Re: addendum to the gTLD MOU: phase 1: building a list

[Amadeu Abril i Abril <pab@fcr.es>]

Jeff Williams wrote:

> AMadeu,
>
> Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> >
> > Jim Dixon wrote:
> >
> >   On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> >   > > Anyone care to work on a standard addendum to the gTLD MOU, one which
> >   > > would enable a few hundred more organizations to sign it?
> >
> >   Why don't you do that?  Why doesn't everyone do that?
> >
> >   I would suggest
> >
> > OK let's do that.
> >
> >   1       the financial barriers to CORE membership should be low
> >
> > This not a matter for gTLD-MoU, even not for CORE-MoU. The requirements
> weret in
> > the application form. And they are low, Jim. But don't send 25 mails
> answering
> > that point: we both would easily agree that they could be lower, and that
> they
> > should be still lower.
>
>   If it is not a matter for the gTLD-MoU or CORE-MoU, than why is ti
> part of
> teh requirnment to become a registrar and in the MoU document?

Present requirements are set for this very first time. They may change,and will
change, for the next set of registrars. The momnet when the selection will be
reopened is not in the MoU, either. All of these are *policy* decisions. The
amount of incusrance coverage is not a matter for MoU itself, as the level of
tax pressure tend not to be in Consitutions, even not in general Tax Acts. I
repeat that this is not to say that the requirements are correct or not, but
that NO concrete set of selection cirteria should be in the MoU itself.

> >
> >   2       CORE should begin operations with a large number of registrars,
> >           hundreds if at all possible
> >
> > Yeah, everyody being forced to be registrar... Come on THE VAST MAJORITY OF
> > NON-APPLICANTS will stay home NOT because the requirementsts are dilt to
> meet,
> > but
> > simplysinmply becaus they are interested in this business. Bm involved n the
> iet
> > or not. Do you really believe that, if let's say Microsoft or General Motors
> do
> > not become registrars is because they cna get a credit line????.
>
>   Not a valid argument.  Jim is compleatly correct.

Same argumnet. The material correctness  the argumt has nothing to do ith its
pencence to be included as a MoU specificprovision. And, btw, I insist that any
ISP wanting to work as gTLD registrar can join CORE. Selectionriteria may be too
high for individuals or those intsereted in esporadic egistrations, not for
those interested in working as registrars.. But his is also besides the point:
the fact is that you can not enforce such a provision, and that the best way of
having more registrars would be building a better system or keeping selection
cirteria low, NOT stating that you want hundreds or thousands joining.

> 3       CORE should begin operations as soon as possible
> >
> > There we agree. But your move could only lead to stop current selection
> process
> > and start everything form scratch is quite inconsistent with this goal,as
> far as
> > I can see.
>
>   Maybe it isn't part of the "Goals" but it should be.  Possibly
> stopping
> the process is a good idea and starting all over again.

Isee. And disagree.

> >
> >   4       CORE should be professionally managed
> >
> > This is exactly the kind of  provision which inclusion in a
> > basic,onstitutional-like doc as the gTLD-MoU is essential. I'll ask form
> > tomorrow that the Maastricht Treaty be reformed to provide that custom
> officers
> > must be highly-qualified professionals speaking at least seven languages.
>
>   Your sarcasim does not strengthen your argument here a bit.  It only
> points
> to the fact that you and most members of POC/PAB have very little
> intrest in
> getting other points of view that have some relevance to the structure
> problems that are glaring to nearly everybody whom has read the
> gTLD-MoU.

No, Jeff. Again, I want a professional CORE. But stating that CORE should be
professionally managed solves any structure problem, as you say. Do you really
think that CORE will hire my grandfather,a retired clothes salesman as
part-time, pro-bono manager?

I thought we were discussing about usefulness of amendments, not validity of
material points.

> >
> > Jim, this is an OPERATIONAL issue that has no place in gTLD-MoU. Nor in any
> > other doc. How do you enforce such a provision? What do you mean by
> > "professional"?
>
>    If you don't know what a professional is, than you really should
> not be involved at this level of discussion.  I believe you do
> know however.

Yes, and I bet my idea of "professional CORE managment" would differ form Jim's
or yours. As yours might differ fom Jim's.

