Jay, May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of messages. Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest. The rest is being part of the Net. The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common network that unites people of different culture and language. This is the Net, a project that is in the hearts and souls of human beings, and that cannot be ruled by politicians. A project that is aimed at sharing experiences, not at establishing hierarchies. A project that can survive violent flame cyber-wars, but will be unable to survive government interference. Any government interference. I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have to be made. 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. I know we have different point of view on the structure and operation of the Internet, and I assume we will find out even more differencies if we start discussing the details of "Internet Governance". Nevertheless, let me tell you that I will be able to accept in the future an Internet governed by your rules, endorsed in an internal democratic process, but I would be much less comfortable with an Internet governed by my rules, enforced by an external authority. This said (sorry for the wasted bandwidth, but I really had to do it, I feel better now), may I go to the specific point addressed by your message. You wrote:
I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you attribute to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce Department that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. Some even suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the world, resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide.
As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in this area.
May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom. It also has to be noted, even if it is out of the context (but the subject "ITU" has already been brought up by the Prosecutor, as Perry Mason would have said), that the role of the ITU has been very important in allowing the developing countries to survive this evolution, and ITU's effort in establishing formal recommendations and regulations was not at all aimed at countering the market evolution, going towards deregulation, but to limit the perverse effects of this evolution on the weaker part of the globe. IMHO.
Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world to come up with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way to enforce those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses numerous borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will be difficult.
I believe this is exactly what they are doing. And it *is* difficult.
Do you really believe that the US Government has consulted any other Government of the world or any other consortium, body, organization outside the US? I wish I could share your optimism on politicians.
Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing the press and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that in...) and
Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces government to live up to our highest ideals.
Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise.
I can't argue with this. If you have your reason to believe that the USG process has been a good one, you may be right. I personally think that governmental interference in this process is bad in itself, independently of which side they are on. What will happen now? Other government will be pissed off (the Europen Community is, for instance) and the whole matter will become a political fight. I don't know who will win, but I know who will lose: the Net, ourselves. EU will propose Eurocracy (as we call it on this side of the Ocean) versus American Rule, and, let me tell you, the powers of the world will get a political agreement in which the ideals that got "Our Thing" going will count less than yesterday's newspaper. Shouldn't we fight among ourselves, choosing the timing and weapons, instead of praising the intervention of external powers?
The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If anybody is to reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the users, for the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any government.
That should be a big topic of debate. Representation is one of the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas and opinions are welcome.
You are absolutely right. Whatever the differencies between the two of us, even without knowing you I can tell you that I have more in common with you than with Ira Magaziner. Why should I now be forced to spend my time in fighting him instead of building something with you? Roberto -------- Logged at Sat Feb 7 14:02:08 MET 1998 ---------
[apologies for the size of the CC list, but I did cut it by 50% !] On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom.
This is highly misleading. Telecoms charges in Europe are generally high; charges between European countries are often ridiculously high. BT's tariff for a 2M line between say London and Birmingham is about the same as the charge for a DS3 over the same distance in the US. That is, bit for bit, we are charged more than 20x as much. Over international borders charges are surreal: we are quoted 20% more for a London-Paris circuit than for a London-New York circuit. The cheaper one is carried over fibre that crosses thousands of miles of open sea; the more expensive one follows the rail line between the UK and France. EuroISPA is lobbying to get telecoms charges across European borders reduced to sensible rates. The most effective argument we have is a simple comparison of European and American telecoms rates. Certainly no "internal process of the Telecom industry" has led to deregulation in Europe. Quite the contrary. The telcos are fighting tooth and nail to retain their monopolies and monopolistic price structures. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member of Council President Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65 -------- Logged at Sun Feb 8 17:38:19 MET 1998 ---------
Roberto and all, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Jay,
May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of messages. Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest.
The rest is being part of the Net. The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common network that unites people of different culture and language.
