Re: The Price Of Admission. Unacceptable.

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jim and all,

Jim Dixon wrote:
> 
> 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.

  That is my understanding.  I have tried to explain this to Kent.
But it seems that he hasn't done his homework very well in this
area.
> 
> 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.

  According to one of Kents previous postings this concern is
being addressed.  As to how and under what sort of policy,
I do not know.  However I would be very interested.  IMHO,
these ISP reps should be elected by their customers.
> 
> So in Kent's first three sentences we then have a number of errors
> and erroneous assumptions

  Yes I pointed this out in an earlier post on this thread.
> 
> > 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.

  Aren't the members elected by majority vote as well?
> 
> 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".

  Yes possibly.  But I don't believe this should be the case or
situation.  Indeed ISP's should have a strong influence, but not
control.
> 
> In fact, if you are going to count votes, ISPs are a large minority
> interest in Nominet.

  As it should be.
> 
> 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?

  Well certainly not Trademark lawyers!  >;)  Seriously however,
Domain name holders< ISP's, Internet users, Educational institutions,
and "Other commercial companies" should share this duty.
> 
> 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.

  Very true, and one of the worst structural problems of the gTLD-MoU.
> 
> And if we agree that CORE is answerable to POC that committee represents
> even less of the Internet community.

  Good point.  But CORE has some influence as well.
> 
> And if anything in the world is answerable to PAB no one seems to have
> noticed it.

  They are only "Observers" on POC, and only 2 observers at that.
> 
> > PAB is a self-selected group who agree to an organizational structure
>          *******************************

  And this is a serious problem.  Lack of inclusion and openness is
very evident here.
> 
> 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.

  And not a bad idea in theory, though I realize this is an extream
example that you use here Jim.  >;)  Point well taken.
> 
> 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.

  Not unless they had oversite through a actual vote on POC.
> 
> > 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.

  I think you pointed out some of those truthes quite well here, Jim.
> 
> >                                       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?

  I believe that it was Dave C.  But I am sure that will be corrected
if I am mistaken.
> 
> > 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.

  And three years is just a bit too long.
> 
> 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.

  Yes, and that also is a concern.  However I am willing to give the 
bennifit of the doubt.
> 
> > 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.

  And this is a very key point.  As I have posted three time now
on this point.  "Other commercial interests" have no chance of any
representation on CORE or POC as it is currently structured.  
This is not reaching out to the Internet Community, not an open
forum.
> 
> > 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.

  Hummmm? I had not really though about this point at all.  
> 
> The trademark lobby has an iron grip on CORE.  Their interests are
> protected.

  That is why I believe that WIPO should not have representation
to CORE or POC.
> 
> But the domain name holder has no obvious contract with CORE and
> therefore no obvious redress in the event of any dispute.

  Yes, only indirectly.
> 
> 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 this is the gTLD=MoU's primary purpose.  Not the structure of
the DNS system.
> 
> >                                                        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.

  I cannot agree more with you here Jim.  Many of us have been
saying this over and over for some time.  Offered many possible
solutions, and very little response has be forthcoming.
> 
> > 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

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com