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

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

At 09:22 AM 12/1/97 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
>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.

That is really disingenuous.  As you surely know, a major criticism of the
gTLD-MoU proposal was there was no representation of ISPs on the POC.
Even so, a large number of ISPs did sign the gTLD-MoU.

>
>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.

Hang on.  You were asked by ISP associations to draft a proposal for ISP
representation on POC, but you decided not to undertake that task because
of personal reservations?  That sounds to me as if ISPs did in fact ask for
representation on POC, but that you nixed it.

> 
>> 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.

Well, that is in fact the problem I have heard about.  Your rules exclude
participation.

> 
>>                                      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.
>

So POC, which has a much wider constituency to think about than you do, has
input from organizations other than the ones you would prefer.  But you
personally nixed a task to draft a proposal that would have shifted that
balance.

Further, I recall reading a note of yours that advocated very strongly
working with governments.  But intergovernmental agencies won't do, I
suppose -- POC must negotiate with each government separately.

 
>>                                               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.

OK, so they're not an ISP trade association.  Add to the list in their
place the very large Japanese ISP trade association that I missed.

>
>> 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.

So, there are not enough of them, and the ones that did sign either didn't
know what they were doing (some of them are Euro-ISPA members too, you
know), or did so with reservations.  I did a little counting and found out
that your previous estimate was 1000% too low, but still that doesn't cut
the mustard.  Oh well.

The fact remains, though, that a significant percentage of gTLD-MoU
signatories are ISPs.

>
>> 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.  

Another obvious constituency of the gLTD-MoU that you happen not to like.

>
>>                      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?

You brought them up as being representative of ISPs in the U.S. I don't
believe I'm attacking them, either.

>
>> 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.

You saw my definition -- providing dial-up or leased-line access to the
Internet.  iPASS I leave out, you know better than me.  I checked the
website of each of the rest of them and saw offers to sell these services.
What is your definition?

Antony