I agree with you thinking here compleatly. But lets try to keep things in perspective. The GP is an leadership effort for just such international cooperation, not a government intervention of any kind as I read it. The MoU is a select group self appointed from a leadership standpoint to carve off the Domain Name system with tossing in some 7 new gTLD's and planning to take over the managment of .com, .net, and .org without the benifit of a broad consensus even and making the entry fee of $10k to become a member of CORE and thereby register Domain names. This is like joining a "Country Club". Not a true cooperative effort. Hence the Department of Commerce and others have ask for the US governments help, and now recieved it in the form of the GP, with very broad input already.
This is the Net, a project that is in the hearts and souls of human beings, and that cannot be ruled by politicians. A project that is aimed at sharing experiences, not at establishing hierarchies. A project that can survive violent flame cyber-wars, but will be unable to survive government interference. Any government interference.
What you term as government interferance is mearly government assistance. There is a big diffrence between the two. If the MoU process would have been open, the need for requestin Government assistance would not have been needed. This was discussed at length and eluded to as possibly happening some months ago. The GP is the first tangable results of that precieved need by the majority of the Internet citizens disgruntalment with the MoU.
I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have to be made. 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.
The MoU is is very much look upon as a private "Big Brother" method of gaining minority control of the Domain name system. This is painfully evidant in the lack of support from the majority of Internet citizens around the world and company's and orginizations as well.
I know we have different point of view on the structure and operation of the Internet, and I assume we will find out even more differencies if we start discussing the details of "Internet Governance". Nevertheless, let me tell you that I will be able to accept in the future an Internet governed by your rules, endorsed in an internal democratic process, but I would be much less comfortable with an Internet governed by my rules, enforced by an external authority.
And being forced by and external set of policies is exactly what the MoU does or provides for, whithout the benifit of a truely open process. If the use of a democratic process, this would not be the case with respect to the MoU and it's subsidearies (PAB/POC/CORE).
This said (sorry for the wasted bandwidth, but I really had to do it, I feel better now), may I go to the specific point addressed by your message.
I for one am glad you did. I hope now, that with my response and the GP, you will inable yourself to see a clearer picture with the flaw in the diffrences in the MoU and the GP form a openess standpoint.
You wrote:
I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you attribute to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce Department that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. Some even suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the world, resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide.
As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in this area.
May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom.
It also has to be noted, even if it is out of the context (but the subject "ITU" has already been brought up by the Prosecutor, as Perry Mason would have said), that the role of the ITU has been very important in allowing the developing countries to survive this evolution, and ITU's effort in establishing formal recommendations and regulations was not at all aimed at countering the market evolution, going towards deregulation, but to limit the perverse effects of this evolution on the weaker part of the globe. IMHO.
Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world to come up with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way to enforce those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses numerous borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will be difficult.
I believe this is exactly what they are doing. And it *is* difficult.
Do you really believe that the US Government has consulted any other Government of the world or any other consortium, body, organization outside the US? I wish I could share your optimism on politicians.
Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing the press and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that in...) and
Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces government to live up to our highest ideals.
Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise.
I can't argue with this. If you have your reason to believe that the USG process has been a good one, you may be right. I personally think that governmental interference in this process is bad in itself, independently of which side they are on. What will happen now? Other government will be pissed off (the Europen Community is, for instance) and the whole matter will become a political fight. I don't know who will win, but I know who will lose: the Net, ourselves. EU will propose Eurocracy (as we call it on this side of the Ocean) versus American Rule, and, let me tell you, the powers of the world will get a political agreement in which the ideals that got "Our Thing" going will count less than yesterday's newspaper.
Shouldn't we fight among ourselves, choosing the timing and weapons, instead of praising the intervention of external powers?
The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If anybody is to reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the users, for the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any government.
That should be a big topic of debate. Representation is one of the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas and opinions are welcome.
You are absolutely right. Whatever the differencies between the two of us, even without knowing you I can tell you that I have more in common with you than with Ira Magaziner. Why should I now be forced to spend my time in fighting him instead of building something with you?
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 Mon Feb 9 00:55:48 MET 1998 ---------
Jay,
May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of messages. Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest.
