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. On 19 Sep 97 at 7:48, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:30:46 +0000 you [Niall O'Reilly] 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:
It may help if I quote from the RIPE 27 TLD-BOF Minutes, item 10. For full text, please see www.ripe.net. - With regards to iPOC, IANA is sensitive about Europe being left out. IANA is looking for a European candidate to fill an iPOC seat. [...] 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.
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?
I think these are all aspects of the same question. 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. As you suggest, there are many ways of defining "Europe". One definition might be "those countries served by the RIPE-NCC". Another would certainly be "those countries whose interests are represented by the EU Commission"; by this I mean to include present and future EU member-states and candidate member-states. Many other definitions are possible, each with a particular validity. Whichever "Europe" we are talking about, that "Europe" -- indeed, each of those "Europes" -- needs to be sure of how its interests will be affected by what has grown from the IAHC proposals, and that those interests are adequately protected by the processes now being set up. Even at this stage, over a year after the beginning of the chain of events which led to the IAHC report, many of us are quite unsure whether what is flowing from this report represents a new hope for the management of domain names, or rather simply a cloning of the ".COM" domain, with all that that implies. When I say "many of us", I mean people with experience of the Internet or of government (rarely of both!), who have conscientiously tried to read and interpret the mountain of opinion which has been expressed on the subject. In my own case, I have had to stop at a certain point, after having begun to appreciate with sympathy the enormous effort which you, Hank and the other members of the IAHC have applied to the problem. 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 ? Many stakeholders have since been identified who were not engaged in the IAHC process. It may be possible to convince some of these stakeholders, who today find a critical stance appropriate, to adopt instead one of support for the process, if only their confidence in the process can be built. Are those driving the process aware of this "marketing gap" ? Will they address it ?
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". 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.
(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.
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". Niall -------- Logged at Sat Sep 20 19:41:40 MET DST 1997 ---------