- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:08:55 +0100 (BST) you said: >On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> This implies that the current members from IAB, ISOC and IANA represent >> USA interests. What I don't understand how there is a specific >> "European" interest that is different than a USA or Japanese interest >> in regards to gTLDs. No one from Europe has ever fully explained this >> difference to me. > >My impression is that while there may not be a specific European >interest there is certainly a clearly visible US interest. Oddly >enough, that US interest is best expressed as "there is no >significant non-US interest". > >The problem that the PAB/POC/CORE/gTLD MOU are supposed to solve >has two aspects: first, the existing gTLDs (com/net/org) ignore the >existence of the rest of the world. Secondly, the US is excessively >fond of litigation. > >If .com was .com.us, there would be no PAB/POC/etc. Unfortunately >those who originally designed the DNS forgot about the rest of the >world. They set up a series of global categories (.com, .edu, .gov) >that are universal, global. Then national TLDs for other countries >were added more or less as an afterthought. The underlying >assumption was {the rest of the world doesn't exist, there are no >borders, only the US matters} blurred together. > >If the companies now in .com were in .com.us, then any trademark >disputes would go to US courts and no one in the rest of the world >would care. This is certainly what happens in the UK where there >are disputes: the people involved are asked to go sort it out in >the courts. In the final draft the IAHC created, we pondered the possibility of freezing .com and making .us more useful (see section 8.1.1). We were told by legal counsel that abolishing .com would land all of us in court with multi-million dollar lawsuits on each of us. > >Unfortunately .com is global and generally speaking there is no >sane way to resolve disputes, because the holder of a .com domain >name may be in any country of the world and their right to the use >of the name may be challenged from any other country in the world. >Therefore it is impossible to set up a general mechanism for dealing >with disputes, because to do that you have to resolve hundreds or >thousands of contradictory trademark rules, something similar to >trying to solve 1,000 simultaneous equations in 3 unknowns. WIPO has set up the ACP which is fast, online, and cheap to resolve disputes. In a world where .com can't be frozen we have to find some solution and I believe the WIPO ACP is so far the closest to a solution. > >The gTLD MOU approach does little to resolve this unsolveable problem; >instead the proposal is to create many new gTLDs, each of which has >the same unsolveable problems as .com. From an American perspective, >this makes a certain amount of sense. From outside it looks mad. How many is many? We start with 7 and based on what will happen either leave it at that or add more. > >Basically, the problem is that the Internet is excessively US-centric. >We need people in the POC and elsewhere that are aware that there >is a world outside of the United States. Backing up a few months, the original proposal of IAHC was to have a lottery with registrars distributed by geographic regions. That would mean that out of 28 registrars only 7 would be in North America. This was specifically designed since the IAHC members did realize there is a world outside of the USA. This was abolished at the insistence of the EC. So we now have so far 10 signed up registrars, of which 50% are from North America. > >There are arguments for gTLDs. But I think that if there had been a >strong non-US involvement in IAHC/the POC, that the whole thing would >have been redesigned to where it made more sense. As it is, this >American problem is being exported to the rest of the world in all >of its mad glory. If it is a USA only problem, then why should other regions care? Register only in your .xx country code and not in .com and it is no longer your problem. But as we know many companies throughout the world register in .com and therefore it is everyone's problem. > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > Hank -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:37:57 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:45:07 +0200 you said: >> If you measure things in Internet terms, by looking at host counts, >> for example, Europe represents something like 25% of the Internet. >> From this point of view, two seats are insufficient. >> >> Of course, if you look at things from a functional point of view, >> the Internet itself is seriously under-represented on the iPOC. > >Also, if you look at the participating members of the PAB it starts >to become a joke. The totally unrepresentative PAB which has no >power but recommends to the [i]POC which is unrepresentative and has >no power but recommends to the some day CORE which is supposed to >have power but doesn't because according to the gTLD-MoU the ISOC >and IANA have veto power over everything. Neat, huh? And if everyone in RIPE joined the PAB, you would become a controlling force rather than what you refer to as "a joke". > >I don't really want to stir up yet another debate on this list since >there are plenty to bore everyone on the other related lists, but >personally I'd rather see RIPE make an effort to work on a logical, >workable, reasonable solution than to support the IAHC mess. > >My 0.02 Euros... >Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ > Hank -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:36:26 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List -- a further question
