Re: [ifwp] Re: membership proposal

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jim and all,

Jim Dixon wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, mueller wrote:
>
> > Trademark and brand holders should have the same membership rights as any other
> > organization. Nothing stops them from joining the organization as members;
> > nothing stops them from actively funding participation in the organization in
> > ways that advances their special interests. If they think it is important
> > enough, enough trademark holders will join to secure the level of participation
> > they need. But there is no reason to give them, or anyone else, a special
> > designate seat.
> >
> > In fact, this is a perfect example of why I object to permanent membership
> > categories.
>
> Which is why the category is temporary.
>
> >             It is quite possible--nay, extremely likely--that the so-called
> > domain name trademark conflict will simply cease to be a problem within a year
> > or two.
>
> Which is why temporary membership groups have to be reconfirmed every
> two years.  Should we make it every year instead?
>
> >         The improved design of browsers may make domain names practically
> > invisible for most consumer searches in a very short time, for example.
> >
> > Suppose this happens. Suddenly, we are left with a global organization that
> > *guarantees* a narrowly focused, special interest organization like INTA a
> > special channel into the Board. It isn't right. This has nothing to do with
> > whether one supports or opposes the trademark interests. I would say the same
> > thing if Jim had proposed a seat for bearded professors at information schools
> > in the northeastern United States.
>
> The permanent membership groups distinguished in this proposal are the
> ones that we should be talking about.  These are Address Space Holders
> (largely ISPs), Commercial Users, Non-commercial Users, and Infrastructure
> in this morning's version of the scheme.

  The problem with this is Jim that there are several corporations and
non-profitcompanies that I am aware of that fit in several of these categories.  Some
of them
quite large, like Microsoft, or Turner broadcasting for instance.  Do you honestly
believe
that those corporations are going to stand still for this type of structure
indefinitely?
I don't think so.  I know we sure wont.  I have it on fairly good authority that
Turner
Broadcasting will not either.  Now, do you want to continue on this type of zero-sum
class game and have the NewCo pounded with law suits or not?

>
>
> The first category is potentially very large -- there are over 10,000 ISPs
> in the world -- and has a direct stake in the operations of the IANA.  In
> fact IANA's role is largely to serve the world's ISPs.

  This is only a half correct statement Jim.  The IANA does also is supposed to
serve,along with the RIR's commercial companies that have rather large Intranets and
Extranets as well.

> If this group was
> not distinguished as a separate category, it is likely that its
> membership would easily exceed those of all of the other groups, and
> then the new corporation would degenerate into the world's largest
> ISP trade association.
>
> In contrast the Infrastructure group is likely to remain small.  There
> will never be a great number of RIRs; presumably the number of gTLD
> registries willing to spend $10,000 a year to be a member of the new
> corporation will remain few.

  Well we sure hope that there will be quite a few more RIR's.  However if you setthe
entry fee as high as $10K for entry you are probably correct.  But this is beginning
to smell much like that Rank smelling MoU/IAHC nonsense to me here.

> Nevertheless these operators of key elements
> of the Internet need to have direct input into the new corporation at a
> policy level.  Making them a separate group guarantees them a voice
> despite the small size of the group.

  Yes and disproportionate one at that, which is why this part of your proposal isway
off base.

>
>
> (Note that although RIRs are in theory owned by the ISPs, in fact their
> interests are quite different.

  RIR's at least ARIN and APNIC are owned by their members not the ISP's theserve
necessarily.  Yes many or some of the ISP's are members of those respective
RIR's but not all to be sure.  Nor do some feel that they should have to join these
non-profit RIR corporations such as ARIN and APNIC.

> Think of the RIRs as tax collectors and
> the ISPs as tax payers and you have much the right picture.)

  No, a better analogy would to think of RIR's as product provides and ISP's aslarge
commercial consumers.

>
>
> Commercial users are another potentially very large group and presumably
> the group most likely to be willing to pay in an effort to stack the deck.
> So they are put into a separate category, preserving their valuable
> input, but limiting the amount of control that they have.

  And this idea a very flawed. One because it sets the cost bar to high for small
business,and two because it presupposes that commercial organizations should be in a
special
position, which they should not.  All Stakeholders are equals, that is the consensus
that
the IFWP arrived at in essence.  So in this as in almost all of you proposal, runs
counter to that consensus.

>
>
> And finally non-commercial users are put into yet another category at
> a much lower membership fee, because user groups typically have very
> little money.  Their interests are also quite different from those of
> the other three groups.  Without a separate group, without lower fees,
> that input would almost certainly disappear.

  And yet again you are by definition relegating this proposed group to a second
classStakeholder, which is both disinfrangizing and would be against US law for any
non-profit corporation to do as it is discriminatory practice.

>
>
> The structure proposed preserves a certain diversity in the makeup of
> the Board of the new corporation.  As I said above, without the grouping
> the new corporation would be very likely to degenerate into a very large
> ISP trade association.

  This is not very likely should there be Individual membership on a equal footing
withorganizational membership.

>
>
> Today's version of the scheme will add mechanisms intended to produce
> regional diversity as well.

  However as has now been pointed out several times, your scheme fails to achieve
thatgoal.

>
>
> --
> Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Member of Council                               Telecommunications Director
> 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
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com