Re: Implications of NSI *Skunkworks* Rul ing

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

On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Antony Van Couvering wrote:

> >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?

At the time the Council membership was, as I recall,

	Laurence Blackall, Global Internet
	Chris Cain, Dow Jones/Telerate
	Cindy Copsey, Innotts
	Jim Dixon, VBCnet
	Shez Hammil, Dialnet
	Janet Henderson, BT
	Gary Shainberg, Avel

The council is, of course, elected by the membership in an open vote.
ISPA UK is a notoriously democratic organisation; the members are not 
known for reticence in expressing their views.
 
> >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.  

I don't think that direct participation from 60 million people is possible.

My objections to the gTLD MOU and CORE are many:

*	my fundamental objection is that it has very little support in
	the Internet community

*	on the other hand the telcos (who regard the Internet as a threat
	and want to get it under control) and the trademark lobby (ditto)
	have overwhelming influence

*	you have to sign the gTLD MOU and agree to its unacceptable
	principles in order to to disagree with those principles (note
	that I am not saying that all of its principles are unacceptable)

*	CORE has been set up in such a way as to largely remove it from
	the legal process; it is my understanding that Swiss non-profits
	are difficult or impossible to sue

*	CORE's financial requirements for registrars are unduly 
	restrictive

> 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?

Like most rumors, it's confused.  The European Commission has requested
that three TLDs be reserved for use in or by the European Union: .EU, .EUR, 
and .EURO.  A letter has been sent to IANA setting out the grounds for 
giving the European Union special consideration and requesting the 
delegation of these names.  The plan is that .EUR will be delegated to
EuroISPA, to be managed by a separate non-profit company, Euronames.

Euronames is in most respects modelled on Nominet.  The objective is to
have thousands of registrars across Europe.  These registrars will 
appoint Euronames' directors through national associations.  It will
be possible for anyone in Europe to become a registrar with minimal
investment (something in the $500 - $1000 range).

> 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?

Incorrect on both counts.  EuroISPA has rules that allow only one voting
member per country but an unlimited number of associate members.  The
expectation is that voting members will be representative of their 
countries.  The articles allow the substitution of a more representative
organization after due consideration by the other members.

The LINX (of which VBCnet is a member) has been invited to join EuroISPA
as an associate member.  The LINX's rules, which  require that any
trade association activities be approved in detail by a supermajority 
of the members, would make it extremely difficult for the LINX to join 
EuroISPA as a voting member.

The LINX's own restrictive membership rules would equally make it 
difficult for it to claim to represent the UK's ISPs, as would the 
fact that a third or so of its members are not UK ISPs.

Nothing excludes the participation of Spain's ISPs.  There are quite a
few ISP trade associations in Spain.  AnProTel signed the EuroISPA MOU 
and joined as a founding member.  The other members of EuroISPA have been
very impressed with AnProTel's enthusiasm and are pleased to have them
as a member.  Spanish ISPs can of course join AnProTel.  An ISPA Espana 
has also been formed.  They are of course free to join as an associate 
member and we would in fact welcome their application.  

As we told Javier Sola at the Brussels meeting last week, we hope that 
the ISPs of Spain will come to an amicable agreement among themselves 
as to how Spain is to be represented.  We are delighted that both
AnProTel and the members of ISPA Espana have shown themselves to be 
so keen to join with the other members of EuroISPA in building the
Internet in Europe.

> Rather a closed shop, wouldn't you say? 

Quite the contrary.

>                                         How do you square this with your
> stance on signing the gTLD-MoU, and your avowed passion for direct democracy?

Uhm, I don't have a passion for direct democracy.  I consider that 
impractical, especially in multi-lingual Europe.

What I have a passion for is control of the Internet by the Internet 
community, not those who have a large stake in stifling it.

My passion is for control of the Internet by the Internet community,
not telcos, trademark lobbyists, intergovernmental organisations and
the rest of the crowd that jumped onto the Internet bandwagon as it
trundled by.

> 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.

Let me know if the above is insufficient.

> >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?

As I recall, the question was circulated first on the council's email 
list and then on the often very active members' list.  There was some 
discussion on one or both lists.  It was then brought up at the next 
monthly council meeting and revisited at the following council meeting.
 
This process lasted six weeks or so.

If you want to read the minutes of ISPA council meetings, they are 
published on the ISPA UK Web site.  You do have to be a member to read
them.  Netnames is welcome to join.  David Kennedy our chief executive
is standing by waiting for your call.  0171 976 0679 ;-)

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

I will forward this to them; they can comment if they wish.

> >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."

This quotation is a bit out of context.  When I wrote it, I was arguing
that CORE was more or less a fait accompli, but that COM/NET/ORG
should not be transferred to CORE without exacting a price.

Specifically, CORE should be forced to change its domicile to the United 
States (or any other jurisdiction in which it can be easily sued and 
which has reasonably well-developed laws regarding the Internet), and it 
should be forced to move its servers and other assets to the same 
jurisdiction.

--
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