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 20:05:36 +0000 you said: >Hank, > >I realised after sending my earlier message that I had omitted the >following question from the list which I described as indicating >the areas in which I would find more information helpful. > >I understand that the seven new gTLD's have some pilot or experimental >character. If so, what is the experimental hypothesis, how soon is it >to be tested, and what criteria will be used to determine whether >experience with the the seven new domains confirms the hypothesis ? > >Best regards, > >Niall I would prefer to stick to the topic that was raised, which was the makeup of the POC. There is even a specific place to discuss this: http://www.gtld-mou.org/notice-97-01/ Other questions in regards to the gTLD process should be directed to poc at gtld-mou.org. Not that I am trying to avoid the question but I left this process due to the amount of time involved and prefer to focus on just one aspect at the present time. Hank -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:17:27 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 22:14:30 +0100 (BST) you said: >If you measure things in Internet terms, by looking at host counts, >for example, Europe represents something like 25% of the Internet. >From this point of view, two seats are insufficient. What region does WIPO and ITU represent? If none, then we are left with 7 people: 2 IAB, 2 ISOC, 2 IANA, 1 INTA. Out of those 7, 2 are from Europe, or 28%. But once we start down the slippery slope of politics, why do we assume that it will be based on Internet demographics, and not, population size or GNP or whatever other metric politicians will come up with? And even if we select Internet demographics, there will be cat fights about it as well. The current "checkers" acknowledge that more and more sites can't be polled. And what were to happen if a country with say 10,000 hosts says that for every host in their country there are 1000 users, vs country B that has 30,000 hosts and the Internet stats says 10 users per host. > >Of course, if you look at things from a functional point of view, >the Internet itself is seriously under-represented on the iPOC. Which is what we should be worride about, and not whether the person comes from Japan, UK, Canada or the USA. Hank > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:13:27 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by paf＠swip.net 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > There was unanimous agreement by the participants that RIPE should > > nominate a European candidate to fill an iPOC seat. > > > >This action item thus originates not in an attempt to impose a "European" > >agenda, but from what was understood as an invitation to become more > >involved. > > Which I think is what IAB resolved by appointing Patrik. I think I, and some other people, have been afraid when hearing that "Europe want a European candidate", that people in Europe want, and will, create the same kind of EU-Centric view on things as "we in Europe" think is bad with the US. Is the next step that people in Asia will look as bad on us in Europe as we look at the US? No, I think, and see in what is written in this thread, that the important thing is to get people from _non_-US. Unfortunately, it is so easy to generalize people and their opinions from where they live, and just because so many global solutions designed in the US has through history been very very local people think that _all_ people from the US think like that, still (people on POC don't!). So, a couple of remarks: + POC/PAB/CORE are global organizations, like IETF, IAB, ISOC, ITU, WIPO etc + The representatives from global organizations is representing that organization to 100%, which means that the person have to have a global view on things + I think/hope people in RIPE are saying that we need non-US people active and not only people from the US (for historical reasons) I _hope_ that the view from RIPE is not to push especially European interests, but truly global interests. I personally think RIPE and many others want these organizations, ISOC, IAB, IANA etc to show explicitely that they really are international, by electing people that can have a global view, which means of course stating explicitely that some US-centric things have to be stopped. I.e. I think this is a lack of confidence that these organizations are global. This is solved by having these organizations electing people which are not from the US, i.e. for example me. So, I do represent IAB, as is Rob, so I neither represent RIPE or EU, but I live here in Europe, I am used to work with an ISO-3166 country-code TLD, and I have been working a lot with the problems we have in Sweden because "com" et.al. exists, and I do know about the problems and benefits from working in something like the EU. > Not I. Perhaps Patrik. I am just an outsie observer at this > point :-) I am coming to the RIPE meeting on thursday. I'll remind you though that there will be an open meeting with POC in Europe in late november, so this will _not_ be the "presentation of POC and gTLDs" you might ask for. A lot of things are happening as we type regarding starting operations so see the visit on thursday as one occation when I come to RIPE to listen to your concerns. >>>(Don't >>>forget the WIPO and ITU reps who live and work in Geneva who also sit >>>on the iPOC - and you get to a total of 4 resident Europeans currently >>>on the iPOC - a number way out of proportion to Europe's size) >> >>I really think this is a red herring. Residency is not the issue. > >I don't think it is a red herring. If someone carries an EU passport, >pays taxes in an EU country and has lived in an EU country for 12 years >doesn't that qualify him/her to represent European interests? If not residency and knowledge is the issue, then what is it? Why should the EU have an explicit representative? As an inhabitant of a country in the EU, I don't want the EU, or representatives from the EU, behave like people from the US did some 20 years ago. We should have learned and should behave better. Especially on the Internet which is a truly global way of communicating. The same thing for RIPE (as RIPE and EU have different countries as member nations). I also, as a last point, think it is bad if RIPE want representatives from "Europe" as RIPE is covering also large parts of Africa and Asia. I.e. representatives from RIPE is one thing, but European membership is something different. >>The same, and very sincerely. I have a feeling that we may be involved >>here in the beginning of what I have sometimes heard called "a violent >>agreement". > > I enjoy every minute. -Hank Yeah, is not this fun? Regards, Patrik -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:09:02 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 2

