Re: The Price Of Admission. Unacceptable.

[Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net>]

On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:

> According to Jim, a large percentage of the Nominet members are ISPs, 
> and almost all ISPs are members.  For similar reasons, one would 
> therefore expect that CORE would have many ISPs as members, probably 
> a majority.  Therefore, the CORE representatives to POC will 
> substantially represent ISPs.

In actual fact most of Nominet's members are NOT ISPs, although all
or nearly all UK ISPs belong to Nominet.

On the other hand none of CORE's soon-to-be members are ISPs, to be 
best of my knowledge.  So the "therefore" doesn't follow at all.
If anything the very different composition of CORE suggests that it
doesn't fit the Nominet model.  

So in Kent's first three sentences we then have a number of errors
and erroneous assumptions

> However, as far as I can see, Nominet has no other oversight body, 
> whereas the MoU specifies two for CORE.  Nominet is answerable to its 
> members; its members are answerable to no one. 

This is also wrong.  Nominet is a monopoly and as such is subject to
laws requiring that it be fairly and efficiently run.  

But the essential consideration is that nearly all organizations 
involved in the commercial Internet in the UK are owner-members of
Nominet.  
 
>                                                While that organization 
> works well in the Nominet case one might ask why is it that ISPs are the 
> ones who determine domain name policy.  Shouldn't other constituencies 
> on the net have a say about domain names?

By now, the distortion is in high gear: "ISPs are the ones who determine
domain name policy".  

In fact, if you are going to count votes, ISPs are a large minority 
interest in Nominet.

On the other hand, one must add, who is better qualified to determine
domain name policy than ISPs?  Telcos, who consider the Internet a 
nuisance?  Trademark lawyers?

In fact one of Nominet's greatest strengths is that the people in the
UK who best understand DNS are in fact the owner/members of Nominet.

> CORE, by contrast, is answerable to its members *and* to  PAB/POC.  

Oh yes.  CORE is answerable to its handful of members; but unlike
Nominet these represent a tiny fraction of the Internet community.

And if we agree that CORE is answerable to POC that committee represents
even less of the Internet community.

And if anything in the world is answerable to PAB no one seems to have
noticed it.

> PAB is a self-selected group who agree to an organizational structure 
         *******************************

Exactly.  Nominet's members are people who are actively involved in 
DNS.  PAB's members are people who agree -- that is the only criterion
for membership.

Someone may want to correct me, but I believe that if the entire 
kindergarten class from Hollister, California, signed the MOU then 
we would have 20 or 30 new voting members of the PAB.  

Now I suspect that these new PAB members would have precisely the
same amount of effect as the current members of the PAB, so perhaps
it would make no difference.

> and certain principles -- membership open to anyone who agrees to those 
> things; POC is selected from a wide range of groups 
> who are stakeholders in domain names. 

Notice the "is selected" bit here.  Selected by who?

Nominet's members put down their 500 pounds and join the mob.  They
have an immediate and real say in how Nominet is run.  Those who 
are willing to put in the time and build support will get elected 
to the board by the membership.  Those who don't know anything 
about the Internet, who are there just to promote outside interests,
will find themselves ignored.

There is something deeply right about Nominet.  And there is something
deeply wrong about PAB/POC/CORE.

>                                       Like it or not, intellectual 
> property issues do impact domain names; therefore IP interests need 
> to be represented; they have two out of 12 votes presently, and that 
> percentage will be less when the MoU is amended.  Telcos have a 
> similar small representation; there is no reason to think that telcos 
> and IP representatives will collude on anything, and even if they did 
> they collectively are not capable of passing anything.

Who wrote CORE's articles of association?  

> And as a Nominet member you sign an agreement agreeing to the
> principles and organization of Nominet.  The agreement even has a
> clause to the effect that you agree not to do anything that makes
> Nominet look bad, as I recall... 

Yep.  And Kent, you can join.  And if you join and put in some time
and say sensible things, people will listen to you.  And if you are
willing to put in even more time, you will become one of Nominet's
directors.

Now look at the PAB/POC/CORE.  It's nothing at all like Nominet.
 
> > The Nominet board was elected.  By the members.  Democratically.
> 
> I imagine that CORE will elect a board, as well.  However, that is 

> for the ISPs and other members to decide, I guess -- it is their 
> organization -- just like Nominet. 

What ISPs?  Have any ISPs applied to become CORE registrars?  

Actually, it's interesting to look at the CORE articles in this regard.
When (if?) CORE begins, the dozen or so members will elect an 
executive committee (board).  The members of this committee will hold
their positions for three years.

Three years.  

There are nine seats on the committee, so nearly all of the original 
registrars will be on the committee and will control CORE for three 
years.

> Consider your example of democratic process, Nominet.  The members
> freely elect their board (as CORE will almost assuredly do), but you
> have to pay $800 to be a member (with CORE you have to pay much more,
> but that will change to a level similar to Nominet).  

