[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] PASS THE SICK BAG!
The following annotations form a very different sense of the history you cite:
At 04:16 PM 6/13/99 -0400, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>*The POC was a closed shop, a black box, unreadable and unknowable from the
>outside, intransigent against efforts to open it up and see the
It held closed meetings, but it interacted with other groups and
individuals heavily, through a number of channels. Its work was modified
many, many times by the feedback received, including the very public and
open 'request for comments' process that it ran prior to making major
That's not closed.
>*Making everyone sign the gTLD-MoU before they got to play was an horrific
>miscue and an affront to Internet stakeholders (hence my attempt to
>introduce a very watered-down "gTLD-MoU lite", consisting of a few
>unobjectionable principles - alas, to no effect).
There is a different between signing a document to become a member of an
advisory body, versus having to sign it before being listened. The former
is what happened. The latter is not.
>*If the POC hadn't forced CORE to charge $10K to anyone who wanted to become
>a registrar, which was done just to make sure that "unstable" people didn't
>join, but instead had charged, say, $500, like Nominet does in the UK, we
>wouldn't have had the Green Paper, the White Paper, or the ICANN, which is
>starting to act just like POC, but with less excuse since they have already
>seen that kind of thing fail.
It might be amusing to try to list all of the entirely different opinions
that have been put forward, strongly and rigidly, with the primary message
being "if the IAHC/POC had just done this ONE thing differently, then
everything would have been fine." There are reasonable, serious and strong
arguments, for and against, each of the actions taken. It is impossible to
be sure which of them is right or wrong and what changes in those decisions
would have changed the outcome.
My own belief is that none would have, due to the massive Washington
lobbying that was going on, beyond the ken of any really public process.
>*Basically, NSI did try to torpedo the gTLD-MoU, but that's not why it
Right. NSI and a couple of other companies' high paid lobbyists had no
effect at all upon the White House...
>*That it's just possible that NSI doesn't realize how horribly they've
>treated everyone, that they actually think they're the good guys, and that
>therefore they should be encouraged to become part of the community and stop
>playing the spoiler.
That's pretty much an accurate assessment about the line staff at NSI. It
is not at all correct about the senior management, which is not nearly as
naive or "community oriented" as you would paint them. They are trying to
protect a cash cow and they are doing everything they can think of to
>*That the POC has mostly itself to blame for the Green Paper and the White
>Paper and the plodding interference of the U.S. Government. Do you think
>Magaziner *wanted* to step into this minefield? All you had to do was let a
Actually, yes he did. He has a track record of such mis-steps. And the
Green Paper shows quite clearly that a) he didn't perceive it as a
minefield, and b) he likes to micromanage. The White Paper reflects his
learning that he made a mistake, albeit too late to be of benefit to the
Internet community, since the Green Paper fully destabilized the
well-established authority of IANA.
>AND ON THE OTHER SIDE
>*The only reason NSI plays at all in this sandbox is because the only
>gorilla larger than it, the US Govt., is standing over it with a big stick.
The particular part of the US government that is the REALLY big stick is an
anti-trust action in the US courts. If NSI slips up and demonstrates too
well that they are acting on their own rather than under color of the US
government, they can kiss their monopoly good by. To protect their
position, they have to give some ground.
The ground that NSI is being made to give leaves NSI in an astonishingly
good and unreasonable place. It leaves them as a commercial monopoly at
the back end -- charging a rate that is a serious multiple of what SHOULD
be charged -- AND they get to operate as a front-end service too, so far
with considerably preferential treatment by the back-end service.
This violates basic concepts of competition. Given Judge Green's behavior
with AT&T, it is highly unlikely that the US Courts would permit NSI such
>Magaziner wanted to get in the middle of this thing? I know, because I was
>there, that almost any movement toward an accommodation with the gTLD-MoU
>would have led to negotiations that might have got us somewhere. But no.
Since I was on the IAHC, permit me the benefit of better information than
you appear to have: For roughly 5 months the IAHC had regular and
extensive discussions with the White House and with the major factions they
reported as being unhappy. Those discussions resulted in many changes to
IAHC positions but, somehow, no changes were ever enough.
The real rigidity came from a few, large trademark multi-nationals and NSI.
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>