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by jdd＠vbc.net 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >Also, if you look at the participating members of the PAB it starts > >to become a joke. The totally unrepresentative PAB which has no > >power but recommends to the [i]POC which is unrepresentative and has > >no power but recommends to the some day CORE which is supposed to > >have power but doesn't because according to the gTLD-MoU the ISOC > >and IANA have veto power over everything. Neat, huh? > > And if everyone in RIPE joined the PAB, you would become a controlling > force rather than what you refer to as "a joke". The problem is that joining the PAB requires signing the gTLD MOU, which has some unacceptable provisions. There are suggestions that one can sign the gTLD MOU while disagreeing with certain of its provisions. DEC has done this. If people could agree on what parts of the gTLD MOU are disagreeable, it might well be worth while signing with a standard disclaimer. This would of course only give you membership in the PAB, a powerless body whose role is simply to give advice. The price for this is your signature, which will be used as evidence of your support for the entire gTLD MOU process. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 11:21:14 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by jdd＠vbc.net 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >If you measure things in Internet terms, by looking at host counts, > >for example, Europe represents something like 25% of the Internet. > >From this point of view, two seats are insufficient. > > What region does WIPO and ITU represent? If none, then we are > left with 7 people: 2 IAB, 2 ISOC, 2 IANA, 1 INTA. Out of those > 7, 2 are from Europe, or 28%. > > But once we start down the slippery slope of politics, why do we > assume that it will be based on Internet demographics, and not, :-) I was simply responding to YOUR remark that Europe's representation was disproportionate. You introduced the notion of proportionate representation. > >Of course, if you look at things from a functional point of view, > >the Internet itself is seriously under-represented on the iPOC. > > Which is what we should be worride about, and not whether the person > comes from Japan, UK, Canada or the USA. With some slight reservations, I agree with you. The real problem is that the POC, which is supposed to make policy affecting the entire Internet, is largely controlled by lawyers who have no understanding of the Internet. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:59:05 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:32:04 +0000 you said: > > I am aware that certain sensitivities and frustrations are > involved here, on all "sides". Please try to keep this in > mind when reading what follows. If you find anything > offensive, please consider that it may be due to simple > clumsiness or ignorance on my part, rather than to antagonism > or malice. > > There is an opportunity here to resolve, rather than to > exacerbate problems. All understood and I enjoy these discussions over some of the unmoderated lists and can take all criticism seriously since I respect the people here - as opposed to unknown email kings who spit out 20 pieces of garbage a day on gtld-discuss. > There was unanimous agreement by the participants that RIPE should > nominate a European candidate to fill an iPOC seat. > >This action item thus originates not in an attempt to impose a "European" >agenda, but from what was understood as an invitation to become more >involved. Which I think is what IAB resolved by appointing Patrik. >I believe that the process is intrinsically -- certainly not exclusively -- >political, and that the political dimension needs to be recognised rather >than dismissed. The Internet has become a key element in the globalisation >of commerce, and is therefore quite legitimately the object of attention for >governments and trade organisations. Once we let the Internet be dominated by "political" interests - then it is the end of the Internet as we know it. How many of you think CIDR would have come off, if the "political dimension" had been thrown into the equation? How many small ISPs would have screamed that CIDR and non-portable addresses hurt their business? How many European ISPs would have run to the EC and complained, stating the CIDR benefits only Sprint, MCI and UUnet? >I am still missing some fundamentals. From putting the questions to >others, I understand I am far from alone. The following questions >indicate the areas in which I would find more information helpful. > >What problems are understood to be addressed by the proposals made in >the gTLD-MoU and associated documents ? > >To what extent are these problems expected to be solved by the new >procedures ? > >Unless there are specific entrance criteria for registration in each of the >new gTLD's, how will they not become mere clones of .COM ? Your questions require a fairly large reply and perhaps best is a face to face discussion, which I hope the iPOC can provide to RIPE. >>d) Europe has 2 people currently sitting on iPOC: Geert Glas, appointed >>by INTA (a lawyer) and Patrik Falstrom appointed by the IAB (a techie from >>Tele2). How do these people *not* serve a *European* perspective? > >Here, Hank, I think you beg the question which you have just raised. > >The "Europe" which "has 2 people sitting on the iPOC" is that "Europe" >(if any) to which these people are listening, and which they are keeping >informed, and whose interests they are working to protect. I particularly >avoid saying, "whose interests they represent", as I believe that if >adequate protection is afforded actual representation may not need to be >an issue. So far, this "Europe" is neither the "Europe of RIPE" nor the >"Europe of the Commission". This implies that the current members from IAB, ISOC and IANA represent USA interests. What I don't understand how there is a specific "European" interest that is different than a USA or Japanese interest in regards to gTLDs. No one from Europe has ever fully explained this difference to me. > >I think it would be really useful if you, Hank, or Geert Glas or >Patrik Falstrom could join us in Amsterdam on Thursday. I realize that >this may not be possible. I also realize that the engagement whose lack >I keep decrying is a two-way process, and that I too ought perhaps have >done more sooner to bring it about. Not I. Perhaps Patrik. I am just an outsie observer at this point :-) > >>(Don't >>forget the WIPO and ITU reps who live and work in Geneva who also sit >>on the iPOC - and you get to a total of 4 resident Europeans currently >>on the iPOC - a number way out of proportion to Europe's size) > >I really think this is a red herring. Residency is not the issue. I don't think it is a red herring. If someone carries an EU passport, pays taxes in an EU country and has lived in an EU country for 12 years doesn't that qualify him/her to represent European interests? > >>Regards, >>Hank > >The same, and very sincerely. I have a feeling that we may be involved >here in the beginning of what I have sometimes heard called "a violent >agreement". I enjoy every minute. -Hank > >Niall > -------- Logged at Sat Sep 20 23:14:51 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 1

