Subject: RE: Re[2]: KIS ASS

From: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:27:25 -0000

Jay,

May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this
choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between
ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of
messages.
Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we
should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of
different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the
skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest.

The rest is being part of the Net.
The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming
physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national
and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common
network that unites people of different culture and language.

This is the Net, a project that is in the hearts and souls of human
beings, and that cannot be ruled by politicians. A project that is aimed
at sharing experiences, not at establishing hierarchies. A project that
can survive violent flame cyber-wars, but will be unable to survive
government interference. Any government interference.

I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that
at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have
to be made.
My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those
decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts.
We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and
resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us.

I know we have different point of view on the structure and operation of
the Internet, and I assume we will find out even more differencies if we
start discussing the details of "Internet Governance". Nevertheless, let
me tell you that I will be able to accept in the future an Internet
governed by your rules, endorsed in an internal democratic process, but
I would be much less comfortable with an Internet governed by my rules,
enforced by an external authority.

This said (sorry for the wasted bandwidth, but I really had to do it, I
feel better now), may I go to the specific point addressed by your
message.

You wrote:
> I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you
> attribute 
> to the U.S. Government.  After all, this *is* the same Commerce
> Department 
> that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation.
> Some even 
> suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the
> world, 
> resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide.
> 
> As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in
> this area.
> 
May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at
least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom
industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the
evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from
some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this
tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US
Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom.

It also has to be noted, even if it is out of the context (but the
subject "ITU" has already been brought up by the Prosecutor, as Perry
Mason would have said), that the role of the ITU has been very important
in allowing the developing countries to survive this evolution, and
ITU's effort in establishing formal recommendations and regulations was
not at all aimed at countering the market evolution, going towards
deregulation, but to limit the perverse effects of this evolution on the
weaker part of the globe. IMHO.

> >Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world
> to come up
> > with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way
> to enforce 
> >those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses
> numerous 
> >borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will
> be 
> >difficult.
> 
> I believe this is exactly what they are doing.  And it *is* difficult.
> 
Do you really believe that the US Government has consulted any other
Government of the world or any other consortium, body, organization
outside the US? I wish I could share your optimism on politicians.

> >Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing
> the press 
> >and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that
> in...) and 
> 
> Two years ago, I might have agreed with you.  My experience with 
> this process has convinced me otherwise.  Maybe there are some 
> extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with 
> this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces 
> government to live up to our highest ideals.
> 
> Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one.
> We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution 
> possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise.
> 
I can't argue with this. If you have your reason to believe that the USG
process has been a good one, you may be right.
I personally think that governmental interference in this process is bad
in itself, independently of which side they are on.
What will happen now? Other government will be pissed off (the Europen
Community is, for instance) and the whole matter will become a political
fight. I don't know who will win, but I know who will lose: the Net,
ourselves. EU will propose Eurocracy (as we call it on this side of the
Ocean) versus American Rule, and, let me tell you, the powers of the
world will get a political agreement in which the ideals that got "Our
Thing" going will count less than yesterday's newspaper.

Shouldn't we fight among ourselves, choosing the timing and weapons,
instead of praising the intervention of external powers?

> >The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think.  If
> anybody is to 
> >reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the
> users, for
> > the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any
> government.
> 
> That should be a big topic of debate.  Representation is one of 
> the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas 
> and opinions are welcome.
> 
You are absolutely right.
Whatever the differencies between the two of us, even without knowing
you I can tell you that I have more in common with you than with Ira
Magaziner. Why should I now be forced to spend my time in fighting him
instead of building something with you?

Roberto

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:53:45 +0000 (GMT)

[apologies for the size of the CC list, but I did cut it by 50% !]

> Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom.

