Re: The Price Of Admission. Unacceptable.

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

Jim and all,

Jim Dixon wrote:
> 
> 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.

  I agree.  I also have my doubts that this will happen.  But I am
willing to help if necessary.
> 
> > > 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.

  The why is that if ISP's an their appointed/Elected reps are to
be part of CORE/POC, than their biases are going to naturally be
a part of their decision making process.  If they(ISP reps) are
in the majority, than there is a biased towards the ISP contingent
of the makeup of the Internet community.  That would not be a good
way of managing.

>  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.

  That's good!  
> 
> > > 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.

  THere should only be one set of policies for global DNS name space
policy.  Not several.  Hence input form multipul sectors will need
to be there.
> 
> > > 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.

 As you put it it is, I think.  But it does emphasize your point
well.  
> 
> 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.

  Rarely is politics practical in my experience. Dam RARELY!  
Special interests get involved to the extream too often.
> 
> 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?

  Yes it does.  But you didn't need to use this example to tell
ME that there is some fundamental flaws in the gTLD-MoU.
> 
> 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.

  Yes, and this is a problem.  THere should be a contract biased
on some good technical procedures and policies.  To date I have 
not seen any.

> That is, they guarantee a certain behavior 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.

  I agree.
> 
> And the other side of the coin is that:
> 
> > > The trademark lobby has an iron grip on CORE.  Their interests are
> > > protected.

  Yep.  Which brings us full circle as to what the gTLD-MoU is 
really all about, special interest of the Trademark Lobby.
> 
> 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.

  Well I have an extensive legal background spicificaly in contract
law, I found this problem with CORE long ago.
> 
> > > 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.

  Well....  SIgh.  I hated to say it that way.  BUt in these discussions
I have found it is better to be blunt at times.  :(
> 
> --
> 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