On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > I don't know of any ISPs that support the gTLD MOU.
>
> None, Jim? Now your credibility with me is REALLY falling. First of
Sorry, no, I don't know of any.
We (VBCnet) are members of several ISP trade associations and
organizations: the LINX, ISPA UK, EuroISPA, MaNAP, the CIX, and
others. Thinking back through many many conversations in these
circles I don't remember _anyone_ saying that they supported the
MOU. Two people said that they had signed it to find out what
was going on.
I have sat through several LINX, ISPA UK, and EuroISPA meetings
with the gTLD MOU on the agenda. Only one meeting voted in
favour of signing the gTLD MOU: EuroISPA's. And that decision
was to urge our members to sign if and only if certain conditions
could be met.
Upon reflection, I suppose that I could probably find people at RIPE
who truly support the gTLD MOU. But I don't know any personally who
have in my presence said anything that indicated that they
wholeheartedly supported the gTLD MOU.
> all, we a number of ISPs who are here on the PAB and who have signed
> the MoU. Second of all, I know of a lot of ISPs that support the
> thing. They rarely speak on the subject because they have no deep
> interest in it, but they are supportive.
I wasn't speaking about people that you know but about people that
I know.
> Beyond this, I have yet to see from you, or from anyone else, a really
> sane statement of what is wrong with our plan. I've heard lots of
> "insufficient representatives from special interest X", but on
> questions of substance, like whether or not particular features of
> what we are planning on doing make sense or not, we hear silence,
> largely because few people have strong arguments against it.
Disagreeing with you does not require insanity.
The bottom line is that the gTLD MOU has been much more successful
at building opposition than in gathering support. This imbalance
is the fundamental reason for the US government's intervention.
> > I talk to a lot of ISPs.
>
> So do I, as it turns out. It is hard, working in the business that I'm
> in, not to. It is also a bit hard for you to claim special knowledge
> when many of the rest of us know ISP operators. Hell, I had lunch with
> one a couple of days ago -- several are good friends.
Well, good. So?
> > I am afraid that "helping" in this case does not mean accepting the
> > quasi-religious sentiments behind the MOU.
>
> What religious sentiment?
"Agree with us or leave": that is a reasonable restatement of what
you said several emails back, and a sentiment quite characteristic
of religious movements.
I know of only one Internet association that requires that you sign
a 7 or 8 page declaration of principles to join -- but many religious
movements that have similar requirements.
> You are very good at being insulting, very good about claiming "grave
> difficulties", but not very good at either trying to help or at
> explaining what is wrong with the way we plan to run the gTLDs.
Perry, do I really have to spell out what is so totally obvious?
You aren't going to get to run the gTLDs. The US government has
intervened and the matter is entirely out of your hands. UNLESS
you can round up sufficient support to argue a compromise. That
is what this discussion is about.
The only issue worth talking about at this point is building
support. Without a large increase in support for the gTLD MOU, the
Green Paper's proposals will go through.
-- 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 - 03:22:23 PST