This is highly misleading.  Telecoms charges in Europe are generally
high; charges between European countries are often ridiculously high.
BT's tariff for a 2M line between say London and Birmingham is about
the same as the charge for a DS3 over the same distance in the US.  
That is, bit for bit, we are charged more than 20x as much.  Over 
international borders charges are surreal: we are quoted 20% more for a 
London-Paris circuit than for a London-New York circuit.  The cheaper one 
is carried over fibre that crosses thousands of miles of open sea; the 
more expensive one follows the rail line between the UK and France.

EuroISPA is lobbying to get telecoms charges across European borders
reduced to sensible rates.  The most effective argument we have is
a simple comparison of European and American telecoms rates.

Certainly no "internal process of the Telecom industry" has led to 
deregulation in Europe.  Quite the contrary.  The telcos are fighting 
tooth and nail to retain their monopolies and monopolistic price 
structures.

--
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 22 65

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:53:45 +0000 (GMT)

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:34:15 +0000

Roberto and all,

> network that unites people of different culture and language.

  I agree with you thinking here compleatly.  But lets try to keep things in
perspective.
The GP is an leadership effort for just such international cooperation, not
a government
intervention of any kind as I read it.  The MoU is a select group self
appointed from
a leadership standpoint to carve off the Domain Name system with tossing in
some
7 new gTLD's and planning to take over the managment of .com, .net, and .org
without
the benifit of a broad consensus even and making the entry fee of $10k to
become a
member of CORE and thereby register Domain names.  This is like joining a
"Country Club".  Not a true cooperative effort.  Hence the Department of
Commerce
and others have ask for the US governments help, and now recieved it in the
form
of the GP, with very broad input already.

> government interference. Any government interference.

   What you term as government interferance is mearly government
assistance.  There
is a big diffrence between the two.  If the MoU process would have been
open,
the need for requestin Government assistance would not have been needed.
This
was discussed at length and eluded to as possibly happening some months
ago.  The
GP is the first tangable results of that precieved need by the majority of
the Internet
citizens disgruntalment with the MoU.

> resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us.

  The MoU is is very much look upon as a private "Big Brother" method of
gaining minority control of the Domain name system.  This is painfully
evidant in the lack of support from the majority of Internet citizens around
the
world and company's and orginizations as well.

> enforced by an external authority.

  And being forced by and external set of policies is exactly what the MoU
does or provides for, whithout the benifit of a truely open process.  If
the
use of a democratic process, this would not be the case with respect to the
MoU and it's subsidearies (PAB/POC/CORE).

> feel better now), may I go to the specific point addressed by your

  I for one am glad you did.  I hope now, that with my response and the GP,
you will inable yourself to see a clearer picture with the flaw in the
diffrences
in the MoU and the GP form a openess standpoint.

> instead of building something with you?

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:34:15 +0000

Roberto and all,

 Regards,

---

From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 20:01:33 -0400 (AST)

> intervention of any kind as I read it.

Well read it again. It's talking about USG decisions all over it. There's
NOTHING about international cooperation there.

> The MoU is a select group self appointed from a leadership standpoint to
> carve off the Domain Name system with tossing in some 7 new gTLD's and
> planning to take over the managment of .com, .net, and .org without
> become a member of CORE and thereby register Domain names.  This is like
> joining a "Country Club".  Not a true cooperative effort.  Hence the
> Department of Commerce and others have ask for the US governments help,
> and now recieved it in the form of the GP, with very broad input already.

