How Europe caused CORE to fail
As many of you are aware the entire gTLD MoU and CORE setup is close to dissolving. Extract from: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0122dns.html Sources said Magaziner may reject the CORE proposal because it was designed "behind closed doors" and because it would have shifted domain naming from the U.S. to Geneva. Magaziner declined to comment. ----------------------------------------------------------- Best stop now if you don't want some serious flammage. <FLAME> One of the two major reasons the USA gov't has back off of this entire proposal is the removal of the USA from gTLDs (the other is trademark issues). Lets look at the current POC: Amadeu Abril i Abril, <amadeu at nominalia.com>, Spain-Europe, appointed by CORE Rob Austein, <sra at epilogue.com>, USA-Americas, appointed by IAB Willie Black, <w.black at nominet.org.uk>, UK-Europe, appointed by IANA Patrik F?ltstr?m, <paf at swip.net>, Sweden-Europe, appointed by IAB Christopher Gibson, <christopher.gibson at wipo.int>, International Treaty Organization, appointed by WIPO Geert Glas, <geert.glas at lcv.be>, Belgium-Europe, appointed by INTA Alan Hanson, <alan at finet.net>, USA-Americas, appointed by CORE Glen Kowack, <gkowack at well.com>, USA-Americas, appointed by IANA David W. Maher (POC Chair), <dwmaher at ibm.net>, USA-Americas, appointed by ISOC Robert Shaw, <robert.shaw at itu.int>, International Treaty Organization, appointed by ITU Christopher Wilkinson, <christopher.wilkinson at bxl.dg13.cec.be>, Belgium-Europe, appointed by ISOC PAB Observers Peter Mott, <peter at 2day.net.nz>, New Zealand-Asia-Pacific, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body Javier Sola, <jsola at aui.es>, Spain-Europe, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body 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%. Out of 11 people on the IAHC clearly 6 were USA based and residing American citizens: Sally Abel, Georges Strawn, Perry Metzger, Dave Crocker, Don Heath, Dave Maher. 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). 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. 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. Today, as well as last year, Europe has zero say in anything regarding gTLDs. NSI and IANA do not listen to the ITU, WIPO, the EC nor anyone out of the USA government. We were on the way to convincing the USA gov't to go along with the plan and suddenly it finds out that only 30% of the people are American. So once Ira and Bill scuttle the CORE plan, ITU/WIPO/EC will be right back where it was a two years ago with once again zero say in the gTLD realm. You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved. Hank Nussbacher former IAHC member former iPOC member IL nTLD contact </FLAME> Sorry I have been rather blunt, but just had to get this off my chest. -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 20:40:23 MET 1998 ---------
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
One of the two major reasons the USA gov't has back off of this entire proposal is the removal of the USA from gTLDs (the other is trademark issues).
Do you mean the gTLDs from the USA? Or perhaps US representation from the POC?
Lets look at the current POC:
Amadeu Abril i Abril, <amadeu at nominalia.com>, Spain-Europe, appointed by CORE Rob Austein, <sra at epilogue.com>, USA-Americas, appointed by IAB Willie Black, <w.black at nominet.org.uk>, UK-Europe, appointed by IANA Patrik F?ltstr?m, <paf at swip.net>, Sweden-Europe, appointed by IAB Christopher Gibson, <christopher.gibson at wipo.int>, International Treaty Organization, appointed by WIPO
Replaced Albert Tramposch (American) within the last few weeks.
Geert Glas, <geert.glas at lcv.be>, Belgium-Europe, appointed by INTA Alan Hanson, <alan at finet.net>, USA-Americas, appointed by CORE Glen Kowack, <gkowack at well.com>, USA-Americas, appointed by IANA David W. Maher (POC Chair), <dwmaher at ibm.net>, USA-Americas, appointed by ISOC Robert Shaw, <robert.shaw at itu.int>, International Treaty Organization, appointed by ITU
American.
Christopher Wilkinson, <christopher.wilkinson at bxl.dg13.cec.be>, Belgium-Europe, appointed by ISOC
PAB Observers
Peter Mott, <peter at 2day.net.nz>, New Zealand-Asia-Pacific, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body Javier Sola, <jsola at aui.es>, Spain-Europe, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body
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.
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. 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.
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. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 23:02:22 MET 1998 ---------
At 09:16 PM 1/24/98 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
As many of you are aware the entire gTLD MoU and CORE setup is close to dissolving.
Extract from: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0122dns.html Sources said Magaziner may reject the CORE proposal because it was designed "behind closed doors" and because it would have shifted domain
I am so sick of hearing this, I find it hard to come up with the right words! The process was more open to public scrutiny than any other element ever introduced into the net! Further, it was open to anyone who wanted to participate. That some decided not to participate and, instead, shoot from the periphery, is only a testament to their different agenda - mostly because it was to their private interests, rather than the wider interest of the Internet.
naming from the U.S. to Geneva. Magaziner declined to comment. -----------------------------------------------------------
Best stop now if you don't want some serious flammage. <FLAME>
One of the two major reasons the USA gov't has back off of this entire proposal is the removal of the USA from gTLDs (the other is trademark issues).
Lets look at the current POC:
Amadeu Abril i Abril, <amadeu at nominalia.com>, Spain-Europe, appointed by CORE Rob Austein, <sra at epilogue.com>, USA-Americas, appointed by IAB Willie Black, <w.black at nominet.org.uk>, UK-Europe, appointed by IANA Patrik F?ltstr?m, <paf at swip.net>, Sweden-Europe, appointed by IAB Christopher Gibson, <christopher.gibson at wipo.int>, International Treaty Organization, appointed by WIPO Geert Glas, <geert.glas at lcv.be>, Belgium-Europe, appointed by INTA Alan Hanson, <alan at finet.net>, USA-Americas, appointed by CORE Glen Kowack, <gkowack at well.com>, USA-Americas, appointed by IANA David W. Maher (POC Chair), <dwmaher at ibm.net>, USA-Americas, appointed by ISOC Robert Shaw, <robert.shaw at itu.int>, International Treaty Organization, appointed by ITU Christopher Wilkinson, <christopher.wilkinson at bxl.dg13.cec.be>, Belgium-Europe, appointed by ISOC
PAB Observers
Peter Mott, <peter at 2day.net.nz>, New Zealand-Asia-Pacific, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body Javier Sola, <jsola at aui.es>, Spain-Europe, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body
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%.
Out of 11 people on the IAHC clearly 6 were USA based and residing American citizens: Sally Abel, Georges Strawn, Perry Metzger, Dave Crocker, Don Heath, Dave Maher.
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).
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.
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.
Today, as well as last year, Europe has zero say in anything regarding gTLDs. NSI and IANA do not listen to the ITU, WIPO, the EC nor anyone out of the USA government. We were on the way to convincing the USA gov't to go along with the plan and suddenly it finds out that only 30% of the people are American. So once Ira and Bill scuttle the CORE plan, ITU/WIPO/EC will be right back where it was a two years ago with once again zero say in the gTLD realm.
You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved.
Hank Nussbacher former IAHC member former iPOC member IL nTLD contact </FLAME>
Sorry I have been rather blunt, but just had to get this off my chest.
See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24, July 98 <http://www.isoc.org/inet98/> -------- Logged at Sun Jan 25 17:36:47 MET 1998 ---------
participants (3)
-
hank＠ibm.net.il -
heath＠isoc.org -
jdd＠vbc.net