bylaws are modified to correct 
the deficiencies I have outlined.  I have promised to comment on the new 
version of the bylaws when they are published, and will help in any way I 
can to advance this effort.
--
Jim Browning <[e-mail]>