The rest is being part of the Net. The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common network that unites people of different culture and language.
I agree with you thinking here compleatly. But lets try to keep things in perspective. The GP is an leadership effort for just such international cooperation, not a government intervention of any kind as I read it.
Well read it again. It's talking about USG decisions all over it. There's NOTHING about international cooperation there.
The MoU is a select group self appointed from a leadership standpoint to carve off the Domain Name system with tossing in some 7 new gTLD's and planning to take over the managment of .com, .net, and .org without the benifit of a broad consensus even and making the entry fee of $10k to become a member of CORE and thereby register Domain names. This is like joining a "Country Club". Not a true cooperative effort. Hence the Department of Commerce and others have ask for the US governments help, and now recieved it in the form of the GP, with very broad input already.
Have you read the requirements in the GP for being a registry? (24hour guards, connectivity, redundant sites etc...) I'd pitch that at somewhere in the region of $200K *at least*. And also note the subtle way that they mention the requirements of the registrars. It's hinting at more of the same. In comparison, the 10K joining fee of CORE is CHEAP!!! (And I've always argued that the $10K was only to get CORE running, once it WAS up and running, as it would be managed on cost recovery, then the amount charged to "join" would be very low). Note also that the GP just says that registries will treat all registrars equally (eg: As I'm a registry holding ".com", if you want to be a registrar of mine you will pay me $20K) The GP is setting up lots of country clubs all around. It's taking the worse bits and increasing them. Doing well so far. And the MoU is *not* just a small group appointing people,the signatures are coming from loads of different places (I haven't done a count lately but I'd say its nearing 200 organisations). PAB membership is open to just about all. CORE looks as if it will be re-opening membership applications. POC is *currently* looking how to redo the setup, but even in its current form it takes members from all types of different organisations (ISOC, IAB, IANA, WIPO, -you all know the rest-). The GP however is basically a document written up by Ira Magaziner and pals with lots of lobbying from strong interests. Guess who's benefitting most from the GP? It's NSI. CORE, under the GP would almost certainly get a TLD and if they coulddo it well, maybe they would even be able to setup a few different non-profit organisation (in the CORE format) and merit more than one new TLD. NSI is written into the document in no uncertain terms. Do you think that Kashpureff, Jay Fenello, the eDNS crowd etc... would be able to meet the criteria? For one, allof them want to do business as registry AND registrar, and the way that the GP is set out just hurts them. CORE could get something, the others will get nothing. And lets not forget that it pospones just about doing anything for a longish period. So, it's the Status Quo for probably a year or more under that proposal.
I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have to be made. 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.
The MoU is is very much look upon as a private "Big Brother" method of gaining minority control of the Domain name system. This is painfully evidant in the lack of support from the majority of Internet citizens around the world and company's and orginizations as well.
May I ask what support does the GP have? Apart from USG (yea, it's no small thing, but it looks as if it's just Ira's baby...)
And being forced by and external set of policies is exactly what the MoU does or provides for, whithout the benifit of a truely open process. If the use of a democratic process, this would not be the case with respect to the MoU and it's subsidearies (PAB/POC/CORE).
Huh? Could you explain the difference between the way the USG has produced it's GP and the way the IAHC produced the gTLD-MoU? : USG: set up an RFC, then went away and kept silent until the suddenly came out and published a document (you don't even know WHO wrote the document. For all we know it could have been just one person). In any case, they took notice of the comments that they wanted to take note of and ignored those that they wanted to ignore. Apparently they had something like 1500 responses to the RFC. In the case of the IAHC, there were members from ITU (representing telco's), members from WIPO (representing the trademark group), and members appointed from different "I" associations amongst others. A *lot* of discussion was carried out in the open on mailing lists etc. (Have you ever seen Ira or *any* USG official ask any questions on any mailing lists and/or enter ANY type of debate?), and then they went away and talked amongst themselves and came out with a document. To be fair, I think that there is NO openess in the way the USG has created the GP. One can argue if there was a lot or a little openess in the IAHC process, but it takes a fool to think that the IAHC was less open. Yours, John Broomfield -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 03:13:42 MET 1998 ---------
Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. mike
Jay,
May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of messages. Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest.
