Re: ISP/Telecom/NIC Representation in gTLD-MoU

[John Broomfield <jbroom@outremer.com>]

Just a few clarifications,

At 19:09 30/11/97 -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>The ISPs -- those providing at least dial-up or leased-line Internet
>Access, including ISP Associations, e.g. iPASS, but not including web
>hosting services and the like, which would expand the list considerably --
>are:
(...)
>TOTAL = 44, or 24% of all gTLD-MoU signatories
>
>NICs
(...)
>SYSTEL - Guadeloupe, Martinique
(...)
>TOTAL = 13, or 5% of all possible NICs (not all of them are up)

>National or Huge Telecoms (Some repetition from ISP List)
(...)
>SYSTEL (French Caribbean)
(...)
>TOTAL = 10 (12 if you include Deutsche Telekom and the Dutch Telecom, who

Although I´m managing the GP & MQ NIC, and it was my signature on the
gTLD-MoU, the
signature was on behalf of SYSTEL. The GP & MQ NIC had not and has not
signed the MoU
yet. The GP & MQ NIC is independent from SYSTEL.
SYSTEL is an ISP which services Guadeloupe and Martinique. We have aprox.
60% market share
on both islands, so we are by far the largest. We also give fax routing
services.
I think that SYSTEL would be better suited in the ISP area, certainly not
in the NIC
area, and I wonder why you placed it in the Telco area (because of our fax
routing?).

I have not (yet) pushed for signing the gTLD-Mou for the GP & MQ NIC area,
because I
don't feel that the NIC has yet support from the area which it services,
because of it
being relatively new, and because the local ISPs still aren't too hot
(that's an
understatement) on DNS matters in general. It has (fortunately) no
opposition, just
not much involvement as yet. That should change in '98 as the local ISPs
start to
become aware (I hope), at which time I will push for it to become a signatory.
The NIC in its current form is very much in favour of the gTLD-MoU though.

Yours, John Broomfield.
Zone manager, GP & MQ NIC.
Technical Director, AIS-Systel.