[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reuters: EC slams domain proposal
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:57:42 -0500 (EST)
- From: Robert Watson <robert@cyrus.watson.org>
- Subject: Re: Reuters: EC slams domain proposal
Jeff,
The snipping in question was actually on my part, and not on Dave's. I
selected the passages that reflected the current conversation on the IETF
mailing lists -- specifically, where the issues presented by the EC were
congruent with opinions expressed on the mailing list, hence my choice of
words, "Excerpts of interest from...". My excerpts were selected to
reflect the concerns and opinions spoken of in the article; specically,
1. The current GP is not sufficiently international in approach
2. Ignores an existing and valid plan
3. Does not address the international trademark issue correctly
4. The time range of the comment period, and a specific quote that it was
not set in stone.
These are all issues that have been brought up on the IETF mailing list. I
provided a full URL at the beginning with the intent that people would
have access to the article.
> These two parts of this article seem to be quite clear that there is a
> serious intrest in the EU's concerns. In addition it seems quite clear
> that the EU has certainly not made any FINAL decision. They have only
> expressed an initial concern.
You will note that several of the paragraphs I selected appear in the text
you describe as "part of the article was conveniently lef out".
> But all this is not unusual for Dave Crocker. He has persistently
> quoted statements of others out of context to further his own personal
> desires.
I believe it is standard practice to assess articles of interest for
relevence to the topic, select the quotes of immediate interest, and refer
the reader to the remainder of the article for full detail. As we are all
aware, and as is stated in the quotes I selected, this is a comment period
on an proposed draft; similiarly, the response from the EC is currently in
draft form, and while opinions have been stated, they are not in the final
form yet. I specifically included text from the US official indicating
the lack of "set in stone"-ness of the GP.
If you must criticize Dave, please do so on the basis only of the
following sentence for which he is actually responsible:
>>Yeah, like thats' a big surprise...
I agree with his sarcastic comment -- it is of no surprise to me that the
international community is responding to the GP with a variety of
comments, including potential problems with what is currently a US-centric
proposal. The only debatable choice of words was Reuters': "EC slams
domain proposal."
Robert
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Mark and all,
>
> Dave conveniently left out some important parts of the article
> however. Such as
> "The European Union executive, in a text that it hopes
> will be adopted by the 15 EU states, urges
> Washington to adopt a more international approach
> and to enter into "full bilateral consultations" before
> proceeding."
>
> And if you have read the GP closely and understand the reason for the
> Request For Comments, than you would understand that The GP prepossess
> to do have 'Full bilateral consultations", before proceeding. The GP
> is only a framework, not a final document.
>
> In addition this part of the article was conveniently lef out of Dave's
> posting as well.
>
> "
>
> EC slams domain proposal
> By Reuters
> Special to CNET NEWS.COM
> February 24, 1998, 5:10 p.m. PT
>
> BRUSSELS, Belgium--The European Commission
> has criticized a U.S. proposal for reforming the
> Internet's naming and address system, saying it
> would give Americans too much control over the
> global computer network.
>
> "The current U.S. proposals would...seem to
> consolidate permanent U.S. jurisdiction over the
> Internet as a whole, including dispute resolution and
> trademarks used on the Internet," it said in a draft
> reply to the initiative.
>
> The European Union executive, in a text that it hopes
> will be adopted by the 15 EU states, urges
> Washington to adopt a more international approach
> and to enter into "full bilateral consultations" before
> proceeding.
>
> The U.S. government formally published a proposal
> last week for phasing out its management of the
> address system for Internet locations--such as email
> and Web sites--and turning it over to a U.S.-based
> nonprofit corporation.
>
> It would also end the monopoly of U.S. company
> Network Solutions (NSI), which registers the most
> popular Internet addresses, including those ending in
> ".com," ".org," and ".net." Known as generic
> top-level domains (TLDs), they signify commercial
> users, not-for-profit organizations, and network
> service providers.