Notice how promises outweigh reality.  CORE will "almost assuredly"
freely elect their board.  The financial requirements for CORE 
membership are ($310,000/$800) four hundred times higher than those
for Nominet membership, but "that will change".  Maybe.  Someday.

> Because of the obvious self-selection process the membership of
> Nominet is composed of people in the Internet business -- mostly ISPs 
> and similar businesses.  Now, it may not be obvious to your 
> democratic sensibility, but it is obvious to mine: such a composition 
> is *not* representative of the internet community at large, 

It's not obvious to anyone that all that this is true.  In fact the 
opposite is true: Nominet is very much representative of the UK 
Internet community.  

> than the average ISP.  But the average sporting goods store is not 
> going to pay $800 to get a say in domain name policy.

Yes indeed.  And that is because in nearly all cases they have never
heard of DNS and have no views at all.

But if they did, they could join Nominet.  But they couldn't join
CORE.
 
> Nominet has no structured way to get policy input from other 
> constituencies. 

I don't know precisely what you mean by "structured way".  Anyone who
cares can have a say.  If they make sense, people will listen.
 
> Furthermore, this is *far* more important in an international 
> context.  With Nominet, if you don't like something you can sue in a 
> British court, and if you have a good case, likely win.  

This is a very interesting point.  With CORE as a Swiss company and
its registrars scattered all over the world and users having 
relationships only with the CORE registrars ... if you don't like
something, you are in a legal zoo.

The trademark lobby has an iron grip on CORE.  Their interests are
protected.  

But the domain name holder has no obvious contract with CORE and 
therefore no obvious redress in the event of any dispute.

This is part of the systemic problem with PAB/POC/CORE: it has been
constructed in such a way as to elevate the rights of trademark
holders over domain name holders.  

>                                                        And suppose 
> after 10 years of operation Nominet is down to 15 members, as market 
> forces have weeded out the small players.  If those 15 members 
> ...

Yes, suppose, suppose, suppose.  But please ignore the reality that
CORE begins at 15 members and only promises that it will ever 
become larger.

> Immediately I imagine Jim Dixon's cheap shot "The MoU provides tyranny
> of the minority!", so I will answer it before he even has the chance:

Jim Dixon never said such a thing.  As I have said before, an MOU,
a memorandum of understanding, provides for nothing much.  MOUs have
no legal weight.  You sign an MOU when you aren't prepared to sign
a contract.

> The POC does *not* run CORE -- it sets policy.  Many POC
> representatives will be selected through *elections* from their
> sponsoring organizations (the PAB observers were elected.) POC members
> have a limited term.  In other words, the POC is a pretty democratic
> body.

This is one of the most confused series of statements I have ever read.
You are trying to argue that an organization as cloudy as PAB/POC/CORE
(0.1% support from the Internet community?) is somehow in the same league 
as Nominet (near 100% support).  You are suggesting that your chain of
committees is somehow morally superior to an organization that has as
its membership nearly the entire Internet community.  Try harder.

> Now, there is no guarantee that everybody on the POC will be good.  
> Through accident or plot, bad management could get in, just like it 
> could in Nominet.  However, the wide range of constituencies 
> represented makes it very unlikely that this will happen.  

I am sorry, I am really out of patience with this.  The way that
PAB/POC/CORE is being assembled and run pretty much guarantees
bad management.  What you are saying is that management by a 
hierarchy of committees is even more efficient than management
by committee.

The IAHC/PAB/POC/CORE spend their time dancing among the clouds.  
They have no interest in building any support among the Internet
community.  They consider that unimportant.  And they have no 
interest in seeing whether any of this will really work.

If I were running this process, the first thing that I would have
done is put up a server for .firm, .store, and the other silly new
gTLDs.  There would be only test data on the server, but I would
ask NSI to point the root name servers at it.

If NSI won't do that, this entire exercise is a complete waste of
time.  At minimum we will go into a litigation phase lasting months.

There is no guarantee at all that NSI will put .firm and the rest
in the root zone.  In fact they have a strong interest in not doing
so.  

If PAB/POC/CORE had effective management, they would be working in
the Internet community to build support.  Instead the POC makes a
point of saying that anyone who speaks against them on lists like
this will be ignored.  

If PAB/POC/CORE had effective management, they would have tested
NSI's intentions a year ago and they would be registering names 
now.

>                                                            Bad 
> management is far more likely when you have an organization with 
> homogeneous membership, where people all know each other, and 
> groupthink takes over.

"Bad management is far more likely when you have an organization 
of people who know what they are doing.  They all think alike.
Let's bring in some people who don't have a clue."

--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
-----------------------------------hobbies---------------------------------
Member of Council                                                 President
Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679                                     tel +32 2 230 7560