On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:21:44 +0200 you said:
Great - a force that has zero control over the whole IAHC "process". Static electricity. We can not become part of the PAB because we can not sign the gTLD-MoU. It is an overly bureaucratic, flawed document that in the end solves very little, hinders free enterprise and gives ISOC and IANA power of attorney over the gTLD part of the Internet.
I hate to break it to you, but IANA now holds 100% control of the gTLDs as well as the nTLDs. They have done a terrfific job until now without committee intervention. The gTLD process is perhaps the start of reducing IANA's control over gTLDs/nTLDs, etc. This would have to be an evolutionary process, one where POC and PAB prove that they have enough common sense and legal status to do what needs to be done. I certainly wouldn't try to cut IANA or ISOC out of this at the first round.
And it doesn't even touch on the biggest related problem we have, which is what happens to the "." and who controls it. You ought not to architect an office building before making sure the foundation can be laid on a stable surface.
The gTLD MoU and all related items do not cover "." or nTLDs. Here is where RIPE and other organizations can step in and propose what should be done (at least one view - there are many). The IAHC/POC was not mandated to touch ".".
This would of course only give you membership in the PAB, a powerless body whose role is simply to give advice. The price for this is your signature, which will be used as evidence of your support for the entire gTLD MOU process.
If they are powerless, how did they get 2 PAB members assigned to be observers to the iPOC? If the 150 members of PAB say something as one voice - it is listened to and acted upon.
Which means nothing since 150 PAB members will likely never say anything "as one voice". More importantly, the PAB has no legally defined control over the iPOC or CORE. Whether they are listened to or not is at the whim of whoever happens to be in the iPOC. The same is true with the iPOC wrt CORE, as well as all of the above in regards to the ISOC and IANA.
PAB has voted and majority rules. For me that is one voice.
The gTLD-MoU has gone out of its way to create a lot of new acronyms with the semblance of a logical government, but with no definition of control or checks and balances. Personally, I think the initial framework outlined by Network Solutions in:
http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html
makes a lot more sense for the future and stability of the Internet as well as the TLD issue. It's a more reasonable starting place.
Hmmm. Jim Dixon says not to create any more gTLDs and you are in favor of the NSI solution, which means limitless gTLDs - each competing with the other - competing monopolies. Jim seems to be saying that this is a US problem and it would appear that NSI's solution does not take into account non-USA interests. It would appear more to be in NSI's interest that it remain in control of com/net/org and let the new gTLDs fight for market recognition that NSI already has. How does that foster European interests? If I were a European - I would think to be against the NSI proposal. Please explain how the NSI solution is "good" for Europe. -Hank
Cheers, Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/
-------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 15:50:33 MET DST 1997 ---------
On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Hmmm. Jim Dixon says not to create any more gTLDs and you are in
I didn't say that. I said that the existing gTLDs were created without giving much consideration to the existence of a world outside the USA. That was an understandable error; no one expected the Internet to become huge and important. But the proposal is to add new gTLDs without taking any realistic steps to deal with the fact that the gTLDs are international in scope. PAB/POC/CORE (why can't anyone give this thing a name??) are perhaps solving a US problem, but their solution doesn't deal reasonably with the international ramifications of their solution.
favor of the NSI solution, which means limitless gTLDs - each competing with the other - competing monopolies. Jim seems to be saying that this is a US problem
No ...
and it would appear that NSI's solution does not take into account non-USA interests.
That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the PAB/POC/CORE solution is designed to deal with the US problem and shows no awareness of the international dimension. The NSI solution may be even worse than the PAB/POC/CORE one, because it creates hundreds of new gTLDs, all with the same problems as .com, and (as far as I recall) makes no provision for any oversight of the resultant mess.
It would appear more to be in NSI's interest that it remain in control of com/net/org and let the new gTLDs fight for market recognition that NSI already has. How does that foster European interests? If I were a European - I would think to be against the NSI proposal.
What is in everyone's interest is slow, careful changes to the DNS. One of the problems (not the only one) with the PAB/POC/CORE design is that the group who made it were too US-centric and too heavily loaded with lawyers. A more technical and less US-dominated group would probably have come up with a better solution. A different one, anyway ;-) -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 18:08:29 MET DST 1997 ---------
Hank Nussbacher also wrote...
favor of the NSI solution, which means limitless gTLDs - each competing
The NSI paper does not say that there should be limitless gTLDs. Jim Dixon wrote ...
The NSI solution may be even worse than the PAB/POC/CORE one, because it creates hundreds of new gTLDs, all with the same problems as .com, and (as far as I recall) makes no provision for any oversight of the resultant mess.
NSI doesn't say they should be hundreds of new gTLDs. It says: "There is no need to limit the number of TLDs or to pre-select the TLDs themselves. In fact, market forces, not committees, should determine the most desirable brands. TLD branding and ownership, not bureaucracies, will foster increased choice by Internet consumers and increased investment by TLD providers." The main problem the world has with .com is that it is over-used. Except for country TLDs it is the only choice. Thus you have lots of people fighting each other for name and scrambling to reserve their name, any permutation of their name and as many other cool names they can think of. Over-registration and name-grabbing and the fact that you can rarely get the name you want are the main problems. If there were hundreds or thousands or millions of TLDs, guess what? Nobody cares so much about .com anymore. Very few companies will pay a million $50 registrations just to get their name with all the possible TLDs. And those that might probably don't have to because of the existing international trademark laws. By opening up the TLD level to the Internet itself (not just one bureaucratic control group) these problems go away or diminish to the point of non-importance. This is much better for the world than over-regulation, price control and competition control. I should think Europeans should understand that statement a lot better that those in the US. ;) [Note that I'm from the US and have lived in the UK and now Germany for almost 10 years.]
What is in everyone's interest is slow, careful changes to the DNS.
Absolutely. NSI's paper points this out as well. Back to work... Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 15:26:39 MET DST 1997 ---------
participants (3)
-
HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL -
jdd＠vbc.net -
ray＠carpe.net