[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On Mon, 1 Dec 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.

Need I repeat what you wrote above?  "it was tough to find anyone group that 
could claim to represent ISPs."  Who is being disingenuous?  
 
> Even so, a large number of ISPs did sign the gTLD-MoU.

A small number.

> >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.

I looked into the issue very carefully, then went back to the people
involved and set out my reservations.  I did not refuse to continue 
with the job.

> >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.

Not at all.  I have already given a longer answer so I will try to be 
brief: our rules allow only one voting member per country.  We prefer
of course that the member be representative of the industry in that 
country.  However, in some countries there are a number of ISP associations.
Where there is more than one organization asking for voting membership,
we very much prefer that they settle between them which should have 
the vote.

We do provide for associate memberships.  Associate members can participate.

There are reasons for the "one vote per country" rule.  A discussion of 
that rule seems beyond the scope of this list.

> >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. 

I have no objection at all to input.  I do object to control.
 
>                                                                But you
> personally nixed a task to draft a proposal that would have shifted that
> balance.

I didn't.  I expressed my reservations and asked for advice on how to
proceed.
 
> >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 previous estimate of four ISP signatories wasn't mine.  Someone said
that 4 ISPs had signed the gTLD MOU.  I pointed out that this was 0.07% or
so of the ISPs of the world.  If you are right and 24 have signed, you 
have left to 0.42%.  
 
> >> 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.

If you are implying that I do not want to see monopoly telcos bring the
Internet to heel, you are absolutely correct.

> >>                      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.

You say that the CIX is unrepresentative, that they are in bed with NSI,
but you aren't attacking them.  OK ...
 
> >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?

The term ISP is used in different senses.  When I follow one usage and 
say that there are 6,000 or so ISPs, I am talking about people who run
Internet networks, who provide dialup or leased line access to the 
Internet.   In this sense iPASS is not an ISP.

ISPA UK normally uses the term in a wider sense; the association is 
the "Internet Services Providers Association", and includes all of those
involved in the business.  EuroISPA uses the term in this same wider 
sense.  In this sense of the term, iPASS is an ISP, but the number of 
ISPs is in the tens of thousands, and 24 is an even smaller percentage.

--
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