Re: "Internet Names *and* Addresses"

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

Tony,

In the last few years, I have worked with, talked to, or met with just
about every nTLD NIC in the world.  I have been an advocate to them the
need to apply rules in a fair and open manner, and I have encouraged and in
some cases succeeded in getting them to standardize and regularize their
practices.  

I learned that the best way to get results is to use reasons and
explanations based on respect for their authority, which they undoubtedly
have, and not to try to issue policy diktats.  Furthermore, the nTLD
administrators are not reprobates -- the singlemost common reason for a
badly-run nTLD is a shortage of money, not shoddiness or lack of will.

I don't talk about nTLDs much on these lists because quite frankly no-one's
interested in them except when they can use them to score points in the
gTLD debate.  Your suggestion that because they are "private networks" they
should be susceptible to central regulation from the United States ignores
the fact that in many cases they are servants of powerful governments which
have shown a visceral and violent dislike to being regulated by outsiders.
To the extent that these nTLDs are committed to doing anything co-operative
and global, it is due to their years of respect for IANA and ISOC and the
other Internet organizations whose recent discomfiture you helped engineer
and now so readily celebrate.

I respect the U.S. Government's multilateral approach to international
political affairs in recent years.  It has won this country some respect as
a world leader, and it has made us much more influential than we would be
if we just threw our weight around.  In domain name affairs, I am convinced
of Mr. Magaziner's best intentions, and many of his recommendations are
good and uncontroversial, even if most of them are not new.  But it's a
very complicated subject and I think that the Green Paper's recommendations
show signs of a rush job and of having been drafted without sufficient
regard to international concerns.

It's a pity, because a lot of smart and honorable people have spent years
studying these issues, and their best recommendations have been brushed
aside -- or adopted, as the case may be -- without much rationale for doing
so except a stated reliance on free-market economics.  Most of us agree
with that, but it's not that helpful in sorting out details, and in any
case the government is taking over in the short term, not getting out.

There is great danger in taking control of something in order to shed that
responsibility later.  How many generals have taken over the civilian
institutions of their countries in order restore democracy?  And how many
have actually done so?  Even with the best intentions, those in power tend
to find compelling reasons to hang on to it.  And then there is always
someone to tempt them exercise their temporary power undemocratically --
witness your call to regulate nTLDs.

Antony



At 07:13 PM 2/16/98 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>>But actually, yes, there are a lot of badly run nTLDs.  Does this mean that
>>the U.S. Gov't or even IANA should take them over?  I don't think so.  We
>>don't send troops to Tibet or East Timor and I don't think its useful or

>>wise to start asserting hegemony with regard to domain naming policy in
>>sovereign states.  It wouldn't work even if we did.
>
>Antony,
>
>You always seem quite willing to dump all over the U.S. government
>for all kinds of things, yet seemingly unwilling to take even the
>most feeble steps to highlight and suggest changes to the practices
>of other government's activities, even when they are "badly run."
>
>I'm just suggesting you might spread your zeal around and give
>everyone equal treatment.  On a more serious note, it's not clear
>why a set of minimal good practices can't be developed and applied
>to all - after all, these are private networks.
>
>
>
>--tony
>