The rest is being part of the Net. The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common network that unites people of different culture and language.
I agree with you thinking here compleatly. But lets try to keep things in perspective. The GP is an leadership effort for just such international cooperation, not a government intervention of any kind as I read it.
Well read it again. It's talking about USG decisions all over it. There's NOTHING about international cooperation there.
The MoU is a select group self appointed from a leadership standpoint to carve off the Domain Name system with tossing in some 7 new gTLD's and planning to take over the managment of .com, .net, and .org without the benifit of a broad consensus even and making the entry fee of $10k to become a member of CORE and thereby register Domain names. This is like joining a "Country Club". Not a true cooperative effort. Hence the Department of Commerce and others have ask for the US governments help, and now recieved it in the form of the GP, with very broad input already.
Have you read the requirements in the GP for being a registry? (24hour guards, connectivity, redundant sites etc...) I'd pitch that at somewhere in the region of $200K *at least*. And also note the subtle way that they mention the requirements of the registrars. It's hinting at more of the same. In comparison, the 10K joining fee of CORE is CHEAP!!! (And I've always argued that the $10K was only to get CORE running, once it WAS up and running, as it would be managed on cost recovery, then the amount charged to "join" would be very low). Note also that the GP just says that registries will treat all registrars equally (eg: As I'm a registry holding ".com", if you want to be a registrar of mine you will pay me $20K) The GP is setting up lots of country clubs all around. It's taking the worse bits and increasing them. Doing well so far. And the MoU is *not* just a small group appointing people,the signatures are coming from loads of different places (I haven't done a count lately but I'd say its nearing 200 organisations). PAB membership is open to just about all. CORE looks as if it will be re-opening membership applications. POC is *currently* looking how to redo the setup, but even in its current form it takes members from all types of different organisations (ISOC, IAB, IANA, WIPO, -you all know the rest-). The GP however is basically a document written up by Ira Magaziner and pals with lots of lobbying from strong interests. Guess who's benefitting most from the GP? It's NSI. CORE, under the GP would almost certainly get a TLD and if they coulddo it well, maybe they would even be able to setup a few different non-profit organisation (in the CORE format) and merit more than one new TLD. NSI is written into the document in no uncertain terms. Do you think that Kashpureff, Jay Fenello, the eDNS crowd etc... would be able to meet the criteria? For one, allof them want to do business as registry AND registrar, and the way that the GP is set out just hurts them. CORE could get something, the others will get nothing. And lets not forget that it pospones just about doing anything for a longish period. So, it's the Status Quo for probably a year or more under that proposal.
I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have to be made. 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.
The MoU is is very much look upon as a private "Big Brother" method of gaining minority control of the Domain name system. This is painfully evidant in the lack of support from the majority of Internet citizens around the world and company's and orginizations as well.
May I ask what support does the GP have? Apart from USG (yea, it's no small thing, but it looks as if it's just Ira's baby...)
And being forced by and external set of policies is exactly what the MoU does or provides for, whithout the benifit of a truely open process. If the use of a democratic process, this would not be the case with respect to the MoU and it's subsidearies (PAB/POC/CORE).
Huh? Could you explain the difference between the way the USG has produced it's GP and the way the IAHC produced the gTLD-MoU? : USG: set up an RFC, then went away and kept silent until the suddenly came out and published a document (you don't even know WHO wrote the document. For all we know it could have been just one person). In any case, they took notice of the comments that they wanted to take note of and ignored those that they wanted to ignore. Apparently they had something like 1500 responses to the RFC. In the case of the IAHC, there were members from ITU (representing telco's), members from WIPO (representing the trademark group), and members appointed from different "I" associations amongst others. A *lot* of discussion was carried out in the open on mailing lists etc. (Have you ever seen Ira or *any* USG official ask any questions on any mailing lists and/or enter ANY type of debate?), and then they went away and talked amongst themselves and came out with a document. To be fair, I think that there is NO openess in the way the USG has created the GP. One can argue if there was a lot or a little openess in the IAHC process, but it takes a fool to think that the IAHC was less open.
