On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> I have to disagree. I think Jim is full of himself, argumentative,
> pendantic and pushy (I will get flamed, he can't help it), but he's
Yes, I am deeply compulsive ;-)
> basically right. The PAB needs more representatives and it needs new
> blood. What's more, that's the only way to move forward.
True.
> The measure of any organization is results, and POC has not delivered. Not
> only that, they have been very stingy with realistic assessments of their
> ability to deliver. The PAB has not delivered either, but I think that's
> more forgivable -- we were given a broken instrument, due to the dumb
> policy of making people sign a long ponderous document, not that I have any
> particular problem with it.
I was at several meetings in the UK where the organization concerned
was discussing a request that they sign the gTLD MOU. The usual
response was something like "well, I guess it's OK, but it's just too
complicated." I think that ISPA UK's official response was that it
was acceptable in principle but flawed.
If the gTLD MOU was just a brief statement of principles, they would have
signed, and there would be no green paper.
> One good result of the Magaziner putsch is that it really jolted the real
> powers into awareness. Now we are going to see what non-U.S. governments
> have to say about the U.S. asserting ownership of the Internet, and also
> what the still-powerful Internet elements in major U.S. tech companies have
> to say about the bottom-up approach of the Internet getting stood on its.
> If the gTLD-MoU is going to get resuscitated, it will come from the heat
> that these two groups generate.
The Internet industry just doesn't care. To most ISPs domain name
registrations are an insignificant source of income. ISPs want stability
before anything else.
I talk to a lot of ISPs about DNS. Few have ever heard of the gTLD MOU,
even fewer of the green paper.
Governments care a lot more. It is easy enough to play the anti-US
card in lobbying governments on this issue. But typically there is
very little real will to oppose the US on what most see as an esoteric
issue.
> Well, the POC isn't going to resign. CORE has reopened their membership,
> although I can't imagine any early takers. The best hope for this is the
> PAB, and the way to invigorate the PAB is to get some new blood in here.
Indeed.
> There is no doubt that the gTLD-MoU movement is in a crisis; anyone who
> says it isn't is in deep denial. On the other hand, everything else is a
> worse alternative -- the Green Paper is a real mess, NSI is transparently
> in it for themselves, and eDNS people are deluded.
A different thread on how the green paper is a real mess would be
interesting.
> The big problem has been, in my opinion, a series of bungles designed to
> "protect" the gTLD-MoU from undesirable elements. However right POC might
> have been in their assessment of these elements, you can't have democracy
> without the idiots.
Absolutely.
> The PAB is the way out of this. I say open it up, let all the dumb flamers
> in, because with them will come new reasoned voices. Then it *will* be a
> real forum, and its recommendations will have real weight. I have made
> this point before, and it has been met with disdain, but it's the only way
> to open things up, and opening them up is the only way to preserve the good
> parts of the gTLD-MoU.
I have to disagree. What you really need to do is to get people to
sign the gTLD MOU. You don't need Jeff Williams posting drivel to
this list. You need to be able to say to politicians, "look what's
happening: the US government has published this green paper, and
hundreds of organizations are rushing to sign the gTLD MOU. There
is real opposition to the green paper."
You need those signatures. They are of value. Talk on this list or most
any other is relatively of very little value.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:22 PST