On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Unfortunately, the US gov't does not view people who live and work outside the USA for foreign organizations as representing "their" viewpoint. Albert and Bob fall into that category. As to observers - whether they vote or not - there are no Americans there.
Well, be this as it may, "how Europe caused CORE to fail" is inappropriate. The decisions to put the gTLD MOU's various entities in Geneva was made a long time ago and it was made by Americans.
So for something that is mainly used by Americans, and created by Americans (Arpanet), and run by Americans (IANA), we were able to extract 46% non-USA participants. Not bad. But anyone who has followed the IAHC, iPOC, POC lists and discussions knows that Europe and non-Americans have been clamoring for *more* representation. So now USA has a minority stake in POC (30%), due to the unrelenting pressure of certain geographical interest groups.
The POC was actually attempting to curry favour in Europe by handing out seats. This succeeded in Europe but may certainly have backfired in the States.
Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head.
Well, yes, but "Europe" didn't do this, the POC (or iPOC) did.
All of this was done long ago and done by a US-dominated POC. The loudest voices defending the decision to locate in Geneva (Crocker, Shaw, Maher, Tramposch, etc) are certainly American.
Because it was and still is the "right" thing to do.
Uhm, if it was right, it would have worked. It wasn't the right thing to do, it wasn't done right, and it hasn't worked. Locating CORE in Geneva was a fundamental error. There are certain circles in the USA to whom the international institutions of Geneva are anathema. If CORE was just going to be a registry for a handful of new TLDs, this wouldn't matter. But if the POC and CORE are to take over management of all of the gTLDs, including .com/net/org, the physical location of CORE matters a great deal. It automatically creates a very powerful anti-gTLD MOU lobby in Washington. This is exactly where we are today. The coalition against the gTLD MOU is formidable. It includes US flag-waving nationalists (most prominently the Black Helicopter/anti-Trilateralist nuts), the eDNS/AlterNIC/etc group, and large segments of the Internet industry.
If Europe hopes to have CORE and the gTLD MoU succeed (and not lose it all) it should contact POC and state that the US gov't be allowed to determine the size and staffing of POC. Let Ira and Bill place reps from MCI and Uunet on POC.
You are assuming that what its enemies claim about the POC is true: that it can and does make decisions entirely on its own, that the elaborate apparatus that they have for gathering feedback is a sham, that they can just change the rules of the game at a moment's notice. It would make more sense to simply move CORE to a less contentious jurisdiction. If, for example, CORE were moved to Virginia, US objections would immediately disappear. This is probably a necessary step in order to acquire control of .com/net/org. Much of the most vocal opposition to the gTLD MOU is from various individuals in the US and Canada. This could be defused by simply appointing these individuals to some sort of advisory board. Industry opposition could be similarly defused by offering a seat on the POC to, say, Barbara Dooley, executive director of the CIX.
You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved.
These comments are interesting set against reports that IANA, ISOC, the POC, and CORE are intent on ignoring the US government and are raising a $10 million war chest to fight expected lawsuits.
Who wins? Not the US gov't. Not CORE. Not Europe. NSI does. Think about it. -Hank
Well, once again, this isn't Europe making a decision. It's CORE and the POC deciding to take on immensely more powerful opponents. Compromise would make a lot more sense. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Mon Jan 26 09:38:13 MET 1998 ---------