Hi, Jim. You wrote:
On Friday, February 06, 1998 7:27 PM, Roberto Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: @Jay, @ @May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, <snip> @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. @
Roberto,
Your "big brothers" are CORE and the POC/PAB as well as the ITU/ISOC/IANA/IAHC, etc. They are making the decisions for you.
Let me disagree. I've participated in all decisions CORE has made, since its foundation. This doesn't mean that I have agreed on everything, but I have always had the possibility of knowing the different positions, made up my mind, and participate. I also had the possibility to make my voice heard, and to try to get other people on my side. Whether I was succesful or not, I can't tell, and it doesn't matter. The process has been always open and democratic. This is not the case with the Green Paper. The decision was forced upon the Internet community, and all we can do is agree or comment in the hope that the comment will be taken into account. There has been no open discussion, no consultation of the other Governments of the world, no vote, no nothing.
The heart and soul of the Registry Industry are the people and companies that are strong enough to stand on their own without paying a "big brother" $10,000 and $2,000/month to lobby for them.
The amount of the payments the Registrars make to CORE, and the use of the money by CORE, are discussed and decided by the Registrars. CORE Members like Deutsche Telekom or Telia, just to make an example, are strong and big enough not to need a "big brother". They are actually stronger and bigger than CORE itself. Nevertheless, companies of any size happen to coordinate in order to achieve their goals. It's the purpose of all associations of any sort. We ourselves (ETSI) are a not-for-profit association of some 450 members in the Telecom business worldwide, most of which far bigger than the association itself. They decide the fees, pay them, and decide what ETSI has to do with the money. Nobody in those companies (IBM, Nokia, Ericsson, France Telecom, NEC, ....) thinks at ETSI as a Big Brother. I agree that, on the long term, the $10,000 "entry fee" has to be removed. But in the short term, how do you think we could have raised the money for setting up the system, considering that we strongly believe in a Shared Registry System as the only reasonable answer to the needs for the management of the Domain Names? We could have asked to Ira Magaziner or other people. Maybe we would have had the money from a Big Brother or a Big Sister, so no need for $10K, but would you think Big Brother would have left ourselves arbiter of the choices? No, Big Brother would have decided himself. The only answer was to give ourselves financial independence to be free to decide. Which we did. Of course, once the system will be up and running (and paid for), the "bareers" will be gradually removed, because they will be no longer needed (even counterproductive, because they will limit participation).
One of the interesting aspects of the Internet is that it allows many, many people to sit at the round tables where decisions are made. Those tables are as close as your keyboard and mouse. You can communicate with the other participants in real-time. People at those round tables have already grown up to the point where they decide for themselves. They do not have much trouble resisting the temptation of having others making decisions for them. They speak for themselves and their voices are heard.
Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone...
Thank you. I appreciate this. I have no doubts of the power of the open round tables, and the common effort of the Netizens. My point was only that the Green Paper, and the process that originated it, is what you can think the farthest away from this open round table. And I am astonished about why some people can accept it. Best regards Roberto -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 15:27:46 MET 1998 ---------
Roberto and all, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Hi, Jim.
You wrote:
On Friday, February 06, 1998 7:27 PM, Roberto Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: @Jay, @ @May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, <snip> @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. @
Roberto,
Your "big brothers" are CORE and the POC/PAB as well as the ITU/ISOC/IANA/IAHC, etc. They are making the decisions for you.
Let me disagree. I've participated in all decisions CORE has made, since its foundation. This doesn't mean that I have agreed on everything, but I have always had the possibility of knowing the different positions, made up my mind, and participate. I also had the possibility to make my voice heard, and to try to get other people on my side. Whether I was succesful or not, I can't tell, and it doesn't matter. The process has been always open and democratic.
If as you say here the IAHC/MoU process has been open and democratic, than how come the RSC's were not allowed to participate as CORE/POC/PAB members. Also any one else whom did not wish to sign the MoU or put up $10k to join CORE? This is NOT a open democratic process at all.
This is not the case with the Green Paper. The decision was forced upon the Internet community, and all we can do is agree or comment in the hope that the comment will be taken into account. There has been no open discussion, no consultation of the other Governments of the world, no vote, no nothing.
It is true that there has been no voting, yet. This is part of what must be done as of yet. I know for a fact becouse I have consulted with other companies and governments with respect to what ecame the GP. so you statment here is without basis of fact on that score.
The heart and soul of the Registry Industry are the people and companies that are strong enough to stand on their own without paying a "big brother" $10,000 and $2,000/month to lobby for them.
The amount of the payments the Registrars make to CORE, and the use of the money by CORE, are discussed and decided by the Registrars. CORE Members like Deutsche Telekom or Telia, just to make an example, are strong and big enough not to need a "big brother". They are actually stronger and bigger than CORE itself. Nevertheless, companies of any size happen to coordinate in order to achieve their goals. It's the purpose of all associations of any sort.
I agree with you here compleatly coordination is a necessity of course. However, inclusion of ANY and ALL stakeholders is paramount if you are to have any kind of success or consensus. Setting restrictions for participation such as signing th MoU do not lend themselves to this. Hence you now do not have any thing close to a consensus of the internet community as a whole or of the Stakeholders either. And with these restrictions you never will.
We ourselves (ETSI) are a not-for-profit association of some 450 members in the Telecom business worldwide, most of which far bigger than the association itself. They decide the fees, pay them, and decide what ETSI has to do with the money. Nobody in those companies (IBM, Nokia, Ericsson, France Telecom, NEC, ....) thinks at ETSI as a Big Brother.
I agree that, on the long term, the $10,000 "entry fee" has to be removed. But in the short term, how do you think we could have raised the money for setting up the system, considering that we strongly believe in a Shared Registry System as the only reasonable answer to the needs for the management of the Domain Names?
If you review the archives I and several others suggested many diffrent ways to raise infrastructure or start-up monies. Donations was one way. Myself and my company offered to donate a sizeable sum. It of course was refused. As to why I do not know. So this excuse for having a $10k fee to join CORE was not necessary.
We could have asked to Ira Magaziner or other people. Maybe we would have had the money from a Big Brother or a Big Sister, so no need for $10K, but would you think Big Brother would have left ourselves arbiter of the choices? No, Big Brother would have decided himself. The only answer was to give ourselves financial independence to be free to decide. Which we did.
The monies that I offered had no strings of this type at all. And it would not have been necessary for there to be any strings baised on donations if you specified what donations would or could have been excepted to begin with.
Of course, once the system will be up and running (and paid for), the "bareers" will be gradually removed, because they will be no longer needed (even counterproductive, because they will limit participation).
These "Bareers" are and have been restrictive to making the MoU a success from the beginning. They shall remain so.
One of the interesting aspects of the Internet is that it allows many, many people to sit at the round tables where decisions are made. Those tables are as close as your keyboard and mouse. You can communicate with the other participants in real-time. People at those round tables have already grown up to the point where they decide for themselves. They do not have much trouble resisting the temptation of having others making decisions for them. They speak for themselves and their voices are heard.
Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone...
Thank you. I appreciate this. I have no doubts of the power of the open round tables, and the common effort of the Netizens. My point was only that the Green Paper, and the process that originated it, is what you can think the farthest away from this open round table. And I am astonished about why some people can accept it.
I think you miss Jim's point here. The "Round Tables" helped fram part of the GP and will continue to help in the future as well. IF those of the MoU wish to participate in this process, they are of course welcome.
Best regards Roberto
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 17:39:33 MET 1998 ---------
participants (2)
-
jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com -
Roberto.Gaetano＠etsi.fr