Re: The Price Of Admission. Unacceptable.

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

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:

> > In actual fact most of Nominet's members are NOT ISPs, although all
> > or nearly all UK ISPs belong to Nominet.
> 
> In any case, we beg the question of what is meant by "ISP" -- do you
> include, for example, businesses that provide only web hosting, or 
> companies that do web design, or companies that provide dial up 
> access, or companies that run backbone networks -- and
> the question of what a "large" percentage is.  

By ISP I mean an organization that provides a connection to the 
Internet (dialup, leased line, etc).  My impression is that ISPs
are not much less than 50% of Nominet's membership.
 
> > > 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.  
> 
> That's surprising.  In the US my impression (IANAL) is that the legal
> situation surrounding monopolies is quite different.  Basically,
> monopolies are *illegal* unless special exemption is made for them. 
> But you are implying that monopolies are generally legal in Britain,

I am not an expert on UK fair trade laws.  However, since there can
only be one .uk, Nominet is necessarily a monopoly.

> but there are special laws concerning them.  Or, perhaps, that special
> legislation was passed to exempt Nominet? According to what I have
> read, Nominet is a non-profit organization, which has certain legal
> requirements, but it has no special status as a monopoly.  But you 
> claim that Nominet is a legally recognized monopoly.

Hmmm.  "Legally recognized"?  There is a strong streak of common sense
in the UK legal system.  Nominet is a monopoly.  Various civil servants
are aware of this.  They are also aware that Nominet is a non-profit
and that any regulatory apparatus would cost far more to set up and
operate than Nominet's revenues.

> > But the essential consideration is that nearly all organizations 
> > involved in the commercial Internet in the UK are owner-members of
> > Nominet.
> 
> OK, I wonder, then, what you mean by "involved in the commercial 
> internet".

You mentioned them above: ISPs, web host businesses, registrars.  
Generally, people with serious interest in the non-academic Internet.

> > In fact, if you are going to count votes, ISPs are a large minority 
> > interest in Nominet.
> 
> Gee, that sounds suspiciously like a "large percentage" -- maybe as
> much as 30% or so?

No, a little under half, I believe.
 
> > 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?
> 
> It's not just a question of who is best qualified, it is a question of 
> reaching a wide body of stakeholders.  Telcos and trademark interests are 
> stakeholders, even though you disdain them.  Furthermore, you are 
> painting with a rather broad brush, are you not?

I don't distain telcos or trademark holders.  Some of my best friends are
telcos.  But they don't understand the Internet.

We (ISPA UK) deal with Oftel, the agency that regulates British Telecom,
with a certain frequency.  It's difficult.  The main reason for the
difficulty is that their technical staff have a telco background.  They
not only don't understand the Internet, they very aggressively try to
formulate policy to reflect their misconceptions.  They think that all
Internet traffic flows through their switches.  They have no understanding
of caching, proxies, peering points, ... well, the Internet.  Their
misconceptions get turned into bad regulations that distort the market.

Anyone involved in the business at this level can tell you horror stories
about telco lobbying to distort markets to their benefit.  Why does it
cost as much to run a circuit from London to New York as from London
through the Channel Tunnel to Paris?

The telcos have their own interests.  Those interests are different from
those of the Internet.  They devote huge sums of money to lobbying.  The
purpose of that lobbying is to bend policy for their benefit.  Recently
one of their lobbying arms, the ITU, captured the DNS.

Similar remarks apply to the trademark/IPR lobby and WIPO.

We pay telcos for their circuits.  We don't object to their existence.
We do object to their taking over a large chunk of the Internet.
 
> > 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.
> 
> Supposing that the class had net connectivity (which it very well
> could) then yes it I imagine it could sign the MoU, though it would
> probably be only one vote. 

As far as I can see from looking at the form, each toddler would 
get his or her own vote.  
 
>                            It wouldn't cost them the $800 it would
> cost them to join Nominet, either. 

True, true.  Their 20% control of the Internet would be free.  

And this whacky setup is OK as far as you are concerned?

> >  Notice the "is selected" bit here.  Selected by who?
> [referring to POC members]
> 
> Selected by the designated organizations, frequently through an 
> election, as Patrik's letter attests.  The PAB observers were 
> elected, and the PAB observer positions will be converted to full 
> voting membership of POC.

