Re: Implications of NSI *Skunkworks* Rul ing

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

On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Sascha Ignjatovic wrote:

> > I don't think that direct participation from 60 million people is possible.
> 
> but you complain on it all the time 

I have not.  What I have said is, for example, that ISOC, which claims
to speak for Internet users, has only 6,000 members out of over 60 million
users.

> > My objections to the gTLD MOU and CORE are many:
> > 
> > *	my fundamental objection is that it has very little support in
> > 	the Internet community
> 
> you always use this arguments to put you self in the limelight 

How does this put me in the limelight?  The problem is that the gTLD
MOU has negligible support in the Internet community.  This fact is
what should be in the limelight.

The IAHC has laid claim to a large part of the Internet.  They did 
this with negligible support from anyone within the Internet community.
Instead they went outside, to the ITU, WIPO, and INTA, for support.  

They have support from outside interests.  Their intention now is
to force the gTLD MOU on the Internet community.

> please show me where is your suport from the internet community 
> (or do you see the isp as the internet community when it comes to ispa?
>  what is democratic on ispa when it allows onyl ispc to be members ??)

ISPA UK does not restrict its membership to ISPs.  "ISPA" means 
"Internet Services Providers Association".  Anyone involved in the
Internet can join.

Other EuroISPA members may have somewhat different policies.
  
> > *	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)
> 
> if sombody is envy and is not represented in samthing where he can control 
> it than he would say "it is unacceptable to join samthing where i have
> not the say"

Although the gTLD MOU is presented as something that anyone can sign,
many of its principles are not acceptable.  

Most organizations that we belong to have broad principles that any
reasonable person can accept.  Members accept these upon joining.  The
gTLD MOU has many principles that are unreasonable.  The only way to 
have an influence on the process is to accept these principles from the
beginning. That is in itself unacceptable.

> it is typical european behaviour-my self is living hier in austria so i
> know what i say :-)

You misunderstand.
 
> > *	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
> 
> why you want to sue the core ??
> you start with something negative 
> do you think this is positive :-) 

I have no interest in suing CORE, nor am I ever likely to.  However, 
as a businessman I would not do business with anyone who hid behind
such elaborate legal defenses, nor would I recommend to anyone else that
they do so.

> > 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).
> 
> so hier it starts  
> 
> the eu would to have the ecxlusive right to eu..  and than others would
> also come and say  "we would also like to administrate our village"

There is ample precedent for this.  There are around 200 national TLDs.
Each nTLD registry administers its village.
 
> it may be a good thing the exclusive eu... administration 
> but it brings the eu again in the second stage of development 
> 
> in the time everything is getting global/planetar the eu is geting 
> "europe"  
> 
> this is a really advance :-)  

Europe is an emerging polity.  The European Union signed, for example,
the WIPO treaty on behalf of all of its member states.  To an increasing 
degree, laws in general and trademark laws in particular are being 
harmonized across the European Union.  To an increasing degree businesses
regard themselves as European rather than British or Welsh, Belgian or
Flemish.  Thus it would be quite beneficial for business in Europe to
have its own equivalent to .COM; the Commission has proposed that .EUR
play this role.

On the other hand, under the present system there is no 
natural TLD for institutions such as the European Parliament or the
European Commission.  The EU is not a treaty orgnization, like NATO;
it does not belong under .INT.  So the European Commission proposes
that .EU play the same role as .GOV in America.
 
> > Uhm, I don't have a passion for direct democracy.  I consider that 
> > impractical, especially in multi-lingual Europe.
> 
> if this is the only argument let understand the problems with direct
> democracy than it is not the only one :-)

60 million people attempting to argue out policy in hundreds of different
languages would not be a pretty sight.

> at all management for large systems there is a group of people who
> initiate things and manage things 
> there is a persident in the united states and he and his assistants manage
> the country 
> 
> you can not say why not all the people manage the country
> and if you say they elected them and the internet community 
> hase not "elected" the poc etc people  than i would say 
> not the people elected clinton but first his party and some people there
> and at first founding fathers of usa have elected the president and the
> people have jsut say yes we want or no we dont want

I think that you are agreeing with me.  I am not an advocate of direct
democracy; I think it is impractical.  Indirect, representative democracy 
works.
 
> > 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.
> 
> what you are saying is  "the isp should control the internet"
> and the telcos are saying "the telcos should control the internet"
> and the eu says "the eu should contro, the internet"

There is a huge shift going on all across the world.  The telcos, 
many of them huge monopolies that have dominated their markets for
upwards of a century, have seen the Internet emerge from nowhere to
threaten their monopoly position over the last few years. Their 
reaction at all levels is to try to crush the threat.  So they
lobby all over the world to impose controls on the Internet.  They
set up their own Internet services and run them at a loss to get 
rid of the competition.  

The gTLD MOU/PAB/POC/CORE appears to be their greatest success in
recent years.  They have control of the POC.  The rules of the 
game have been rigged to prevent small players from becoming CORE
registrars.  Look down the list of registrars and you will find 
one monopoly telephone company after another.

No, I don't think that the telcos should control the Internet.  Give
them control and the first thing that they will do is throttle its
growth, stifle innovation, deaden it, put it on a 20 year plan.  

> > 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.
> 
> and we (i:-) am saying  
> 
> the people who founded the internet end developed it to this what it is
> now should have the say who and how controls the internet 
> and as you see it works again very well 

I think that we are misunderstanding one another.  

The telcos, the ITU, trademark lawyers, INTA and WIPO did not create 
the Internet.  The problem is that these outside interests have 
suddenly been given absolute control over a major Internet resource.
This is an error.
 
> if you are missguiding the ispa in the matter of dns than they will change
> you as the president  be shure of it  :-)

I entirely agree ;-)
  
> ps.mr dixon i am sory for this sarcastic ton in my mail and i resepct and
> apreciate your knowledge in internet matters  but you must understand that
> there are people who takes care about the internet on a much higher level
> as the level of the isp in internet is

Who exactly is at this august level?

> again if your strategie of refusing the gtld developments prove wrong than
> tru natural selection you will be swiped out  as whater does over a
> obstacle and internet does if one node is not working well and makes a
> obstacle to the wholle system 

There is a real possibility that it is CORE and the gTLD MOU which will
will be bypassed, and this would be a shame, because it would in all 
perpetuate the NSI monopoly.

Try to keep in focus what I am actually proposing.  This is not the 
abolition of the gTLD MOU and CORE.  Instead, I propose that

*	the gTLD MOU should be opened up so that anyone can sign it

*	the ITU, INTA, and WIPO should be moved to an advisory role;
	they should have no votes on the POC

*	CORE should drop its elaborate legal defenses; it should move
	itself, its assets, and its operations to one legal jurisdiction

*	the financial requirements for CORE registrars should be dropped
	to a reasonable level

--
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