Yours, John Broomfield
-------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 10:33:04 MET 1998 ---------
Mike wrote:
Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum.
No. If you don't like this stuff don't read it. This is as important issue and deserves more discussion not less. Even to the point of disrupting normal business. Because if you people can't solve this the rest slides into chaos. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 15:36:49 MET 1998 ---------
From your choice of pronoun, I assume your intent is to rant and rave rather
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Bob Allisat wrote: } Mike wrote: } >Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. } } } This is as important } issue and deserves more discussion } not less. Agreed! } Because } if you people can't solve this the } rest slides into chaos. than participate in a solution. Merton Campbell Crockett Hasentaler InfoSysteme -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 16:29:44 MET 1998 ---------
Mike wrote: :Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. I replied:
No. If you don't like this stuff don't read it. This is as important issue and deserves more discussion not less. Even to the point of disrupting normal business. Because if you people can't solve this the rest slides into chaos.
Merton commented:
From your choice of pronoun, I assume your intent is to rant and rave rather than participate in a solution.
I believe this group described as the IETF has to admit there is a problem. I do not include myself in this state of denial. And if it takes raving and ranting and protests and more to awaken this understanding so be it. Many have repeatedly attempted to participate only to be rebuffed also repeatedly. This experience is common to *all* people advocating Alternative Domain Name Registries. Include everyone, admit past error, move forward as a community. The only way to go IMHO. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:24:32 MET 1998 ---------
Bob, Some people know how to play the game and others don't. Please check your group reply mailing lists. Are they all appropriate? mike
Mike wrote:
Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum.
No. If you don't like this stuff don't read it. This is as important issue and deserves more discussion not less. Even to the point of disrupting normal business. Because if you people can't solve this the rest slides into chaos.
TeleVirtually Yours,
Bob Allisat
-------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 17:54:58 MET 1998 ---------
John wrote:
Have you read the requirements in the GP for being a registry? (24hour guards, connectivity, redundant sites etc...) I'd pitch that at somewhere in the region of $200K *at least*. And also note the subtle way that they mention the requirements of the registrars. It's hinting at more of the same. In comparison, the 10K joining fee of CORE is CHEAP!!! (And I've always argued that the $10K was only to get CORE running, once it WAS up and running, as it would be managed on cost recovery, then the amount charged to "join" would be very low).
*Both* concepts are flawed. There is no aknowledged role in these proposals (with the exception of Alternate Domain Registry advocates) for small, indies and charitable DNR's. Since these form the real majority of companies and individuals actually supporting the Internet this is an extremely serious oversight which *must* be corrected. "We" make the Net what it is. "We" defined as sixty million (and counting) people, each of whom has an equal right to the namespace to any other. John continued:
In the case of the IAHC, there were members from ITU (representing telco's), members from WIPO (representing the trademark group), and members appointed from different "I" associations amongst others. A *lot* of discussion was carried out in the open on mailing lists etc. (Have you ever seen Ira or *any* USG official ask any questions on any mailing lists and/or enter ANY type of debate?), and then they went away and talked amongst themselves and came out with a document. To be fair, I think that there is NO openess in the way the USG has created the GP. One can argue if there was a lot or a little openess in the IAHC process, but it takes a fool to think that the IAHC was less open.
All sides have displayed quite disturbing tendancies towards repetative error syndrome. All sides have engaged in the same flawed, behind closed doors and damn fool tactics. Please visit http://www.fcn.net for my various suggestions. However long it takes we must do it the right way. With thought of future generations at the forefront of our minds. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 10:34:04 MET 1998 ---------
participants (7)
-
bob＠wtv.net -
jbroom＠manta.outremer.com -
jdd＠matthew.uk1.vbc.net -
jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com -
mcc＠WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM -
Roberto.Gaetano＠etsi.fr -
truskows＠cisco.com