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

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

On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Antony Van Couvering wrote:

> The ISP support and representation on POC is a tangled skein, not clear-cut
> at all, as you have implied.  The iPOC has been very keen to include ISPs
> into the POC itself, being as it is sensitive to this and other useful
> ideas, but the has been that it was tough to find anyone group that could
> claim to represent ISPs.

The clear implication here is that ISP associations have been keen to 
get into the POC.  Unfortunately I don't know of anyone who has asked
to join.

A number of ISP associations met with David Crocker in Munich in August.
At that meeting I was tasked to draft a proposal for ISP representation
on the POC.  Unfortunately my conclusion was that I did not think that
it was a good idea to make the proposal.  I felt that our participation
in the process would be used to add credibility to the MOUvement while
at the same time we would have little influence on the process.
 
> CIX does not enjoy universal support by any means -- Boardwatch Magazine
> estimates at least 4000 ISPs in the U.S., so by your own method of
> measuring support that means only 4.25% support CIX, despite its long
> existence. I have spoken to European ISPs, and ISP organizations, that are
> very reluctant to join EuroISPA too. 

EuroISPA is an association of ISP associations.  While I am sure that you
are correct in saying that there are ISPs and IPS organizations that are
reluctant to join EuroISPA, our perception is a little different.  Our 
rules permit only associations as members and only one member association 
per country; we find ourselves having to turn away applicants and being
asked to change the rules to allow more to join.
 
>                                      There are many ISP organizations, and
> most ISPs, as you have pointed out before, are pretty much apolitical --
> they just want things to work.  It's disingenuous, then, to imply that the
> way was clear, but that iPOC bolted the door. 

I have made no such claim.  I do believe that the POC is rigged so that
trademark interests and inter-governmental organizations have far too
much influence.
 
>                                               Far from it.  Add to that
> the fact that the CIX and NSI leaders are very very cosy, and you have a
> rather more complicated scenario.

I think that the scenario is far more complicated than _you_ make it.  

> As to the actual number of ISPs that have signed the gTLD-MoU, this
> information, which you could bother to consult, is at
> http://www3.itu.int/net-itu/gtld-mou/simple.htm .

I have looked at it; in fact I have a printout of the list in front of
me.

> The ISPs -- those providing at least dial-up or leased-line Internet
> Access, including ISP Associations, e.g. iPASS, but not including web

As you must know, iPASS is not an ISP trade assocation.  The iPASS 
scheme allows your customers to use the services of other ISPs while
travelling.

> hosting services and the like, which would expand the list considerably --
> are:
> 
> Alinet (Italy)
> AMC (Albania)
> ...
> TELESUR (Suriname)
> Telia AB (Sweden)
> Telstra (Australia)
> TOTAL = 44, or 24% of all gTLD-MoU signatories

If these are indeed all ISPs, they represent well under 1% of the 
ISPs of the world.  This is before you discount those who signed with
formal reservations, like Digital and eco, and those who signed without
having much of an idea what they were signing.

> National or Huge Telecoms (Some repetition from ISP List)

Well put ;-)

> The gTLD-MoU movement has a larger support among big telecoms than CIX does
> among American ISPs; 

The telcos regard the Internet as a threat.  One of the main items on
their agenda is getting that threat under control.  They like being 
monopolies.  

So the wholehearted support of the telcos and their ITU does not warm 
my heart.  

>                      a larger support of national NICs that CIX does among
> American ISPs.  And CIX has only 6 times the support of U.S. ISPs as the
> gTLD-MoU movement does among all ISPs worldwide, after having been around a
> long time and being very well known!

Hmmm.  Any reason for this series of attacks on the CIX?

> The fact that close to a quarter of the signatories to the gTLD-MoU fit a
> very close definition of an ISP should, I hope, put a stop to your canard
> about ISPs not having a voice in the gTLD-MoU process.

The fact that iPASS is in your estimation an ISP association or perhaps
an ISP makes me wonder what your idea of "a very close definition" is.

--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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