> >
> >   5       CORE should run the gTLD registry itself, the registry should
> >           not be contracted out
> >
> > Yes, and we will prevent General Motors  from buying or subcontracting
> outside
> > its conglomerate.
>
>   This is not even a relevent comment.  General Motors is a publicaly
> held company.  The gTLD-MoU is not even a company.  Get real will ya!

gTLD-MoU is not contrcting anything at all. CORE will be. But his is like saying
that as CORE membes may have in-hounse counsel, CORE is prevnted form hiring
outside legal advice. Quality of rk is the issue, not the legal fomr it involves

A contractor may be as professional as Jim, you and me might want. If you as
*me*, I'd prefer CORE to run its own business, BUT I don't feel *I* should take
this decision on their behalf. And POC (and PAB) should control the *effects* of
any CORE decision more than its *form* or *structure*.

>
>
> >
> >   6       if at all possible, existing shared registry software should
> >           be used in CORE's operations
> >
> > "Existing shared registry"?? Now you sound funny. Are you against progress?
> Has
> > the software industry reached that point of maturity where no improvement is
>
> > needed, convenient, possible? This is eften known as the beginning of
> > obsolescence.
> >
> > [I don't have any good reason aginst using existing software. But it cannot
> be a
> > religious dogma. And I can't see this provision bringing "hundreds" of
> > signatories to the gTLD-MoU rakns. Unless I had mmissed the formation of a
> large
> > Coalition for the Peservationof Software Tradition ;-) ]
> >
> >   7       CORE should be strongly encouraged to use open standards
> >
> > CORE should be encouraged to use reliable software. Use of often standards
> is
> > indeed desirable, to the extent it  is possible and never to the expesnes of
>
> > quality of service.
>
>   I agree.  But that can and should be accomplished within the open
> standards method.

> >
> >   8       CORE should be strongly encouraged to use public domain software
> >
> > Public domain db that large, powerful and reliable? Well, if they exist....
> But
> > again fitting this is a
> > second order choice, after service quality.
>
>   I agree again here.  But it is possible to use public domain software
> in many instances.  This is no exception.

In many, yest. In s, just perhaps, not.

> >
> >   9       CORE should be strongly encouraged to cooperate with other
> >           registries
> >
> > Oh, and if they don't want to cooperate, we send Perry, Bob Allisat and me
> to
> > force them, nicht
> > wahr? But wait, perhaps you have got a call from NSI or ES-NIC....
>
>   I don't understand this comment at all.  It has no relevance what
> so ever.

Cooperation is a sound principle. So far there is only a GTLD registry, and they
don't see any compeling reason to cooperate. Fine. Most ISO-codes registries say
gTLDs is out of their interest. Fine again, if they believe so. Cooperation is
bidirectional.

This comment was nevertheless a reaction (probably a wrong one, I admit it) to
Jim's promotional  *Nominet, Nominet* campaign. We all respect Nominet, and
perhaps CORE should look *more* like Nominet than it actually does. But I
somehow understood Jim's suggestion as a *CORE must use Nominet software*
proposed amendment. As I'm not supposed nor allowed to attribute any second
thought on anybody, I ask to disregard my comment altogether. Just keep in mind
that one party wanting operation s not enough.

> [...]
> >
> >   10      a gTLD name server should put put on line as quickly as
> >           possible, preferably by 15 October
> >
> > Perfect, before the selection period ends. Or still better, before you
> convince
> > us to redo the whole thing. Any idea where could we locate this server?
>
>   Yea!  I would be happy to provide the server.  There is one problem
> solved.

Thanxs, but why YOU? and who contracts at with you, if CORE does not exist, and
what's more, you want the current process stopped? And ABOVE ALL Do you think
this is the kind of amendment we should discuss? What will it look like form
October 16th on? Do you think we'll reach consensus on it and the amendment
process on before that date?

Jeff, remember that I'm trying to point that NOT EVERY preferred OPERATIONAL
ISSUE shall be answered withi MoU borders. The MoU shall provide a working ans
sensible frameowrk for answerng these things, not necesarily theoncrete
solutions.

