[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reuters: EC slams domain proposal
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:12:05 +0000
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
- Subject: Re: Reuters: EC slams domain proposal
Robert and all,
Robert Watson wrote:
> 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.
Well than first of all let me humbly apologize to Dave Crocker on this
particular misstatement on my part. Dave I do apologize!
Second, let me take exception again for you choice of "Excerpts" from
the article in question and your purpose for those particular "Excerpts",along with
some very wise observations from Ellen Rony.
Your #1, stating in essence that the GP is not sufficiently international in
approach, is of course both remaining to be seen, and premature. This
was pointed out in the sections of the article that I posted. ANYONE or
ORGANIZATION has until March 23, to post, submit or ask a question,
with respect to the GP draft framework. These comments WILL be
taken very seriously I am sure. Hence my evaluation of your
#1.
Your #2, The GP certainly does not ignore the MoU plan as you indirectly
indicate. In fact it contains parts of it. This has been observed by others on this
list.
Your #3, You are correct here. Nothing much if any directly or indirectly
addressed International Trademark concerns. This really is not the purpose,
nor should it be for international trademark issues to be addressed in this
area of the internet. That is for the Trademark lobby to do. However I am
sure the International trademark organizations will be given the same
consideration should they decide to post a official response by March
23.
Your #4, I don't understand at all. Please elaborate a bit.
Now here is a very wise and interesting comment that Ellen posted earlier.
"Now that the Internet is a multi-billion dollar enterprise, the quest for
"consensus" becomes far more elusive. Both the stakes and the stakeholders
are expanding. Big business requires stability. Consumers demand
accountability. Accountability presumes authority. If no international
consensus is reached, someone (nation, organization) will assert authority
and the discussion shifts from who is in charge to why a particular nation
or organization assumes that role. That is where the DNS has been for the
past year."
"The commercial community gave the DNS wings, but US-based ARPA gave it
roots (double entendre there). Therefore, I think it appropriate for the
USG to suggest a framework for the technical administration of the evolving
DNS. An historical note: The Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property (1883) was originally ratified by only 11 nations. It
was revised in 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967 and amended in 1979. By
October 29, 1997, it had 143 signatories . I mention this because I think
the stakes are too high and the velocity of change too accelerated to wait
for "consensus" on Internet governance and administration. Given the
historical legacy of the development of the DNS, I applaud the USG for
taking a prudent and appropriate course of action (certainly from its
requirement of accountability to U.S. taxpayers) and think we should devote
our time to suggesting specific improvements to the framework of the US
GP--with an eye to the March 23 deadline."
>
>
> 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.
Yes you did. But you also paraphrased the portions that were of a negative
view of the GP. This is misleading, and therefore not accurately informing.
In addition, by posting those "Excerpts", you are attempting to emphasize
a specific negative attitude to the reader.
>
>
> > 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.
Nice try, no cigar. I am not buying this at all. (See above comment).
> 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...
Very well. I stand corrected.
>
>
> 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."
Along with your choice of inaccurate choice of "Excerpts", and your
#'s 1-4.
>
>
> 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/
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