How Europe caused CORE to fail
At 10:00 PM 1/24/98 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
Out of 11+2 members on POC, Rob Austein, Dave Maher, Glen Kowack and Alan Hanson are USA reps. That makes USA representation about 30%. Go back a year and you will find that in the IAHC the USA made up 54%.
Ignore the observers who are, after all, only observers. Correct the count by adding Robert Shaw and Albert Tramposch back in (Tramposch only just left the POC) and you have 6/11 Americans, or 55.5% American. That is, the "decrease" in US representation is scarcely the issue.
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.
Now lets look at the current gTLDs: com/net/org. 99% of all USA based companies register their names in these 3 gTLDs. If we examine the RIPE stats that are published each month, I would guess that only about 10% of companies in Europe register in the gTLD area and prefer the nTLDs. So the general makeup of current users of gTLDs is overwhelming USA (we have said all along the gTLDs is a USA based problem and they should migrate to .us as everyone else is using the ISO3166 nTLD effectively).
You can count this various ways. By domain count US-registered .COM entries are somewhere in the low 70%s.
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.
But the gTLD MOU's problems aren't due to a lack of American presence. They are due to a very vocal North American-based opposition who are disdained by those who have been acting as spokesmen for the gTLD MOU and to a lack of industry support. Of the world's 10,000 or so ISPs only a few dozen have signed the MOU. Why? Essentially because the gTLD MOU crowd have ignored them and ignored their interests.
What have you gained? It could very well end up to be "king of nothing". The USA gov't is not stupid. The gTLD MoU was set up in Geneva, controlled via a very European run organization (ITU - go thru the halls and count the number of European employees) and we might have been able to pull it all off if certain people had checked their geo-egos at the door and looked at what they had gained.
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. 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 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
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
-------- Logged at Sun Jan 25 16:00:10 MET 1998 ---------
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 ---------
participants (2)
-
hank＠ibm.net.il -
jdd＠vbc.net