Re: Implications of NSI *Skunkworks* Rul ing

[avc@netnamesusa.com (Antony Van Couvering)]

At 08:47 AM 12/1/97 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:
>
>> At 09:02 PM 11/30/97 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
>> >Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.  I meant "organization of ISPs".  
>> 
>> If you think that the opinions of the many different ISP organizations are
>> so important, then why have you not organized votes by their members,
>> especially your own?  Rather than touting what has not been done, how about
>> helping to make it happen?
>
>In the UK and elsewhere in Europe governments and ISP associations were
>approached and asked to support the gTLD MOU.  As you probably know, 
>the reaction of the UK Department of Trade and Industry was largely 
>negative.  The reaction of ISPA UK's members was simple indifference;
>people regarded it as overly complex and flawed.  The ISPA UK Council
>did vote on it.  The vote was not to sign the MOU.

In other words your members did not vote on it.  Yet you have evinced a
profound fondness for comprehensive democracy.  I wanted to find out who
was on your Council, but the page is password protected.  Do you mind saying?

>
>Why am I personally not helping to make it happen?  Because I think that
>the gTLD MOU is seriously flawed.  Because I talked to you, to David 
>Maher, to Robert Shaw, to Albert Tramposch, and I found that all of 
>you were far more interested in talking your program than correcting
>its flaws.  

I recall that your main objection to the gTLD-MoU is/was that there was not
enough direct participation from the mass of the 60 million Internet users,
or the 6000 odd ISPs, and that you objected to people having to sign the
gTLD-MoU in order to participate.  


Yet I have heard that ISPA-UK is making a bid to run a possible .EUR
domain.  What steps have you taken to insure direct participation from
these Internet users?  Or was that a false rumor?

Furthermore (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Euro-ISPA has rules that
allow only one organization from each country.    LINX in the UK is out,
correct?  Over 300 ISPs in Spain are not allowed to participate, correct?

Rather a closed shop, wouldn't you say?  How do you square this with your
stance on signing the gTLD-MoU, and your avowed passion for direct democracy?

Again, I don't know this stuff thoroughly, so I'd take it as a favor if
you'd correct any incorrect impressions I have.

>
>> It is truly astonishing that anyone could seriously deprecate the fact that
>> this activity has managed to get nearly 200 organizations around the world
>> to demonstrate their support formally, especially considering that most
>> organizations, including most of those that signed, tend towards
>> conservative behavior.  They wouldn't sign unless they had given the matter
>> due consideration.
>
>We gave the matter due consideration.  Then we voted not to sign it.

So you're saying that the members were apathetic, so the council (whoever
they are -- not public information) decided to vote on their behalf.  By
the way, what was due consideration?  How long did it take?

Curiously, however, other Euro-ISPA members did sign it  - Germany, for
one, Spain for another.  Comments?

>
>There are over 60 million Internet users in the world.  There are something
>like 6000 ISPs.  Given these numbers, 180 signatures (including ISOC 
>signing a dozen times ;-)  is hardly a sign of great support.
> 
>> It's trivial to find a nit to pick with any plan or any demonstration of
>> support.  It's a lot harder to develop counter-proposals and garner formal
>> support for THAT.
>
>In any complex, messy situation there is someone with a quick solution.
>Their fundamental argument is usually "you got a better idea?"  No, Dave,
>I don't.  But your quick solution isn't good enough.

Jim Dixon, earlier this month:

"...if you propose a better CORE or if you propose to modify
CORE to make it run better, people may listen with interest."

Regards,

Antony