Re: War of Internet Governance: 1995 - ????

[Jay@Iperdome.com]

At 02:35 PM 11/12/97 +0100, Robert Shaw wrote:
>I'm sure that you can find all types of justifications why ".per", the
>ISO 3166 alpha-3 code for Peru should be allocated to you, Jay Fennello/ 
>Iperdome, a United States "entrepreneur" [see www.iperdome.com/investor 
>information].
>
>However, I hope you would be able to imagine the sort of outcry if 
>".usa", the ISO 3166 alpha-3 code for the United States was allocated to a 
>"Peruvian entrepreneur". 
>
>Indeed, names have interesting properties. I'm sure you were there
>at this last summer's ITAA/ISA/CDT conference on domain names in Washington, 
>D.C. when a Canadian representative listed about 5 or 6 gTLDs that he 
>considered to "all be abbreviations of Canada", and therefore "should only 
>be available to Canadians". 
>
>Indeed, names have interesting properties...

Does .per represent Peru?  Personal?  Permanent?  Persnickity? 

Just about any TLD you can think of will have multiple
possible meanings.  What will differentiate .per from .com is
not its inherent meaning, but the concept used to position it
in a competitive name space.  

But this discussion is not about that, it is about who gets
to decide?  One one hand, IAHC members say that they are not 
interested in global dominion over root.  On the other, we 
have this thread discussing every reason why IAHC TLDs are
ok, but everyone elses is not.

>> A fundamental question is why the IANA, a U.S. Government
>> funded contractor, should be allowed to "give" seven new gTLDs
>> to its self-selected representatives (especially when it was
>> negotiated behind closed doors, sets up a Swiss-based cartel,
>> ignores prior Internet precedents, and is generally regarded
>> as an inappropriate power grab).  Why should the IANA be
>> allowed to *exclude* already operational TLDs and registries.
>
>What a bunch of silly and loaded rhetoric. Let's examine what you're
>saying:
>
>"self-selected representatives"

The IANA, a US Government funded contractor, in conjunction with the 
Internet Society, were responsible for the IAHC.  The IAHC, in turn,
sets up a Swiss cartel that gives the IANA and the ISOC de facto 
control over the name space.  

Please show me where the IANA was authorized to do this!

>"negotiated behind closed doors" 

The traditional "consensus based" approach for the Internet has
been through the RFC process.  Jon Postel started such a process,
and it was known as draft Postel.  It was this document that 
started the alternate registry industry.

Then Jon changed direction, and turned this process over to
the IAHC.  Meetings were held behind closed doors, with the
mere appearance of an open process.  When the final draft was
announced, it was soooooo different from draft Postel that
there was an outcry from the Internet community.

To this day, the decisions and actions of the IAHC process
are a black box.  And if I remember correctly, at least one
of your MoU's *requires* secrecy of its members.  So much 
for an open process.

>"sets up Swiss-based cartel" 

cartel
   1 : a written agreement between belligerent nations
   2 : a combination of independent commercial or industrial 
	enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices
   3 : a combination of political groups for common action 

Call it whatever you like.  Your MOUvement *requires* everyone to 
agree that POC is god, without recourse.  Your MOUvement decides 
which new gTLDs are allowed, and who is allowed to participate as
registrars (all ways of limiting competition).

If you were set up under U.S. law, you would have to abide by
anti-trust and/or franchise laws.  Under Swiss law, you can limit
competition and fix prices to your heart's content.

>"ignores prior Internet precedents"

When the IAHC discarded draft Postel, they ignored prior Internet
precedents.  When they claimed rights to .com and .web, they ignored 
prior Internet precedents.  When they decided to use a socialistic,
bureaucratic model to control competition, they ignored prior Interent 
precedents (the ones, btw, that have made the Internet what it is today).

>  Now the problem is that today, in 1997, people like yourself want to 
>  have "rights" and "ownership" of a gTLD - seeing this as a business
opportunity 
>  instead of a "service" to the global Internet community. Realizing this,
the IAHC 
>  decided that in a competitive registration business environment, sharing
of gTLDs 
>  was fundamentally necessary to ensure "responsibilities" and "service"
to users.

You are suggesting that you must force businesses to be responsible 
and serve their clients.  The governments of the eastern block once 
believed this too!

I think the main issue here is that the IANA's policies wrt
new TLDs are not fair and they do not work.  When all is said 
and done, there is *no* difference between a gTLD, an nTLD, 
an ISO cc TLD, or any other kind of TLD!

What's needed is a comprehensive plan to manage the name space,
one where small companies, large companies, countries, and other
stakeholders have access to due process and fair policies.  The
MOUvement simply doesn't cut it.


Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com