> >
> >   11      a good understanding of some aspect of Internet operations
> >           should be prerequisite to having a vote on the POC (that is,
> >           if you are going to tell people how do do things, you should
> >           know what you are talking about)
> >
> > Ooops. I DON'T vote on iPOC.. Add that some good understanding on what to
> put on
> > a MoU should
> > also be a prerequisite. The P of POC stands for policy, if you don't mind.
> > Techcnical advice can
> > be contracted outside. Policy sensiubility is more difficult to find.
>
>   Contracting the technical aspects of this should not be done.

OK, but Jim is helping, as a volunteer, in the RFP team. He is no POC member.
Are you agains that? But my point was the opposite: policy oversight on CORE
*not only* implies technical control.

BTW, how do you enforce that? I'd tend to think that, rather than focusing on
POC membership requirements thbest solution would come from refining the methods
for selecting POC members.

> >
> >   12      non-voting, advisory seats on the POC should be open to
> >           representatives of various communities affected by the
> >           Internet
> >
> > Wholly agreed, but replace Internet by DNS. gTLD-MoU is not about governing
> > Internet. It is adding a new DNS management model.
>
>   Again not relevent to Jims suggestion here.

Yes it is. gTLD-MoU is only concerned about DNS issues, NOT other, probably more
relevant issues regardint Internet (infraestructure; content; standards...). I
want more clarification form people climing *natural rights* to be on POC. *I
own a cable* or *my son surfes the net* are not enough. I mean that, in my view,
there is certain degree of confusion about POC. POC reeives many
requestscompeting  contraditambong them, to ave a seat. Sometimes the reason
given is just *we represnet this and this on the Net*. Often interests that have
little to do with DNS issues.

My comment was not a disiqualification of Jim's proposal, but a proposed
clarification. Let me exagerate once again: electricity supply companies are a
"comunity affected by he Internet" (at least my Mac needs electricity to work
:-)). But I don't think they should be given any seat, voting or non-voting, in
POC. I just want that the communities represented in POC have some special
relationship to DNS issues. That's all (I think users at large do have such
alification. A fferent isue is how to represent them on POC)

> >
> >   13      the ITU and WIPO should immediately lose any votes on the POC
> >
> > I note you say votes, not presence. I agree.
> >
> >   14      domain names are addresses
> >
> > Yes, and the millions of people who may think otherwise should be reeducated
> .
> > Period. If everybody could agree that they are ONLY addresses we would not
> be
> > discussing all this.
> >
> >   15      the rights of trademark holders should be recognized, but only
> >           in cases where there is a clear attempt by a domain name
> >           holder to pass himself off as a trademark holder
> >
> > I'd could devise more precise legal terms ;-) I notice you are not bothered
> > about reverse hijacking, or other ways of pirating htat occur.
> >
> >   16      the Internet community should recognize the contributions of
> >           the members of the IAHC and the iPOC
> >
> > And PAB. And registrars. And maillist contributors. And fierce opponents.
> But
> > not as an addendum ot a MoU, Jim. Let's be serious [...]
> >
> > Apart from building Nominet II and promoting some rather day-to-day
> operational
> > issues as the
> > Ground Norms for Internet Governance Evolution, do you have any other
> > suggestion?
>
>   I do.  I think you should resign.  Or learn english better.

Don't bother about that. I was elected for a three months period. And I would
certainly resign if PAB asked me to do so, not you. Sorry for that.

As for English knowledge, 100% agreed. Not all of us are so lucky enough to have
English as aother tongue (in fa it's jus my fift hlangauge). I' trying tomprove
it, believe me.But I've been adviced not to learn "english" as you say form you.
;-)

I'm at a lost trying to understand why you put that as an alternative: do you
mean that if I learn English better, I could stay in iPOC? Or that English is
the main requirement for being a POC member?

> >
> > I translate my mail: I'm not saying that any of your proposals is nonsense.
> Most
> > are not quite the contrary. I'm just pointing out that I CAN'T BELIEVE that
> the
> > thousands of people you claim are wihing to enter the system but are
> prevented
> > by the current content of gTLD-MoU would be much impressed by these
> amendments.
> > And that many of them would simply read ridiculous in a MoU, no matter how
> sound
> > they are.
> >
> > The road may be the right one. The examples are not. Making policy is more
> > difficult than
> > cirticizing somebody else's efforts. I encourage you to provide a better
> list
> >
> > Amadeu, speaking only for himself.
>
>   Oh yes of course, yourself!  I see.

Yes, Jeff, myself. What do you see?

Amadeu