RE: Xenophobia and sticking to the point - uncensored version

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

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> >3	If CORE wants to have all rights over all gTLDs forever, that 
> >	is, to me at least, simply unacceptable.
> 
> Some people do like talking about this.
> This statement does not exist neither in the gTLD-MoU, nor in the
> CORE-MoU, neither have I heard it or read it from any authoritative
> source in ISOC, POC, IANA, CORE, whatever else.

About two weeks ago Robert Shaw said unequivocally that the gTLD MOU 
covered _all_ TLDs other than the national TLDs.  I interpreted this
as meaning that CORE would control all the gTLDs.  A few days later
this came up in discussion and I looked back to see exactly what Shaw
had said: lo and behold, there was no clear reference to CORE, just to
the POC.  So I asked on this list exactly what the POC position is on
this issue.  That position still is not clear.
 
> Nobody has ever considered this a possibility, except the few people
> that waste bandwidth to post against it.

I don't believe that the first part of this is true; the second is
the usual auto-insult that characterizes discussions on this list.

> Now, if somebody is in favour of this solution (i.e. CORE take all
> rights over all gTLD forever), can he/she speak now or can we bury this
> absurdity forever?

You make think that this is absurd.  Does CORE as a whole?  Does Robert
Shaw?  Does the POC?

> >2	If CORE wants to take over com/net/org, whose registrants are 
> >	overwhelmingly American, then that takeover needs to be justified,
> >	and any transfer of the rights of this huge block of customers
> >	to a distant jurisdiction needs to be justified.
> ><snip>
> >The world doesn't need to replace NSI's monopoly with a cartel in Geneva.  
> >
> >Several COREs run along different models and located in different parts
> >of the world would be a good replacement for CORE.  Even a duopoly, with
> >NSI retaining com/net/org and CORE running the rest of the gTLDs, would
> >be superior to CORE all by itself.
> 
> I already stated my point: we (ETSI) made our business case in the
> hypothesis (which I personally consider very likely) that .com will stay
> as it is, i.e. with NSI.

ETSI is not CORE.  On the gTLD MOU Web site you will find documents setting
out a timetable for taking over com/net/org.  [Hint: I wrote one of them.]

> I already said that coexistence of NSI and CORE is not at all a bad
> idea.
> But in this case too, I find that heavy words (cartel, oligopoly,
> a.s.o.) are used to cover the poor ideas behind: the inappropriate word
> "cartel" is used against CORE because of lack of other arguments.

The term cartel has a dictionary meaning.  Richard Sexton asked a simple
question: what gTLDs are covered by this process?  Robert Shaw unequivocally
answered: all of them.  

The obvious interpretation is that CORE will have sole control over all
gTLDs.  One business controlling a unique resource is a monopoly.  Is
CORE a monopoly?  Well, not if it has 90+ members.  Is its membership
open?  No.  It is now closed, and when, some day, the membership is
reopened, we can only assume that the same senselessly restrictive 
rules will apply.  So is a CORE in control of all gTLDs a cartel?  Yes.

> About having more COREs, this is another good idea used instrumentally
> for the wrong cause. Again, Jim, having more COREs is not an issue at
> all. There is nothing that prevent people from getting together and
> build other organizations. As I said already to Bob Allisat, instead of
> complaining about the present situation, get your act together and build
> acceptable alternatives.

Well, I hate to quote Dave Crocker, but do a little homework.  IANA has
said that gTLDs will have to be approved by the POC.  The POC, speaking
through Robert Shaw, has said that this applies to all gTLDs, forever.
He also seems to have said -- some clarification would be helpful -- 
that all gTLDs will be run by CORE.  

So the existence of more COREs is clearly an issue.

> But what you want, is not to have other organizations in collaboration
> with CORE, what you want is other organizations *replacing* CORE (see
> your own post above).

I design things.  What I am talking about is a better design, with the
one CORE in the design replaced by several COREs.  

> You can try to get it, but do you really think it's feasible?

Is it feasible to have several organizations like CORE administering
different sets of gTLDs?  Certainly it is.  I would prefer that they
be geographically dispersed and run along different lines, so that we
get some healthy diversity going.  In this polycentric model, a CORE
in Geneva with its planned baroque administrative structures is a good
idea.  Let's see how it all works.  But let's not bet the Internet on it.

--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council                                                 President
Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org