>
> The plan would create up to five new generic TLDs,
> each with a registry to manage a database of
> addresses. Other companies would compete to
> register the addresses.
>
> The Commission's draft reply, to be discussed by EU
> telecommunications ministers on Thursday, accuses
> Washington of ignoring a plan for a new registry
> system drawn up by the International Ad-Hoc
> Committee (IAHC), a group of Internet companies
> and organizations.
>
> IAHC proposed last year setting up seven new
> generic domains--such as ".store" for shops and
> ".arts" for culture--along with an international council
> of registrars.
>
> The commission also faults the U.S. "green paper"
> for seemingly giving the United States jurisdiction
> over all conflicts over trademarks in Internet
> addresses and failing to mention efforts to set up
> Internet dispute-resolution procedures within the
> World Intellectual Property Organization.
>
> The U.S. Commerce Department gave interested
> parties until March 23 to comment on the proposal.
> A U.S. official in Brussels said the initiative was "not
> set in stone" and that comments by the EU and other
> parties would be taken into account.
>
> "There have been consultations going on and there
> will be further consultations going on before we put
> the plan into action," the official added, noting that
> the proposal built on previous work on the issue."
>
> And....
>
> " The EU telecommunications ministers are likely to
> direct their ambassadors in Brussels Thursday to
> finalize an EU response, diplomats said."
>
> These two parts of this article seem to be quite clear that there is a
> serious intrest in the EU's concerns. In addition it seems quite clear
> that the EU has certainly not made any FINAL decision. They have only
> expressed an initial concern.
>
> But all this is not unusual for Dave Crocker. He has persistently quoted
> statements of others out of context to further his own personal desires.
>
> You might want to ask yourself, do you want this type of leadership? The
> decision is yours of course.
>
> I know my answer....
>
> Marc Hurst wrote:
>
> > Yeah, like thats' a big surprise...
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> > > FYI.
> > >
> > > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 00:25:26 -0500 (EST)
> > > From: Robert Watson <robert@cyrus.watson.org>
> > > Subject: Reuters: EC slams domain proposal
> > > X-Sender: robert@trojanhorse.pr.watson.org
> > > To: ietf@ns.ietf.org
> > >
> > > Excerpts of interest from:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,19450,00.html
> > >
> > > EC slams domain proposal
> > > By Reuters
> > > Special to CNET NEWS.COM
> > > February 24, 1998, 5:10 p.m. PT
> > >
> > > BRUSSELS, Belgium--The European Commission
> > > has criticized a U.S. proposal for reforming the
> > > Internet's naming and address system, saying it would
> > > give Americans too much control over the global
> > > computer network.
> > >
> > > ...snip...
> > >
> > > The Commission's draft reply, to be discussed by EU
> > > telecommunications ministers on Thursday, accuses
> > > Washington of ignoring a plan for a new registry
> > > system drawn up by the International Ad-Hoc
> > > Committee (IAHC), a group of Internet companies
> > > and organizations.
> > > ...snip...
> > >
> > > The commission also faults the U.S. "green paper" for
> > > seemingly giving the United States jurisdiction over all
> > > conflicts over trademarks in Internet addresses and
> > > failing to mention efforts to set up Internet
> > > dispute-resolution procedures within the World
> > > Intellectual Property Organization.
> > >
> > > ...snip...
> > >
> > > The U.S. Commerce Department gave interested
> > > parties until March 23 to comment on the proposal. A
> > > U.S. official in Brussels said the initiative was "not
> > > set in stone" and that comments by the EU and other
> > > parties would be taken into account.
> > >
> > > ...snip...
> > >
> > > Story Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited All rights reserved.
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > > Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
> > > dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 249 6205
> > >
> > > www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
>
>
>
Robert N Watson
Carnegie Mellon University http://www.cmu.edu/
SafePort Network Services http://www.safeport.com/
robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/