"is selected", "designated", "will be converted" -- all of these 
imply the existence of a decision maker, one that is carefully 
never named.
 
> > 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.
> 
> One could read that as "Nominet has an entrenched old-boy network, 
> and you can join, but if you don't hew the party line you will be 
> ignored".  Note that I do not think that to be the case.  However, it 
> is a weakness of the Nominet system that such things *can* happen, 
> because Nominet has no external oversight (except, I concede, perhaps 
> some legal ones on the distant horizon).

Any democratic system has this same weakness, one that authoritarian
types are very uncomfortable with.  As I have now pointed out several
times, the alternatives to this messy open process have been tried 
earlier this century and failed.  Yes, East Germany had lots of 
external oversight.
 
> Once again, however, I want to make it clear that I have *no* beef 
> with Nominet.  I think it is an excellent organization, and in fact, 
> I view the MoU design as essentially Nominet beefed up to deal with 
> an international environment and trademark issues.

It's not.  It's been so thoroughly watered down that it's hard to 
see any similarity.  Ignore the fact that CORE has no membership to
speak of.  It also has no full time staff at all.  It will be run by
a committee that meets occasionally to let out contracts to those 
really running the business.

Nominet is a small, well-managed company.  Its managing director is
a respected Internet professional who has developed an excellent 
understanding of the law insofar as it affects a registry in the UK.
Nominet has developed its own software and runs its own servers.

> > Yes indeed.  And that is because in nearly all cases they have never
> > heard of DNS and have no views at all.
> 
> Jim, I don't know where you have been, but here we have the WHOLE
> POINT, man.  The net *is* expanding to include sporting goods stores,

Nuclear power plants generate power that runs model trains.  This 
does not mean that 7 year old boys need to have a say in the 
design of nuclear reactors.

> could go on for megabytes.  These entities all get domain names; they
> may not have heard of DNS, but they know what domain names are, and
> they are ALL stakeholders.

The question is one of balance.  The gTLD MOU design is completely
unbalanced.  The trademark lobby doesn't give advice to the POC: they
run it.  I could easily go on for megabytes.

> > 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 international legal zoo exists regardless.

Go talk to a contract lawyer.  The gTLD MOU "design" introduces a large
new set of legal issues.  There is no contract between the domain name
holder and CORE.

> > 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.  
> 
> Oh jeez.  The "trademark lawyer" boogeyman.  Let's reword your 
> regurgitated propaganda to something a little closer to reality:

This is not regurgitated propaganda.  It is my own original propaganda.

As I said, go talk to a lawyer who specializes in writing contracts.
Ask him to examine the relationship between CORE and the trademark
holders and then ask him to examine the relationship between CORE and
the domain name holders.

CORE is to be set up so that the trademark lobby has input right into
the system.  This part of the system is well designed and clearly
thought out.  You can see the fine hands of trademark lawyers at 
work.

CORE is also set up to keep it as far away from the users as possible.
But this was done as an afterthought.  There is no evidence of 
careful consideration; it's amateurish.  Talk to a contract lawyer for
the details.
 
> > > 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.  
> 
> Kent Crispin never said you did.  

Kent, the cheap shots are all yours.  We don't need these constant 
personal attacks. 

> A completely self-selected system, like Nominet (or PAB, or CORE, for
> that matter) has a problem of ideological drift -- people who disagree
> with the current regime find it unpleasant to stay, so you develop an
> ever more closed in-crowd that runs things.  You can compensate for
> that by including a structure that enforces representation from other
> sources. 

Kent, we TRIED all this.  It was called the Party.  The Party knew 
that people are weak.  So they had commissars on every block, looking
over people's shoulders, making sure that their hearts were pure.  

It doesn't work.  You have to just let things go.  

The reality is that Nominet works.  It has hundreds of members.  The
number of members increases steadily.

And the reality is that CORE hasn't even been formed.  It has a dozen
or so registrars.  Financial requirements are set artificially high
to keep new registrars out.  
 
> > 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.
> 
> Whoeee! Now there is a collection of egregious false
> overgeneralizations, if ever I saw one! Every one of those statements
> is just flat out false, Jim.  Every single one.  To start with, I know
> for a fact that some of those people don't even KNOW how to dance. 

That I believe.  They don't know how to dance.

--
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 2 503 2265