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 20 Sep '97

20 Sep '97

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:30:46 +0000 you said: >RIPE-27-TLD-5: > - RIPE to nominate European candidate to iPOC seat. > [?] As a former IAHC and iPOC member let me ask a few questions: a) How does one define what Europe is? b) If you use the conventional definition of Europe, then why would not Africa, North America, Asia and the Middle East each request a seat? c) How do you then not make the process political - rather than functional? d) Europe has 2 people currently sitting on iPOC: Geert Glas, appointed by INTA (a lawyer) and Patrik Falstrom appointed by the IAB (a techie from Tele2). How do these people *not* serve a *European* perspective? (Don't forget the WIPO and ITU reps who live and work in Geneva who also sit on the iPOC - and you get to a total of 4 resident Europeans currently on the iPOC - a number way out of proportion to Europe's size) Regards, Hank -------- Logged at Sat Sep 20 18:33:36 MET DST 1997 ---------

3 2

RIPE TLD-WG Action List -- a further question
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 20 Sep '97

20 Sep '97

Hank, I realised after sending my earlier message that I had omitted the following question from the list which I described as indicating the areas in which I would find more information helpful. I understand that the seven new gTLD's have some pilot or experimental character. If so, what is the experimental hypothesis, how soon is it to be tested, and what criteria will be used to determine whether experience with the the seven new domains confirms the hypothesis ? Best regards, Niall -------- Logged at Sat Sep 20 23:45:38 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0