Re: The Price Of Admission. Unacceptable.

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

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Jeff Williams wrote:

> > 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.

If CORE is not to fall flat on its face, we need a little less 
political theory and a large dose of practicality.  CORE needs
someone involved who actually has a good practical understanding
of the Internet.  In short, CORE needs full time staff run by an
Internet professional.  Instead the plan is for a committee to 
run it.

Good luck.

> > 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?

If you mean board members, yes.  

> > 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.

Uhm, why?  Or better, why talk like this at all?  It doesn't really 
matter so much who makes the decisions, what matters is that the
thing works.  I don't recall any discussions at Nominet being 
guided by this sort of politically correct thinking.  No one counts
to see how many speakers are ISPs and how many are people running
Web sites, or how many are white males and how many are Asian women.
What matters is what is being said.

> > 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.

Why should educational institutions decide how domains in
the commercial name space should be managed??  In the UK at least,
academics have and manage their own name space.  I believe that it's
the same in the US and most other places.

> > 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.

Is it an extreme example?  It underlines one of the many fatal flaws
in the gTLD MOU approach.

Politics is supposed to be practical.  It provides a playing field
where those with strong interests can get together and with a bit
of rough and tumble work out what policy should be.  

That kindergarten class would increase the gTLD MOU's support by 
a factor of 20% or so.  Doesn't this suggest to you that something
is wrong?

A mayor of a village in India with a sense of humor could completely
dominate the PAB.  Just get 50,000 people to sign up.

I repeat:

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

> > ...
> > 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.  

Domain name holders have no contract with CORE, but the registrars
make contracts with domain name holders which purport to bind CORE.
That is, they guarantee a certain behaviour from CORE (CORE will put
domain names on their servers) in return for a consideration.  This
makes the registrars agents of CORE.  So there is an implicit 
contract between CORE and the domain name holder that is nowhere
legally defined.  This is yet another very serious flaw.  It is
a prescription for expensive lawsuits.

And the other side of the coin is that:

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

This is typical of the setup of CORE.  The rights of trademark 
holders are well-defined and protected.  But the rights of domain
name holders are undefined and unprotected, because there is no
contract between CORE and the domain name holders.  No, I am not
a lawyer.  But find yourself a contract lawyer and ask him to 
look carefully at the user-registrar-CORE relationship.
 
> > 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.

Well, Colonel, it's very cynical of you to say this, but I have to 
agree with you.

--
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