Have you read the requirements in the GP for being a registry? (24hour
guards, connectivity, redundant sites etc...) I'd pitch that at somewhere in
the region of $200K *at least*. And also note the subtle way that they
mention the requirements of the registrars. It's hinting at more of the
same. In comparison, the 10K joining fee of CORE is CHEAP!!! (And I've
always argued that the $10K was only to get CORE running, once it WAS up and
running, as it would be managed on cost recovery, then the amount charged to
"join" would be very low).
Note also that the GP just says that registries will treat all registrars
equally (eg: As I'm a registry holding ".com", if you want to be a registrar
of mine you will pay me $20K)
The GP is setting up lots of country clubs all around. It's taking the worse
bits and increasing them. Doing well so far.
And the MoU is *not* just a small group appointing people,the signatures are
coming from loads of different places (I haven't done a count lately but I'd
say its nearing 200 organisations). PAB membership is open to just about
all. CORE looks as if it will be re-opening membership applications. POC is
*currently* looking how to redo the setup, but even in its current form it
takes members from all types of different organisations (ISOC, IAB, IANA,
WIPO, -you all know the rest-).
The GP however is basically a document written up by Ira Magaziner and pals
with lots of lobbying from strong interests. Guess who's benefitting most
from the GP? It's NSI. CORE, under the GP would almost certainly get a TLD
and if they coulddo it well, maybe they would even be able to setup a few
different non-profit organisation (in the CORE format) and merit more than
one new TLD. NSI is written into the document in no uncertain terms.
Do you think that Kashpureff, Jay Fenello, the eDNS crowd etc... would be
able to meet the criteria? For one, allof them want to do business as
registry AND registrar, and the way that the GP is set out just hurts them.
CORE could get something, the others will get nothing.
And lets not forget that it pospones just about doing anything for a longish
period. So, it's the Status Quo for probably a year or more under that
proposal.

> world and company's and orginizations as well.

May I ask what support does the GP have? Apart from USG (yea, it's no small
thing, but it looks as if it's just Ira's baby...)

> does or provides for, whithout the benifit of a truely open process.  If the

Huh? Could you explain the difference between the way the USG has produced
it's GP and the way the IAHC produced the gTLD-MoU? :
USG: set up an RFC, then went away and kept silent until the suddenly came
out and published a document (you don't even know WHO wrote the document.
For all we know it could have been just one person). In any case, they took
notice of the comments that they wanted to take note of and ignored those
that they wanted to ignore. Apparently they had something like 1500
responses to the RFC.
In the case of the IAHC, there were members from ITU (representing telco's),
members from WIPO (representing the trademark group), and members appointed
from different "I" associations amongst others. A *lot* of discussion was
carried out in the open on mailing lists etc. (Have you ever seen Ira or
*any* USG official ask any questions on any mailing lists and/or enter ANY
type of debate?), and then they went away and talked amongst themselves and
came out with a document.
To be fair, I think that there is NO openess in the way the USG has created
the GP. One can argue if there was a lot or a little openess in the IAHC
process, but it takes a fool to think that the IAHC was less open.

Yours, John Broomfield

---

From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 20:01:33 -0400 (AST)

Yours, John Broomfield

---

From: Mike Truskowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 18:08:12 -0800 (PST)

Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum.

mike

---

From: Mike Truskowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 18:08:12 -0800 (PST)

mike

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:39:57 -0500

>Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum.

 No. If you don't like this stuff
 don't read it. This is as important
 issue and deserves more discussion
 not less. Even to the point of
 disrupting normal business. Because
 if you people can't solve this the
 rest slides into chaos.

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:39:57 -0500

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net

---

From: Merton Campbell Crockett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 06:25:54 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Bob Allisat wrote:

} Mike wrote:
} >Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum.
} 
}
}                 This is as important
}  issue and deserves more discussion
}  not less.

Agreed!

}                              Because
}  if you people can't solve this the
}  rest slides into chaos.

>From your choice of pronoun, I assume your intent is to rant and rave rather
than participate in a solution.

Merton Campbell Crockett
Hasentaler InfoSysteme

---

From: Merton Campbell Crockett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 06:25:54 -0800 (PST)

} Mike wrote:

Agreed!

}                              Because

Merton Campbell Crockett
Hasentaler InfoSysteme

---

From: Mike Truskowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 07:24:07 -0800 (PST)

Bob,
Some people know how to play the game and others don't.

Please check your group reply mailing lists.  Are they
all appropriate?

mike

---

From: Mike Truskowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 07:24:07 -0800 (PST)

Bob,

mike