Toothless Paper Tigers

[Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net>]

On Saturday, August 23, 1997 6:14 PM, Dan Steinberg[SMTP:dstein@TRAVEL-NET.COM] wrote:
<snip>
@ 
@ There were numerous complaints during the life of IAHC-DISCUSS that IAHC
@ members only posted in their personal capacity.  There have been
@ complaints on other fora that the varios gTLD-MoU players always post in
@ an individual capacity.  When the US govt. asked for comment....
@ 
@ Still nothing in an official capacity.  Just a bunch who think they
@ might just represent a constituency somewhere if only they had time to
@ come to an agreement.  Is this not disturbing?
@ 

In my opinion, you have to look at the history of the
IAHC and gTLD-MoU process. Approximately one year
ago (yes! a YEAR of people's time wasted), the IANA
was supposedly following up on the Internet Society's
Board directive[1] to put the final touches on a business
plan to allow companies to start operating commercial
registries. Various businesses were lead (or mislead)
that they should start operations. They made investments,
developed better software than the InterNIC, and started
working with customers.

As part of that process, the IANA "people", largely Jon
Postel and Bill Manning invited business people to USC/ISI
to plan those activities. This was in response to another
meeting that was called in Chicago between various business
people planning similar activities. It was natural that people
in California opted to go to USC/ISI while other people flew
from various places around the U.S. (and the world) to meet
in Chicago.

Unfortunately, these two meetings caused an impression to
be developed that those people attending the "official" IANA
meeting were given some sort of "inside track". As proof of
that, one of the companies described how the IANA openly
accepted a $1,000 application for their TLD. Other companies
had provided the IANA with applications, but had not heard
anything. This gave business people the impression that
face to face meetings carried a lot of weight.

As soon as it was reported that the IANA was accepting
applications with money, Jon Postel appeared and denied
the claim. As it turned out, evidently Postel was in one
room while Manning took the money in another. Several
people have reported how Manning ran back and forth between
the rooms getting direction. Manning even supplied the
envelope to put the money in, but later claimed he did not
know the money had been "slipped" in with the application.

To business people this sort of hocus-pocus did not have
any significance. The bottom line was that the ISOC Board
had approved everything[1], business people were INVITED
to USC/ISI, they went, made their applications, paid their
fees and then gave other business people the impression
they were "IN". This was all done to compete with the Chicago
meetings where no money was exchanged and the foundations
were laid for what eventually became the Root Name Server
Confederation approach to a free market system.

This sequence of events caused the IANA to turn to the ISOC
for more legal protection. At that time, Don Heath was the new
"CEO" of the ISOC. He was new to the Internet and placed in
the ISOC from a marketing position at MCI. The only other
significant ISOC operational executive, Marty Burack, also came
from MCI. The ISOC had a legal structure as an IRS approved
non-profit company and the IANA appeared to find comfort in
being able to toss the "hot potatoe" to the ISOC.

The IANA made this change by asking the ISOC to form the
IAHC to provide "advice" BACK to the IANA. The various business
people were shocked at the people appointed to the IAHC.
Some were clearly there to make sure nothing was done and
others were so new to the process they were apparently there
to make the IAHC look important but provide no resistance.
George Strawn from the NSF and FNC was added late and
provided the illusion of a U.S. Government seal of approval.

Without studying the several years of history of all of these
matters, the IAHC proceeded to deliberate. According to their
own schedule they were supposed to provide the IANA guidance
and registries would be operational in March of 1997. Some
business people assumed that the ISOC directed IAHC process
could be trusted. They participated, assuming that the IAHC
members would fully understand the details of the history and
quickly come to the consensus that the business community
had already developed. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.

Instead, the IAHC did more than provide the IANA with advice.
Instead, the IAHC developed a self-perpetuating plan that
satisfied the three "camps" represented on the IAHC:

1. Trademark Lawyers - Apparently did not want any new
TLDs because they do not want their client's trademarks to
be dilluted by allowing other companies with similar names
to have meanigful TLDs.

2. Control Geeks - These people have been part of this process
since day one and their agenda is clear. They do not want
any business people to prosper unless they are somehow at
the center of the control mechanism. They worship the IANA
and intentionally give the business community fits. Some play
all day from University-funded machines and have nothing
better to do. As long as the process continues they are happy.

3. Beauraucrats - These people appear to care less about the
Internet and the Registry Industry. They are also satisfied as long
as the process continues and they still have a job flying around
the world writing one document after another and cloning one
committee after another. Schedules and the customers waiting
are of no concern to this group.

Missing from the IAHC process was representation by the real
stakeholders. The business people that had been strung along
by the IANA (and the ISOC) were not represented. That was
carefully handled when the IAHC was hand-picked to provide
advice to the IANA. Other stakeholders were not on the IAHC's
radar screen. The IAHC (vocal) members made it clear they could
care less and proceeded in their arrogant, closed, non-inclusive
process to create a "paper tiger".

Because of a lack of business management skills on the part
of the IANA and the ISOC Board of Trustees. The IAHC process
was not stopped in early 1997 and the plan to provide advice
was not enforced. Instead, the IAHC was pulled into a whirlpool
of international politics and the venue moved to Geneva, Switzerland
to provide some air of authority. At that point, business people
could see that the process was clearly not going to focus on
the real issues.

The IAHC members have now admitted that they are "pacing"
the process to the March 1998 NSF-InterNIC contract end.
There is no concern for the promises made 6, 9 or 12 months
ago. At this point there is apparently no concern for the
directives issued by the ISOC Board in June of 1996 [1]. Those
directives helped start this process.

The IAHC process has yet to field any operational registries
or Root Name Server Confederations. Don Heath of the ISOC
and George Strawn of the NSF/FNC exited from the scene shortly
after the IAHC was declared to be done. Since that time, the
paper tiger continues to prowl the countryside but it lacks teeth
because there has not been any focus on real networks, real
servers, real registries, real software, etc. Instead, a completely
new set of business people have now entered the scene to ride
on the back of this tiger which claims to be ready to take on the
world. These people are largely brokers waiting to cash in on the
lucrative Registry Industry. They openly admit they do not intend
to provide any of the infrastructure needed. Some are taking
pre-registrations and customers are being mislead. The ISOC
apparently does not care, it has handed the hot potatoe to this
new group.

The ISOC Board of Trustees apparently is not involved. One
Board member told me he "stood outside the room" when
the voite was taken last June, so he is not legally liable. This
seems to be one of the naive approaches used by academics
who dabble in business matters. They think they can stand
in one room and direct people in another and not be asked
later about their decisions or directives.

It is somewhat ironic that the business people the ISOC and IANA
needed one year ago to help bring stability to this industry have now
developed their own directions and are not around to help the IAHC
advocates. These companies have been making progress
despite the IANA and NSF's blockade from entry into the legacy
Root Name Servers. The U.S. Government has made it clear that
these private inititiatives which help to create more jobs and which
help to spread the wealth around the U.S. and the world will be the
direction they support.

This is the same direction supported by the ISOC Board of Trustees
over one year ago. Unfortunately, the IANA apparently never refined
the proposal "to include a business plan for review and approval by
the Board". Apparently, the ISOC Board does not have the management
skills to follow up on its own directives. As a result of this the business
people with strong management skills have gone in other directions
because it is clear the ISOC will continue to sire toothless "paper tigers".

======= References =====
[1] June 1996
	ISOC Board of Trustees - ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
		Montreal, Quebec, Canada
		<http://www.isoc.org/trustees/96-004.htm>
		"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."
==========================

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation