Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jeff Williams]

Heather and all,

  Very nice rebut to "Dcrock".  My kind of lady!  Whew!  You gave it to
him very nicely...

Heather Islip wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > >What I have a problem with is abuse of power.  I don't believe that
> > >NSI is being investigated because they are a monopoly and so forth.
> > >I think that they are being investigated because certain elements in
> > >the Commission have a vested interest in damaging NSI.  They are not
> > >acting on behalf of the people of the European Union.  They are acting
> > >on their own behalf.
> >
> > If you have no objection, then it would make more sense for you not to make
> > statements which are designed to undermine the activity.
> >
> > Politics is about self-interest.  You are saying that they are taking the
> > right action, but for the wrong reasons.  In fact, their reasons are
>
> But the people taking these actions aren't politicians.  They are civil
> servants -- unelected civil servants, need one say -- who are acting
> purely for personal gain.
>
> > No, it's plain old fashion politics, working in exactly the constructive
> > way it is supposed to.  Balancing self-interests is exactly how real-world
> > politics works, not through some sort of idealism.
>
> Rubbish, Dave.  When civil servants act to carry out personal policies,
> it isn't politics, it's corruption.  But then, sneering at idealism is
> right up your street, is it not?
>
> Do tell Mr Crocker, would you recognise a principle if it got up and
> bit you on the backside?
>
> > d/
> >
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
> > Brandenburg Consulting   Fax: +1 408 273 6464
> > 675 Spruce Drive 
> > Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 
> >
>
> --
> Heather Islip  VBCnet GB Ltd   +44 117 929 1316
> http://www.vbc.netfax  +44 117 927 2015
>  Taxation _with_ representation isn't so great, either  

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jeff Williams]

Ken and all,

  To my knowledge, I don't believe that the IDNO or the ICIIU have made
such a claim.  However I have noticed that YOU make the claim that they
have.  Reference please?  >;)

Ken Stubbs wrote:

> i wonder how many people believe that your little pet ICIIU or IDNO with its
> ALMOST 150 members WORLDWIDE speak for the internet users of the world
>
> ken stubbs
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
>
> > I wonder how many people in the USG, for example in the DOC, have
> > been fooled into believing that Christopher Wilkinson was speaking
> > for the European Internet?

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jim Dixon]

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > While there might be a certain logic to what you say, I think that it 
> > is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would come to this conclusion 
> > after reading what you wrote.
> 
> I came to this conclusion, but that may be influenced by the fact that I
> know who Ivan is.

This was one of my points at the beginning of this sub-thread: if
you don't know Ivan, you might misunderstand his point.
 
> > .  And unfortunately, given the small size of the 
> > registries
> > concerned, it is unlikely that DG IV is likely to be able to 
> > afford the
> > investment necessary to take action.
> > 
> > NSI is of course a different proposition.  Its market in Europe is 
> > relatively large and it is a foreign commercial company operating a
> > monopoly within the European Union.  In short, it's an easy target.
> 
> I agree with all the reasonment, but less with the conclusion.
> It is not an easy target, it is the priority target.
> 
> As you have described, the problem with NSI is:
> - qualitatively more important, because it refers to a foreign country
> - quantitatively more important, because of the size of the market
> 
> Therefore, this was not an easy target, but the most logical solution.

I don't know if you have ever done any shooting.  Easy targets are
big targets.  In a war, easy targets are also targets that can't 
shoot back.

NSI is an easy target because (a) it's big, (b) they are a bunch of
foreigners (to a citizen of the EU) and therefore there isn't much
risk in shooting at them.

If the Commission were to take action against, let's say, either the
.DE registry or the .FR registry, there would be significant backlash
from powerful forces in Europe, people who could do harm to whoever at
the Commission was responsible.  NSI has no similar power.

> Moreover, the fact that action is being taken in respect to NSI opens the
> door for future action in respect to other European entities. If they never
> start addressing the "big" problem, how could you expect DG IV to address
> the "smaller" problem?

I have no objection to the European Commission investigating NSI.  
They are a monopoly, they are doing business within Europe, they are
large enough in revenue terms, or nearly so, to justify DG IV's 
attention.  

What I have a problem with is abuse of power.  I don't believe that
NSI is being investigated because they are a monopoly and so forth.
I think that they are being investigated because certain elements in
the Commission have a vested interest in damaging NSI.  They are not
acting on behalf of the people of the European Union.  They are acting
on their own behalf.

This is plain old-fashioned corruption.  One of the problems with the
Commission is that this is not considered a problem.  When I have
discussed this matter with people knowledgeable about the Commission,
no one was at all interested in the facts of the case.  Instead they
warned me that if I highlighted what was going on, everyone at the
Commission would be against me.  This is how people think and behave
in a corrupt institution.

--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +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 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[R . Gaetano]

Jim Dixon wrote:



> 
> > In this instance the 'we' clearly refers to NetNames.
> > Also, I clearly state that 'restrictive ccTLD policies are
> > anti-competitive'. Which implies that we believe that 
> non-restrictive
> > policies are not anti-competitive. Which would lead you to 
> the conclusion
> > that I believe Nominet to be non-restrictive.
> 
> While there might be a certain logic to what you say, I think that it 
> is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would come to this conclusion 
> after reading what you wrote.
>  

I came to this conclusion, but that may be influenced by the fact that I
know who Ivan is.

> .  And unfortunately, given the small size of the 
> registries
> concerned, it is unlikely that DG IV is likely to be able to 
> afford the
> investment necessary to take action.
> 
> NSI is of course a different proposition.  Its market in Europe is 
> relatively large and it is a foreign commercial company operating a
> monopoly within the European Union.  In short, it's an easy target.
> 

I agree with all the reasonment, but less with the conclusion.
It is not an easy target, it is the priority target.

As you have described, the problem with NSI is:
- qualitatively more important, because it refers to a foreign country
- quantitatively more important, because of the size of the market

Therefore, this was not an easy target, but the most logical solution.

Moreover, the fact that action is being taken in respect to NSI opens the
door for future action in respect to other European entities. If they never
start addressing the "big" problem, how could you expect DG IV to address
the "smaller" problem?

Regards
Roberto

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jeff Williams]

Antony and all,

  And ICANN is behaving like a 400 lb flatulence producer.  It is in need
of a frontal lobotomy and a couple of gallons of malox, while the rest
of us need gas masks and several spray cans of air freshener...

  The Blind leading the clueless, blowing paint pealing farts all over the
place.
Is the ICANN "Out of control"?  Yep!

Antony Van Couvering wrote:

> Oh please, some fat-trimming all around is indicated.
>
> NSI is a million-pound gorilla in need of liposuction, not to mention
> prozac.
>
> BUT ...  on the other side of the pond, someone certainly needs to look into
> the cozy little arrangements in Europe - now what exactly are the
> requirements to become a member of DENIC?? -- and not just with domain names
> either.  It takes time to break down entrenched telecom behavior (high
> access fees, indifferent to ghastly service).
>
> Go go DG IV.
>
> Antony
>
> >
> >Hi Werner,
> >
> >Glad to see you're still around
> >
> >[Irascible comment skimmed.]
> >
> >>But could you clarify *whom* the EC tries to protect by investigating
> >>NSI, in your opinion?
> >
> >You're asking the same question that I am!  Who in
> >Europe are they protecting when the domestic DNS markets
> >are so much more non-competitive, higher priced, delayed,
> >regulated there?  The net result is to drive customers
> >to use COM, NET, and ORG abroad.
> >
> >One would expect DG IV to be investigating the domestic
> >European registrars, introducing competition, and otherwise
> >eliminating the undesirable attributes so the DNS sales
> >opportunities don't get bled off.  But then again, the
> >frequent tactic in the past has generally been to "level
> >the playing field" by inflicting all the bureaucratic
> >and regulatory malaise on the rest of the world.
> >
> >
> >--tony
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Antony Van Couvering]

Oh please, some fat-trimming all around is indicated.

NSI is a million-pound gorilla in need of liposuction, not to mention
prozac.

BUT ...  on the other side of the pond, someone certainly needs to look into
the cozy little arrangements in Europe - now what exactly are the
requirements to become a member of DENIC?? -- and not just with domain names
either.  It takes time to break down entrenched telecom behavior (high
access fees, indifferent to ghastly service).

Go go DG IV.

Antony




>
>Hi Werner,
>
>Glad to see you're still around
>
>[Irascible comment skimmed.]
>
>>But could you clarify *whom* the EC tries to protect by investigating
>>NSI, in your opinion?
>
>You're asking the same question that I am!  Who in
>Europe are they protecting when the domestic DNS markets
>are so much more non-competitive, higher priced, delayed,
>regulated there?  The net result is to drive customers
>to use COM, NET, and ORG abroad.
>
>One would expect DG IV to be investigating the domestic
>European registrars, introducing competition, and otherwise
>eliminating the undesirable attributes so the DNS sales
>opportunities don't get bled off.  But then again, the
>frequent tactic in the past has generally been to "level
>the playing field" by inflicting all the bureaucratic
>and regulatory malaise on the rest of the world.
>
>
>--tony
>

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Michael Sondow]

Jim Dixon wrote:
> 
> Correction:
> 
> Christopher Wilkinson has to the best of my knowledge never been a
> member of CORE.



> At the same time he has also been a member of the gTLD MOU's Policy
> Advisory Committee (the POC) for the past year and a half.  The POC
> sets policy for CORE.

Quite right. My error. I tend to confuse the members with the
direction, which isn't the same thing at all, is it?

> Wilkinson's position has been invaluable for the POC, ISOC, and CORE,
> of course.  He has used European Commission facilities to advocate
> their policies, run meetings to introduce them to European business
> interests, and so forth.

And help set up and legitimize front organizations like Javier
Sola's European Internet Business Association?

> He has also been in a position to present
> POC/ISOC/CORE arguments to, for example, the US government as the
> position of the European Union 

I wonder how many people in the USG, for example in the DOC, have
been fooled into believing that Christopher Wilkinson was speaking
for the European Internet?

> -- and to the European Commission and
> the representatives of the member states as fact.

Well, they seem to be becoming fact, but maybe that's because many
people believed that they already were so, thanks to Mr. Wilkinson's
helpful briefings.

> He is due to retire soon; many of us are awaiting his next career move
> with the greatest interest.  ;-)

ICANN will perhaps create a position for "Vice President in Charge
of EC Liaison", at a modest salary of, say, $10,000/month, to reward
Mr. Wilkinson for his services.


Michael Sondow   I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (212)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jim Dixon]

On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:

> Jim Dixon a écrit:
> > 
> > My usual disclaimer: I don't think that the Commission should be taking
> > action against NSI at this time.  I think that DG IV has been given bad
> > advice by elements elsewhere in the Commission who have a vested interest
> > in ICANN.
> 
> Christopher Wilkinson, member of CORE. Plus the French telco, which
> runs the GAC conjointly with Paul Twomey and also - need I say it? -
> is a member of CORE.

Correction: 

Christopher Wilkinson has to the best of my knowledge never been a 
member of CORE.  He is a middle ranking civil servant with DG XIII, the 
European Commission's telecommunications directorate.  To the best of
my knowledge, he is the Commission official most concerned with the
Internet.  

At the same time he has also been a member of the gTLD MOU's Policy 
Advisory Committee (the POC) for the past year and a half.  The POC 
sets policy for CORE.

Wilkinson's position has been invaluable for the POC, ISOC, and CORE,
of course.  He has used European Commission facilities to advocate
their policies, run meetings to introduce them to European business
interests, and so forth.  He has also been in a position to present
POC/ISOC/CORE arguments to, for example, the US government as the 
position of the European Union -- and to the European Commission and 
the representatives of the member states as fact.

He is due to retire soon; many of us are awaiting his next career move 
with the greatest interest.  ;-)

--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +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 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Michael Sondow]

Jim Dixon a écrit:
> 
> My usual disclaimer: I don't think that the Commission should be taking
> action against NSI at this time.  I think that DG IV has been given bad
> advice by elements elsewhere in the Commission who have a vested interest
> in ICANN.

Christopher Wilkinson, member of CORE. Plus the French telco, which
runs the GAC conjointly with Paul Twomey and also - need I say it? -
is a member of CORE.


=
  INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS
   http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927
=

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jim Dixon]

On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Ivan Pope wrote:

> > On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Ivan Pope wrote:
> > 
> > > We believe that restrictive ccTLD policies are 
> > anti-competitive within
> > > Europe.
> 
> And Jim Dixon replied:
> 
> > I think that few readers will gather from this that Ivan is one of the
> > directors of Nominet, the .UK registry.
> > 
> > Exactly who is the "we" in this sentence?  Are you saying 
> > that Nominet's
> > policies are anti-competitive?
> 
> I think Jim is being a bit unfair here. 

I don't think so.  

>  I post with a NetNames signature. I
> work for NetNames. I am a non-executive director of Nominet. If I ever post
> with my Nominet director hat on I would make it very clear I was doing this.

Few people reading this are likely to be aware that you are a director
of Nominet.  Unless the reader understands that you are a director of 
the .UK registry, he or she is very likely to interpret what you said 
as applying to all of the ccTLD registries of Europe.

> In this instance the 'we' clearly refers to NetNames.
> Also, I clearly state that 'restrictive ccTLD policies are
> anti-competitive'. Which implies that we believe that non-restrictive
> policies are not anti-competitive. Which would lead you to the conclusion
> that I believe Nominet to be non-restrictive.

While there might be a certain logic to what you say, I think that it 
is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would come to this conclusion 
after reading what you wrote.
 
> As Nominet has over 1000
> members, no restriction on who can become a member and participate, and no
> restrictions on who can register a domain name, it would be hard to make a
> case that there was any sort of anti-competitive behaviour going on. Unlike
> some European ccTLD registries.

Of course.  You and I agree that the policies of some European governments
and some EU ccTLD registries are unlawful because they discriminate 
against companies and individuals from other member states of the EU.
Because the national government either colludes in or turns a blind eye
towards these practices, victims of these practices (such as Netnames)
have good grounds for complaints to the EU competition authorities 
(DG IV).  

However, separate complaints need to be made in regard to each of the
ccTLD registries concerned, because these are separate entities, each
following different policies under different national laws and 
regulations.  And unfortunately, given the small size of the registries
concerned, it is unlikely that DG IV is likely to be able to afford the
investment necessary to take action.

NSI is of course a different proposition.  Its market in Europe is 
relatively large and it is a foreign commercial company operating a
monopoly within the European Union.  In short, it's an easy target.

My usual disclaimer: I don't think that the Commission should be taking
action against NSI at this time.  I think that DG IV has been given bad 
advice by elements elsewhere in the Commission who have a vested interest 
in ICANN.  

--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +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 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Mark Measday]

Tony,

Where can one find the distinction you and others make between public
and
private networks in the regulatory literature, i.e. that p. ex. UIT and
EC have
different frameworks for different entities based on state or private
ownership? If they do, per se?

>From what date was the distinction made by those and any other relevant
institutions? 

For example where is it in the context of CCITT F.401 or ISO-3166-1/2,
if those documents have not been superseded at some international treaty
level?


"A.M. Rutkowski" wrote:

.

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jeff Williams]

All,

  This is of course true of any company that has an alternative to
BIND.  INEG. INC. has such an alternative, BINDPlus 2.1.  Yet
placing that as a potential stumbling block would not last long
and be of little consequence, unless perhaps it has the potential
of "Reverse pointing" which BINDPlus 2.1 does have as and install
option...

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Monday, August 02, 1999, 5:43:25 PM, A.M. Rutkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 04:31 PM 8/2/99 , Werner Staub wrote:
> >>correct - but they do not seem to be sincere since you act as a paid
> >>advocate for a monopoly.
>
> > OK, I confess.  I just can stop it.
> > I'm actually a monopolist myself.  I have
> > about 12 domains for which I am the monopoly
> > registrar.  Would you like to register in
> > the CHAOS.COM domain?...or maybe NETMAGIC.COM?
> > I'll give you a monopoly too.
>
> > Forgive me father, for I have sinned.
> > mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
>
> > Who is the father of all monopolies? the
> > legacy root, or BIND?  Does she forgive?
>
> What's interesting is that the BIND team has the single ability to
> place a big obstacle in ICANN's way if they ever chose to.  Shipping
> the latest version of bind with an alternative root server config
> would place a huge stumbling block in ICANN's path.
>
> They are under no obligation to make the root-servers.net roots the
> default configuration.
>
> --
> William X. Walsh
> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Fax:(209) 671-7934
>
> (IDNO MEMBER)
> Support the Cyberspace Association, the
> constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Kent Crispin]

On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 08:43:25PM -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> At 04:31 PM 8/2/99 , Werner Staub wrote:
> >correct - but they do not seem to be sincere since you act as a paid
> >advocate for a monopoly.
> 
> OK, I confess.  I just can stop it.
> I'm actually a monopolist myself.  I have
> about 12 domains for which I am the monopoly
> registrar.  Would you like to register in
> the CHAOS.COM domain?...or maybe NETMAGIC.COM?
> I'll give you a monopoly too.

Please note that as the monopolist in question, you are perfectly 
free to demand that registrants in your domain follow policies that 
you determine.  Just as the monopolist in charge of the root zone is 
perfectly free to determine policies for TLDs...

-- 
Kent Crispin   "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Re[2]: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[William X. Walsh]

Monday, August 02, 1999, 5:43:25 PM, A.M. Rutkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At 04:31 PM 8/2/99 , Werner Staub wrote:
>>correct - but they do not seem to be sincere since you act as a paid
>>advocate for a monopoly.

> OK, I confess.  I just can stop it.
> I'm actually a monopolist myself.  I have
> about 12 domains for which I am the monopoly
> registrar.  Would you like to register in
> the CHAOS.COM domain?...or maybe NETMAGIC.COM?
> I'll give you a monopoly too.

> Forgive me father, for I have sinned.
> mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

> Who is the father of all monopolies? the
> legacy root, or BIND?  Does she forgive?

What's interesting is that the BIND team has the single ability to
place a big obstacle in ICANN's way if they ever chose to.  Shipping
the latest version of bind with an alternative root server config
would place a huge stumbling block in ICANN's path.

They are under no obligation to make the root-servers.net roots the
default configuration.

--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Fax:(209) 671-7934


(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[A.M. Rutkowski]

At 04:31 PM 8/2/99 , Werner Staub wrote:
>correct - but they do not seem to be sincere since you act as a paid
>advocate for a monopoly.

OK, I confess.  I just can stop it.
I'm actually a monopolist myself.  I have
about 12 domains for which I am the monopoly
registrar.  Would you like to register in
the CHAOS.COM domain?...or maybe NETMAGIC.COM?
I'll give you a monopoly too.

Forgive me father, for I have sinned.
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Who is the father of all monopolies? the
legacy root, or BIND?  Does she forgive?


--tony

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jim Dixon]

On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Ivan Pope wrote:

> > As I think you understand perfectly well, DG IV is responsible for
> > enforcing competition policies at the EU level.  I don't know of any
> > European ccTLD that could be regarded as having a substantial presence
> > outside of its national market.  It would be inappropriate for DG IV,
> > the European competition directorate, to intervene in the UK market in
> > regard to .UK, for example. 
> 
> We believe that restrictive ccTLD policies are anti-competitive within
> Europe. 

I think that few readers will gather from this that Ivan is one of the
directors of Nominet, the .UK registry.  

Exactly who is the "we" in this sentence?  Are you saying that Nominet's
policies are anti-competitive?

> That is, a policy that restricts a ccTLD to companies that are
> 'local' or that are registered for tax within that country or that are part
> of some local organisation are clearly anticompetitive within Europe. We
> believe that the ability of our clients to compete on a level playing field
> is affected by their inability to register 'local' domain names within
> Europe.

Having read this several times, I think I understand it.  Your concern 
is that the .FR registry, for example, prohibits non-French companies
from registering names in .FR for their own use.  I agree that if the
French authorities will not act on this, then in this specific case
(the .FR registry) you can justify a complaint to DG IV, the competition
directorate of the European Commission, this complaint being made by
or on behalf of your customers, and others similarly affected.

The complaint would be that the local authorities are acting in such
a way as to fragment the single market.

> We also believe that NetNames' ability to compete within Europe is affected
> by the 'local' requirements that stops us being a Registrar within certain
> territories. We are not able to compete effectively within some markets for
> this reason.

Agreed, as above.  The EU is supposed to be one market.  Any company 
registered anywhere in the EU should be able to register names in any
member state; or perhaps more correctly, should be able to register
names in compliance with the same regulations as those applied to local
companies.

> We believe that it is the role of the EU to look into such anti-competitive
> situations and to remedy them. It is not about ccTLDs themselves being
> anticompetitive, it is about the NICs being anti-competitive in their rules
> and regulations.

Agreed, insofar as you are talking about some of the ccTLD registries
in some of their operations.  However, as you know quite well, your
comments do not by any means apply to all of the ccTLD registries in
the EU.

The problem from the perspective of the European Commission is that 
the ccTLD registries taken individually are too small a market to 
justify the attention of DG IV.*  I think that the bottom limit is
a market of say $25 million or so year.  I think that the ccTLD 
registries are on the order of 10% of that.  

Taken as a whole, the ccTLD registries might be that big, but they 
simply are not one market; they are separate little markets, each
with different characteristics.

On the other hand, NSI's market in Europe is large enough to 
justify DG IV's attention, is a natural monopoly, and cannot be
said to be operated for the common good.  What has protected NSI
so far is the European perception that NSI has been operating 
under a contract with the US government.

--
* Note: the European Commission is quite small relative to the 
population of the EU; only a few thousand civil servants.  In 
consequence, even a phenomenon as important as the Internet 
has only had the part time attention of a few people.  By "a 
few" I don't mean 30 or 300 - I mean perhaps one person full 
time, half a dozen more part time.

> > The UK has its own competition 
> > authorities --
> > who have, by the way, already come to a conclusion about Nominet, the
> > .UK registry (that conclusion being, more or less, that .UK is a
> > natural monopoly but one that isn't large enough to justify regulation
> > and that in any case Nominet, the .UK registry, is being 
> > managed in the
> > public interest).
> > 
> > DG IV is concerned with .COM/NET/ORG because they are the 
> > only TLDs that
> > have a substantial market across Europe.  It would be very 
> > difficult to
> > argue that their concern is not justified.
> > 
> > This is not to say that DG IV's actions are well-advised at this time.
> > As I have already said, in my opinion DG IV is receiving advice from
> > others in the Commission without understanding that that advice is
> > based more on self-interest than the realities of the situation.

--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316
---
Member of Cou

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Werner Staub]

Tony,

>>So you say that the EC has protectionist motivations in investigating NSI,
>>and at the same time you acknowledge that there is no-one to protect.
> 
> These are two entirely different topics.  The term
> "protectionist" is synonymous with strategic industrial
> policy and preservation of domestic markets.

Different topics yes, but this does nothing to explain your logic.
But I can help you a little bit: the dominant role NSI plays in terms 
of the database to which it claims ownership is a major strategic 
industrial policy issue. Maybe you care to finish the the thought
you have started. I am afraid it will lead you to the conclusion that
the _potential_ power acquired by SAIC/NSI in electronic commerce is
a concern for _any_ antitrust regulator. 

I assume this also explains why you are so busy writing messages
suggesting that .com/.net/.org market share in Europe is 
negligeable. Although (at your advice, maybe?) NSI seems to have
stopped disclosing the percentage of international registrations, 
your client's SEC filings contradict you in that respect:
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1030341/950133-99-001925.txt
"... our revenues from sources outside the U.S. have increased 
significantly..." (This is a boiler plate statement, but it would
hardly be there if international business were negligeable).


> There have been books written on the CEC and
> predecessor strategic industrial policy activities
> that go back about 125 years in this field.  That's
> why y'all have different electrical connectors,
> different telephone connectors, different TV (snip)

We can agree on that, although it has not causal relationhip with 
the above. The US is no stranger to strategic industrial policy 
either, but never had phone plug problem because it is one single 
regulatory environment.  And during last 10 years, the EC has been 
the primary force to remove intra-European protectionism.

Some of your statements against European monopolies are essentially 
correct - but they do not seem to be sincere since you act as a paid 
advocate for a monopoly.  


Regards,

Werner




-- 
Tel: +41 22 312 5600  Direct line: +41 22 312 5640  http://axone.ch
Fax: +41 22 312 5601  2 cours de Rive   CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[R . Gaetano]

Tony Rutkowski wrote:
 


Not necessarily - if the intent is protectionism. 

What about if it is "not"?
It seems to me that you assume this by default (it's EC, therefore it *must*
be protectionist), then you proceed by circular argumentation to demonstrate
that *it is* protectionist.
But Werner has already provided a good answer.
 





National PTT monopoly?
Lotta things happened since you left Geneva. Maybe you still have friends at
the ITU that can keep you up to date ;>)


What's the current market share of France Telecom in the local
access market?  Interexchange market? :-)
 

I don't have the exact figures, but I'm sure somebody on this list will be
able to provide them.
Qualitatively, their share is more important in the fixed network (the one
that is developing at a slower rate, and where they still enjoy the
"competitive advantage" of their past monopoly) than in the mobile network,
the most rapidly growing.
 
Anyway, whatever the real figures are, one thing we can say.
In far-behind, monopolistic-oriented Europe, the competitors of the former
PTTs have more room for competition than the to-be gTLDs Registries in
advanced, competition-oriented US ;>).
 
In this rapidly changing world, stereotypes become rapidly obsolete, and to
try to characterize behaviours with categories that belong to the past is
likely to produce mistakes.
 

Like I noted above, the CEC's Green Paper targeted NSI for
industrial policy reasons in 1996.  It would be great to see
them focus a little closer to home and open up all those
domestic markets. 

Unfortunately, economics and politics have to be deployed on a global scale.
There is less and less distinction between internal and external market, and
it does not make sense on handle only the internal matters without looking
at the global picture.
 
This is why, BTW, the USG Green & White Papers did not "focus a little
closer to home", restricting the issue to the management (opening-up?) of
.us, as it should have done according to your reasonment.
 
Or do you think that to limit to internal policy matters should apply to
everybody except the US ;>).
 
Regards
Roberto
 

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[A.M. Rutkowski]

>So you say that the EC has protectionist motivations in investigating NSI,
>and at the same time you acknowledge that there is no-one to protect.

Werner,

These are two entirely different topics.  The term
"protectionist" is synonymous with strategic industrial
policy and preservation of domestic markets.

There have been books written on the CEC and
predecessor strategic industrial policy activities
that go back about 125 years in this field.  That's
why y'all have different electrical connectors,
different telephone connectors, different TV
standards, different radio spectrum allocations,
OSI, etc.  Recommended reading is Ronda Crane's MIT
thesis that was published as a popular book in
the 70s.

best,


--tony

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Werner Staub]

Tony,

> >But could you clarify *whom* the EC tries to protect by investigating
> >NSI, in your opinion?
> You're asking the same question that I am!  

So you say that the EC has protectionist motivations in investigating NSI,
and at the same time you acknowledge that there is no-one to protect. 

Werner
-- 
Tel: +41 22 312 5600  Direct line: +41 22 312 5640  http://axone.ch
Fax: +41 22 312 5601  2 cours de Rive   CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI [Attention Mark Measday and Joe sims]

[Jeff Williams]

Jim and all,

  Very well rebuffed here Jim, and on target as well.  >;)

  As you may well know, one of the circumstances surrounding the
SIngapore ICANN conference (A fiasco BTW), was that ICANN's
reported dealings with the than EC of which Mr. Bangemann was
a member, before forced to resign as you accurately indicated
due to some "Questionable" activities that were reported in the
EU press, just days after the Singapore ICANN Conference.  We
[INEGroup] immediately followed that up with our own investigation
into the particulars of ICANN's GAC dealings with the than EC,
and found out some very interesting and damming information, some
of which I posted to this very list and CC'ed to the ICANN (Initial?)
Interim Board.  As only somewhat reported that ICANN (Initial? Interim
Board met privately with the Than EC regarding matters related
to the subject line of this thread as I understand it...

  I intend to hold on to this information should it become useful later
in dealings with the ICANN should they decide to get further out of control
as many now believe that they are...

Jim Dixon wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Mark Measday wrote:
>
> > Odd, given your arguments, that, with the good advice Mr B received at the EC,
> > we do not see him at the helm of some more adventurous venture.
>
> Good advice?  From who?
>
> Mr Bangemann headed up DG XIII, the telecommunications directorate.  He was
> of course one of the 22 Commissioners forced to resign because of corruption
> and mismanagement at the European Commission.  He then went on to compound
> the scandal by accepting a position with Telefonica at a million dollars a
> year, give or take the odd hundred thousand.
>
> > Why would a man so much more in possession of the facts than most choose merely
> > to learn Spanish at such a high salary when he could have burst from his
> > straitjacket and reaped the rewards of entrepreneurial endeavour according to
> > your account below?
>
> Did someone claim that a position at the European Commission implied
> some sort of entrepreneurial skills?  Not me.  What I said was
>
> > The Internet's amazing and continuing growth has
> > shattered the complacency of telcos and governments alike.  What is a
> > commonplace is that by 2001 most telecoms traffic everywhere will be
> > data, not voice.  By 2005 voice will be a tiny fraction of the bandwidth
> > in use, and all of the equipment, practices, laws, and regulations
> > developed over the last century of voice telecommunications will be
> > obsolete and irrelevant.  No matter how hard the bureaucrats try to
> > stuff this huge and growing elephant into the straitjacket that they
> > developed for the mouse that they are used to, it just ain't gonna fit.
>
> There are many bureaucrats at the Commission trying to stuff the
> Internet into a straitjacket.  DG XIII, Mr Bangemann's lot, has
> specific responsibility for telecommunications and is largely staffed
> by people with a telco background.  They are the ones trying to do
> the stuffing.
>
> --
> Jim Dixon Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +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 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI [Attention Mark Measday]

[Jeff Williams]

Mark and all, most especially Mark,

  Thank you, Sir Mark, it likewise always to receive a post from you as
well, even though it is of a sarcastic tone.  >;)

  Now for the rest of your post...  (See below your comments)

Mark Measday wrote:

> Always a pleasure to receive a post from you, Sir Jeff, and I thank you for the
> unmerited comparison with the eminent Mr Crocker, whose tersity I have unfortunately
> yet to emulate.

  Your post that I commented on  (See below) would belie this statement I believe..

>
>
> In fact I was trying to get Mr Dixon to put some more of his cogent prose online,
> while also trying to point out that 'Europe', for better or worse, is run by lawyers
> not engineers and some sort of compromise might be more advisable than his suggested
> solution where they all die out like the dinosaurs.

  Your over generalization here belies reasonable logic, as Europe is not
"Run by lawyers" anymore than the US is, although we are accused
of this often enough.

> Scenarios of that nature, even if true, create certain resistance. Rhetoric included 
>a
> trope called metaphor, I recall, not necessarily invalidating its logical component.
>
> On topic, I recollect that Chuck Gomes has very comprehensive figures on a country
> basis for registrations up to 1998. Were he or NSI to make these available to the 
>list,
> it would illuminate the argument. I remember the levels of NSI sales as being
> surprisingly small, in fact the discussion centred on how to increase them. Vend
> rates of 5-15% against the relevant ccTLD were the norm. I have no idea whether they
> were correct or not, presumably someone else could find them if NSI can't
>
> One can only hope that the beleaguered marketing effort NSI belatedly put into action
> had been assisted by the consciousness-raising ICANN and the US political classes
> have engaged in on their behalf.

 I highly question you characterizing ICANN as "consciousness-raising" in this
or any other context.  Most of the relevant issues have been around far longer
than ICANN has been in existence and as well know if not better known than
currently.  ICANN has been relatively successful however at angering and
concerning a broader base of stakeholders.

> One muses whether NSI can use their peculiar
> political antennae to recruit the European equivalents to their cause in the same
> way. What else have the poor bureaucrats of the variegated DG's to do?  I appreciate
> Roberto Gaetano's efforts elsewhere to recruit the atomic energy regulators, 
>presumably
> the power boys behind the secret .bomb,  but I digress needlessly into the
> Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this discussion
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Mark and all,
> >
> >   Youth, Truth and bravery vs age, corruption and treachery!???
> > ROFLMAO!  That is really good rhetoric there Mark!  Nice bit
> > of slurring, if I do say so myself.   You are right up there with
> > "Dcrock"!
> >
> > Mark Measday wrote:
> >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > Odd, given your arguments, that, with the good advice Mr B received at the EC,
> > > we do not see him at the helm of some more adventurous venture.
> > >
> > > Why would a man so much more in possession of the facts than most choose merely
> > > to learn Spanish at such a high salary when he could have burst from his
> > > straitjacket and reaped the rewards of entrepreneurial endeavour according to
> > > your account below?
> > >
> > > Was it that he did not believe his own rhetoric and polemic? Surely not.
> > >
> > > Someone not entirely convinced of the merit of your visionary position might
> > > erroneously hazard a guess that age, corruption and treachery will always beat
> > > youth, truth and bravery.
> > >
> > > Jim Dixon wrote:
> > >
> > > > (*) I know of nothing in American history to parallel the recent sacking
> > > > -- OK, OK, mass resignation under pressure -- of the European
> > > > Commissioners.  And few were surprised or shocked, though many were
> > > > angry, when the head of DG XIII, the telecommunications directorate,
> > > > then accepted a position paying about $1 million a year with Telefonica,
> > > > the Spanish telco, while he was still responsible for regulating it.
> > >
> > > The Internet's amazing and continuing growth has
> > > shattered the complacency of telcos and governments alike.  What is a
> > > commonplace is that by 2001 most telecoms traffic everywhere will be
> > > data, not voice.  By 2005 voice will be a tiny fraction of the bandwidth
> > > in use, and all of the equipment, practices, laws, and regulations
> > > developed over the last century of voice telecommunications will be
> > > obsolete and irrelevant.  No matter how hard the bureaucrats try to
> > > stuff this huge and growing elephant into the straitjacket that they
> > > developed for the mouse that they are used to, it just ain't gonna fit.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jim Dixon Managing Dire

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jim Dixon]

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Mark Measday wrote:

> Odd, given your arguments, that, with the good advice Mr B received at the EC,
> we do not see him at the helm of some more adventurous venture.

Good advice?  From who?  

Mr Bangemann headed up DG XIII, the telecommunications directorate.  He was
of course one of the 22 Commissioners forced to resign because of corruption
and mismanagement at the European Commission.  He then went on to compound
the scandal by accepting a position with Telefonica at a million dollars a
year, give or take the odd hundred thousand.
 
> Why would a man so much more in possession of the facts than most choose merely
> to learn Spanish at such a high salary when he could have burst from his
> straitjacket and reaped the rewards of entrepreneurial endeavour according to
> your account below?

Did someone claim that a position at the European Commission implied 
some sort of entrepreneurial skills?  Not me.  What I said was

> The Internet's amazing and continuing growth has
> shattered the complacency of telcos and governments alike.  What is a
> commonplace is that by 2001 most telecoms traffic everywhere will be
> data, not voice.  By 2005 voice will be a tiny fraction of the bandwidth
> in use, and all of the equipment, practices, laws, and regulations
> developed over the last century of voice telecommunications will be
> obsolete and irrelevant.  No matter how hard the bureaucrats try to
> stuff this huge and growing elephant into the straitjacket that they
> developed for the mouse that they are used to, it just ain't gonna fit.

There are many bureaucrats at the Commission trying to stuff the 
Internet into a straitjacket.  DG XIII, Mr Bangemann's lot, has 
specific responsibility for telecommunications and is largely staffed
by people with a telco background.  They are the ones trying to do 
the stuffing.

--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +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 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Mark Measday]

Always a pleasure to receive a post from you, Sir Jeff, and I thank you for the
unmerited comparison with the eminent Mr Crocker, whose tersity I have unfortunately
yet to emulate.

In fact I was trying to get Mr Dixon to put some more of his cogent prose online,
while also trying to point out that 'Europe', for better or worse, is run by lawyers
not engineers and some sort of compromise might be more advisable than his suggested
solution where they all die out like the dinosaurs. Scenarios of that nature, even if
true, create certain resistance. Rhetoric included a trope called metaphor, I recall,
not necessarily invalidating its logical component.

On topic, I recollect that Chuck Gomes has very comprehensive figures on a country
basis for registrations up to 1998. Were he or NSI to make these available to the
list, it would illuminate the argument. I remember the levels of NSI sales as being
surprisingly small, in fact the discussion centred on how to increase them. Vend
rates of 5-15% against the relevant ccTLD were the norm. I have no idea whether they
were correct or not, presumably someone else could find them if NSI can't

One can only hope that the beleaguered marketing effort NSI belatedly put into action
had been assisted by the consciousness-raising ICANN and the US political classes
have engaged in on their behalf. One muses whether NSI can use their peculiar
political antennae to recruit the European equivalents to their cause in the same
way. What else have the poor bureaucrats of the variegated DG's to do?  I appreciate
Roberto Gaetano's efforts elsewhere to recruit the atomic energy regulators,
presumably the power boys behind the secret .bomb,  but I digress needlessly into the
Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this discussion

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Mark and all,
>
>   Youth, Truth and bravery vs age, corruption and treachery!???
> ROFLMAO!  That is really good rhetoric there Mark!  Nice bit
> of slurring, if I do say so myself.   You are right up there with
> "Dcrock"!
>
> Mark Measday wrote:
>
> > Jim,
> >
> > Odd, given your arguments, that, with the good advice Mr B received at the EC,
> > we do not see him at the helm of some more adventurous venture.
> >
> > Why would a man so much more in possession of the facts than most choose merely
> > to learn Spanish at such a high salary when he could have burst from his
> > straitjacket and reaped the rewards of entrepreneurial endeavour according to
> > your account below?
> >
> > Was it that he did not believe his own rhetoric and polemic? Surely not.
> >
> > Someone not entirely convinced of the merit of your visionary position might
> > erroneously hazard a guess that age, corruption and treachery will always beat
> > youth, truth and bravery.
> >
> > Jim Dixon wrote:
> >
> > > (*) I know of nothing in American history to parallel the recent sacking
> > > -- OK, OK, mass resignation under pressure -- of the European
> > > Commissioners.  And few were surprised or shocked, though many were
> > > angry, when the head of DG XIII, the telecommunications directorate,
> > > then accepted a position paying about $1 million a year with Telefonica,
> > > the Spanish telco, while he was still responsible for regulating it.
> >
> > The Internet's amazing and continuing growth has
> > shattered the complacency of telcos and governments alike.  What is a
> > commonplace is that by 2001 most telecoms traffic everywhere will be
> > data, not voice.  By 2005 voice will be a tiny fraction of the bandwidth
> > in use, and all of the equipment, practices, laws, and regulations
> > developed over the last century of voice telecommunications will be
> > obsolete and irrelevant.  No matter how hard the bureaucrats try to
> > stuff this huge and growing elephant into the straitjacket that they
> > developed for the mouse that they are used to, it just ain't gonna fit.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jim Dixon Managing Director
> > > VBCnet GB Ltd   http://www.vbc.nettel +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 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[A.M. Rutkowski]

At 01:58 PM 7/30/99 , you wrote:
>gTLD market share is at least 30% in those European countries
>where prices are comparable to those of NSI.

We'll see when Mark Lottor's new host/domain counts come out.
Actual COM, NET, and ORG use has not been anywhere near
that figure in any European country.


--tony

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jeff Williams]

Mark and all,

  Youth, Truth and bravery vs age, corruption and treachery!???
ROFLMAO!  That is really good rhetoric there Mark!  Nice bit
of slurring, if I do say so myself.   You are right up there with
"Dcrock"!

Mark Measday wrote:

> Jim,
>
> Odd, given your arguments, that, with the good advice Mr B received at the EC,
> we do not see him at the helm of some more adventurous venture.
>
> Why would a man so much more in possession of the facts than most choose merely
> to learn Spanish at such a high salary when he could have burst from his
> straitjacket and reaped the rewards of entrepreneurial endeavour according to
> your account below?
>
> Was it that he did not believe his own rhetoric and polemic? Surely not.
>
> Someone not entirely convinced of the merit of your visionary position might
> erroneously hazard a guess that age, corruption and treachery will always beat
> youth, truth and bravery.
>
> Jim Dixon wrote:
>
> > (*) I know of nothing in American history to parallel the recent sacking
> > -- OK, OK, mass resignation under pressure -- of the European
> > Commissioners.  And few were surprised or shocked, though many were
> > angry, when the head of DG XIII, the telecommunications directorate,
> > then accepted a position paying about $1 million a year with Telefonica,
> > the Spanish telco, while he was still responsible for regulating it.
>
> The Internet's amazing and continuing growth has
> shattered the complacency of telcos and governments alike.  What is a
> commonplace is that by 2001 most telecoms traffic everywhere will be
> data, not voice.  By 2005 voice will be a tiny fraction of the bandwidth
> in use, and all of the equipment, practices, laws, and regulations
> developed over the last century of voice telecommunications will be
> obsolete and irrelevant.  No matter how hard the bureaucrats try to
> stuff this huge and growing elephant into the straitjacket that they
> developed for the mouse that they are used to, it just ain't gonna fit.
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jim Dixon Managing Director
> > VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +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 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Richard J. Sexton]

At 03:20 PM 7/30/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>Hi Werner,
>
>Glad to see you're still around
>
>[Irascible comment skimmed.]
>
>>But could you clarify *whom* the EC tries to protect by investigating
>>NSI, in your opinion?
>
>You're asking the same question that I am!  Who in
>Europe are they protecting when the domestic DNS markets
>are so much more non-competitive, higher priced, delayed,
>regulated there?  The net result is to drive customers
>to use COM, NET, and ORG abroad.

This was expecially true of .CA before it's reformation. About 7
eyars ago everybody I knew here wanted a ca name, but the ca
committee was fussy about what names it would give out and
after waiting 3 months to be told no, people got a name
the next day from Internic.

So, because cctlds were so badly managed in the past,
NSI got most of the business. It's reward for doing this
good job is prosection?

I'd wager to say that NSI's registration services are used
by people wo are wuite happy with it, every day, than have
complaned about NSI, ever.






--
Richard Sexton  |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.mbz.orghttp://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada,  70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD   +1 (613) 473-1719

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[A.M. Rutkowski]

Hi Werner,

Glad to see you're still around

[Irascible comment skimmed.]

>But could you clarify *whom* the EC tries to protect by investigating
>NSI, in your opinion?

You're asking the same question that I am!  Who in
Europe are they protecting when the domestic DNS markets
are so much more non-competitive, higher priced, delayed,
regulated there?  The net result is to drive customers
to use COM, NET, and ORG abroad.

One would expect DG IV to be investigating the domestic
European registrars, introducing competition, and otherwise
eliminating the undesirable attributes so the DNS sales
opportunities don't get bled off.  But then again, the
frequent tactic in the past has generally been to "level
the playing field" by inflicting all the bureaucratic
and regulatory malaise on the rest of the world.


--tony

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jeff Williams]

Roberto and all,

  Of course, Rome was not built in a day.  However we are not living in
Roman times and building regulative and administrative structures
"Using the Internet" instead of Face to Face meetings can be done
better, more accurately, and with wider participation than when Rome
Rome was built.  Hence suggesting that the example of "Rome
was not built in a day" is not relevant here

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Tony Rutkowsi wrote:
> >
> > At 12:29 PM 7/29/99 , dibu wrote:
> > >Well, I think is not the same.
> > >
> > >NSI domain names are international, but country code based
> > domain names
> > >not.
> >
> >
> >  From anticompetitive and functional standpoints, it is exactly
> > the same.  The market is the performance of registration/name
> > resolution value added services for the Internet.
> >
>
> In principle, it is exactly the same, but not in practice.
>
> The scope is different, and therefore the priorities are different.
>
> As the old (italian) saying goes, Rome was not built in one day.
> This means that if we proceed step by step, we should first assess the
> larger problem, i.e. the problem of a monopolistic business based outside
> Europe operating commercially in Europe, and therefore getting financial
> resources out from Europe. If this fails to happen, there will be no point
> in proceeding further with less important cases, which anyhow are referred
> to policies under the control of the Member states (more or less).
>
> This said, I believe that the European national TLDs will be unter pressure
> to go to a competitive model (as the Telsos did in the past) and that
> therefore "eventually" competition will be allowed in the ccTLDs, but I
> share DG IV's POV that economically and politically NSI's monopoly in
> "general purpose" (not nationally restricted) TLDs is a higher priority.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> P.S.: this answer will not reach Domain Policy readers, as usual

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Werner Staub]

Tony,

> The market share of ESTENA - the Ministry of Education 
> Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg is nearly 100% in Luxembourg. 

Please tell us how you calculate this. I suspect you are simply
dividing the total number of .lu registrations by the total 
number of .lu registrations

gTLD market share is at least 30% in those European countries 
where prices are comparable to those of NSI. 

Regards,

Werner

-- 
Tel: +41 22 312 5600  Direct line: +41 22 312 5640  http://axone.ch
Fax: +41 22 312 5601  2 cours de Rive   CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Mark Measday]

Jim,

Odd, given your arguments, that, with the good advice Mr B received at the EC,
we do not see him at the helm of some more adventurous venture.

Why would a man so much more in possession of the facts than most choose merely
to learn Spanish at such a high salary when he could have burst from his
straitjacket and reaped the rewards of entrepreneurial endeavour according to
your account below?

Was it that he did not believe his own rhetoric and polemic? Surely not.

Someone not entirely convinced of the merit of your visionary position might
erroneously hazard a guess that age, corruption and treachery will always beat
youth, truth and bravery.

Jim Dixon wrote:

> (*) I know of nothing in American history to parallel the recent sacking
> -- OK, OK, mass resignation under pressure -- of the European
> Commissioners.  And few were surprised or shocked, though many were
> angry, when the head of DG XIII, the telecommunications directorate,
> then accepted a position paying about $1 million a year with Telefonica,
> the Spanish telco, while he was still responsible for regulating it.

The Internet's amazing and continuing growth has
shattered the complacency of telcos and governments alike.  What is a
commonplace is that by 2001 most telecoms traffic everywhere will be
data, not voice.  By 2005 voice will be a tiny fraction of the bandwidth
in use, and all of the equipment, practices, laws, and regulations
developed over the last century of voice telecommunications will be
obsolete and irrelevant.  No matter how hard the bureaucrats try to
stuff this huge and growing elephant into the straitjacket that they
developed for the mouse that they are used to, it just ain't gonna fit.

>
>
> --
> Jim Dixon Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +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 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Werner Staub]

Tony,

> > The European Commission looks, of course, at the global European figures.
> > Obviously, if the European ccNICs had the dominant position you show as
> > hypothesis, the things would be different. After all, DG IV should be
> > silly to bother for 0.01%, don't you agree?
> 
> Not necessarily - if the intent is protectionism.  (...)

Let me see: the fact that 18 monts ago the US Government (at your personal 
request, as you have claimed) accepted to protect your client against 
competition was not protectionism. But if the EU looks into SAIC's tactics 
of delaying competition (each year of delay being worth USD 1 billion in 
sales of NSI stock by SAIC), then of course the motive is "protectionism". 

But could you clarify *whom* the EC tries to protect by investigating
NSI, in your opinion?

Regards,

Werner

-- 
Tel: +41 22 312 5600  Direct line: +41 22 312 5640  http://axone.ch
Fax: +41 22 312 5601  2 cours de Rive   CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[A.M. Rutkowski]

Hi Roberto,

The European Commission looks, of course, at
the global European figures.
Obviously, if the European ccNICs had the dominant position you show
as
hypothesis, the things would be different. After all, DG IV should be
silly
to bother for 0.01%, don't you agree?
Not necessarily - if the intent is protectionism.  If you
look at the original CEC Green Paper on Numbering back in 1996
(when the COM, ORG, and NET market share mas clearly minuscule)
the EU was clearly targeting NSI as a strategic industrial
policy move.

In dealing with market share, you also need to differentiate
between just registrations, and domains in use.  The
registrations
not in use are simply speculative investments having nothing
directly to do with the Internet per se.  It's the domains in
use that typically are comparatively quite small - and remain
quite small.  If you want independent verification try using
John Quarterman's MIDS services.


National PTT monopoly?
Lotta things happened since you left Geneva. Maybe you still have friends
at
the ITU that can keep you up to date ;>)
What's the current market share of France Telecom in the local
access market?  Interexchange market? :-)


Anyway, since you raise the point of
competition with NSI at a Registrar
level, don't you think that the protectionist attitude that NSI has taken
in
the last few months has played definitively a role in DG IV's decision?
Some
Like I noted above, the CEC's Green Paper targeted NSI for
industrial policy reasons in 1996.  It would be great to see
them focus a little closer to home and open up all those
domestic markets.  That would bring a lot more real benefits
to local users.  I suspect also that the hassle, bureaucracy,
delays and costs domestically are what are primarily driving
customers some customers to COM, ORG, and NET registrars.


I understand your bitterness, if I would have
been hit in my direct
interests I would feel the same.

Bitterness?  I was over there for 5 years and functioned in
that environment.  I was indeed bitter about all the
regulations,
bad service, high costs, protectionist tariffs, propping up of
PTOs and institutions.  I watched CERN lease circuits from Geneva

to New York to Lisbon because it was cheaper than going direct. 

I was the guy who was almost thrown out of ETSI because I mentioned
the Internet.   I get back every few months.  Things are
changing, 
but it's still slow.  


--tony

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[R . Gaetano]

Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> 
> At 05:02 AM 7/30/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >therefore "eventually" competition will be allowed in the 
> ccTLDs, but I
> >share DG IV's POV that economically and politically NSI's monopoly in
> >"general purpose" (not nationally restricted) TLDs is a 
> higher priority.
> 
> Even though the AFNIC monopoly, for example, has 99.99 % of the
> TLD domain market in France and Network Solutions may have that
> 0.01% ?

The European Commission looks, of course, at the global European figures.
Obviously, if the European ccNICs had the dominant position you show as
hypothesis, the things would be different. After all, DG IV should be silly
to bother for 0.01%, don't you agree?
The fact is that, for Europe as a whole, the figures are dramatically
different, and the economical effect of NSI's monopoly are real, as you
probably know very well.

  And, even though the national PTT monopoly has recently
> become a registrar for COM, NET, and ORG?

National PTT monopoly?
Lotta things happened since you left Geneva. Maybe you still have friends at
the ITU that can keep you up to date ;>)

Anyway, since you raise the point of competition with NSI at a Registrar
level, don't you think that the protectionist attitude that NSI has taken in
the last few months has played definitively a role in DG IV's decision? Some
complaints to DG IV for antitrust activities in DN registration are quite
old, but no decision was taken yet because there was reasonable confidence
that a gentlemen's agreement could be found sooner or later. Recent history
has proven the opposite, hence the decision.

  That's a very interesting
> anticompetitive perspective the EU takes.  It must be what makes
> Europe so strongly competitive and a leader in the Internet field.

I understand your bitterness, if I would have been hit in my direct
interests I would feel the same.
But to turn the thing around and to say that an antitrust action is an
anticompetitive position seems to me to stretch the thing a little bit too
far.

I have always admired your argumentations, and I really find great that you
can paint the monopoly of NSI as a driving force towards competition, and
the anti-trust authorities as the ones who oppose competition ;>).

Regards
Roberto

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[A.M. Rutkowski]

At 08:43 AM 7/30/99 , Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
BTW there is also the fact that the market
share for the NIC's are not so
high than for NSI.
It could be ridiculous to open for example the registration for the
Luxembourg domain name (if it exsits, I have to check)
.
The market share of
ESTENA - the Ministry of Education Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
is nearly 100% in Luxembourg.  The associated fee is only
a mere 2000 FLUX (US$53) initially, and 3000 FLUX (US$ 77.5)
annually.
The COM, NET, and ORG registration share of domain names in Europe 
is minuscule compared to the country registration shares, including 

Luxembourg.  By any measure, DG IV has clearly misplaced its
priorities.

Looks to me like the LU domain monopoly could benefit from a little
registrar competition to lower those prices a bit.


--tony

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jean-Michel Becar]

BTW there is also the fact that the market share for the NIC's are not so
high than for NSI.
It could be ridiculous to open for example the registration for the
Luxembourg domain name (if it exsits, I have to check) .

Jean-Michel Bécar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.etsi.org
E.T.S.I. Project Manager
Tel: +(33) (0)4 92 94 43 15
Fax: +(33) (0)4 92 38 52 15




> -Original Message-
> From: Ivan Pope [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 12:51
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
> 
> 
> I disagree with Roberto here. As a European national and as a European
> company, we regard the ability to compete freely and fairly 
> across Europe to
> be our right. If that right is restricted by national 
> policies, i.e. by
> restrictive local NIC policies, then we regard that as a 
> highest priority.
> While we also regard the situation whereby NSI controls access to the
> .com/.net/.org domains as an important competition matter, we 
> regard the
> situation in our own backyard as equally important.
> Ivan
> 
> Roberto wrote:
> 
> > In principle, it is exactly the same, but not in practice.
> > 
> > The scope is different, and therefore the priorities are different.
> > 
> > As the old (italian) saying goes, Rome was not built in one day.
> > This means that if we proceed step by step, we should first 
> assess the
> > larger problem, i.e. the problem of a monopolistic business 
> > based outside
> > Europe operating commercially in Europe, and therefore 
> > getting financial
> > resources out from Europe. If this fails to happen, there 
> > will be no point
> > in proceeding further with less important cases, which anyhow 
> > are referred
> > to policies under the control of the Member states (more or less).
> > 
> > This said, I believe that the European national TLDs will be 
> > unter pressure
> > to go to a competitive model (as the Telsos did in the 
> past) and that
> > therefore "eventually" competition will be allowed in the 
> > ccTLDs, but I
> > share DG IV's POV that economically and politically NSI's 
> monopoly in
> > "general purpose" (not nationally restricted) TLDs is a 
> > higher priority.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> > 
> > P.S.: this answer will not reach Domain Policy readers, as usual
> > 
> 

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Ivan Pope]

I disagree with Roberto here. As a European national and as a European
company, we regard the ability to compete freely and fairly across Europe to
be our right. If that right is restricted by national policies, i.e. by
restrictive local NIC policies, then we regard that as a highest priority.
While we also regard the situation whereby NSI controls access to the
.com/.net/.org domains as an important competition matter, we regard the
situation in our own backyard as equally important.
Ivan

Roberto wrote:

> In principle, it is exactly the same, but not in practice.
> 
> The scope is different, and therefore the priorities are different.
> 
> As the old (italian) saying goes, Rome was not built in one day.
> This means that if we proceed step by step, we should first assess the
> larger problem, i.e. the problem of a monopolistic business 
> based outside
> Europe operating commercially in Europe, and therefore 
> getting financial
> resources out from Europe. If this fails to happen, there 
> will be no point
> in proceeding further with less important cases, which anyhow 
> are referred
> to policies under the control of the Member states (more or less).
> 
> This said, I believe that the European national TLDs will be 
> unter pressure
> to go to a competitive model (as the Telsos did in the past) and that
> therefore "eventually" competition will be allowed in the 
> ccTLDs, but I
> share DG IV's POV that economically and politically NSI's monopoly in
> "general purpose" (not nationally restricted) TLDs is a 
> higher priority.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> P.S.: this answer will not reach Domain Policy readers, as usual
> 

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[A.M. Rutkowski]

At 05:02 AM 7/30/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>therefore "eventually" competition will be allowed in the ccTLDs, but I
>share DG IV's POV that economically and politically NSI's monopoly in
>"general purpose" (not nationally restricted) TLDs is a higher priority.

Even though the AFNIC monopoly, for example, has 99.99 % of the
TLD domain market in France and Network Solutions may have that
0.01% ?  And, even though the national PTT monopoly has recently
become a registrar for COM, NET, and ORG?  That's a very interesting
anticompetitive perspective the EU takes.  It must be what makes
Europe so strongly competitive and a leader in the Internet field.

best,


--tony

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[R . Gaetano]

Tony Rutkowsi wrote:
> 
> At 12:29 PM 7/29/99 , dibu wrote:
> >Well, I think is not the same.
> >
> >NSI domain names are international, but country code based 
> domain names
> >not.
> 
> 
>  From anticompetitive and functional standpoints, it is exactly
> the same.  The market is the performance of registration/name
> resolution value added services for the Internet.
> 

In principle, it is exactly the same, but not in practice.

The scope is different, and therefore the priorities are different.

As the old (italian) saying goes, Rome was not built in one day.
This means that if we proceed step by step, we should first assess the
larger problem, i.e. the problem of a monopolistic business based outside
Europe operating commercially in Europe, and therefore getting financial
resources out from Europe. If this fails to happen, there will be no point
in proceeding further with less important cases, which anyhow are referred
to policies under the control of the Member states (more or less).

This said, I believe that the European national TLDs will be unter pressure
to go to a competitive model (as the Telsos did in the past) and that
therefore "eventually" competition will be allowed in the ccTLDs, but I
share DG IV's POV that economically and politically NSI's monopoly in
"general purpose" (not nationally restricted) TLDs is a higher priority.

Regards
Roberto

P.S.: this answer will not reach Domain Policy readers, as usual

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[R . Gaetano]

Michael Sondow wrote:
> 
> The EC is taking its cue from ICANN, covering up their own
> anticompetitive DNS activities by using NSI as a smokescreen.
> Probably, this tactic was suggested to Christopher Wilkinson, who is
> a member of CORE, and transmitted by him to DG IV.
> 

Maybe DG IV itself is a member of CORE ;>).
CORE *must* have somewhere a secret list of secret members anyhow.

RG

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Michael Sondow]

Kent Crispin a écrit:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 12:39:17PM -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> > At 12:29 PM 7/29/99 , dibu wrote:
> > >Well, I think is not the same.
> > >
> > >NSI domain names are international, but country code based domain names
> > >not.
> >
> >
> >  From anticompetitive and functional standpoints, it is exactly
> > the same.
> 
> Apparently DG IV does not agree with you.

The EC is taking its cue from ICANN, covering up their own
anticompetitive DNS activities by using NSI as a smokescreen.
Probably, this tactic was suggested to Christopher Wilkinson, who is
a member of CORE, and transmitted by him to DG IV.



Michael Sondow   I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (212)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jim Dixon]

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:

> Have any potential registrars filed complaints with DG IV
> to open up competitive registrar opportunities for the various
> monopoly European country member domains?

Not to the best of my knowledge.  

There is good understanding of these issues at DG IV (the competition
directorate).  I have heard them argue that .COM is sold across Europe 
and sales volumes are large enough to justify DG IV's interest, 
whereas national TLDs, ccTLDs, are sold in their respective 
national markets with little leakage, and therefore the national TLDs 
are better handled by the national authorities.

In the UK what was then the Monopolies and Mergers Commission looked
carefully at .UK and decided that (a) the .UK registry is a natural
monopoly, (b) the market wasn't large enough to justify setting up 
a regulator, (c) Nominet, the .UK registrar, is well-managed, (d)
the market is open and competitive, in that anyone can become a 
registrar upon payment of a nominal fee, and (e) Nominet's being 
operated as a shared registry managed by the .UK registrars in common
removed any remaining doubts.  Nominet passed the thousand-registrar
mark some time ago.  They have been dropping prices regularly since the
beginning.  From September a registration in .UK will cost registrars
about $7.50 for two (2) years.

If (b) isn't clear: it costs money to set up a regulator staffed by 
career civil servants on high salaries with generous retirement 
benefits and union dues to pay.  It is very likely that if .UK were
to fall under the authority of a regulator prices would have be to
increased to pay the costs of regulation.  Given Nominet's sensible
management, low overheads, and falling prices, it would take a
brave and foolish government to act against it.

Please do not read this as an argument in support of DG IV's movement
against Network Solutions.  I think that DG IV's position in this
matter is reasonable.  DG IV has a well-deserved good reputation,
unlike some of the other directorates. (*)  They do a good job, and
much of the success of what used to be called the Common Market is
due to DG IV's good work.

However, it looks to me like DG IV been misinformed and badly 
advised in this matter by other elements of the European Commission
who have a strong interest in the success of ICANN's plan for
consolidating power over the Internet.

-
(*) I know of nothing in American history to parallel the recent sacking 
-- OK, OK, mass resignation under pressure -- of the European 
Commissioners.  And few were surprised or shocked, though many were
angry, when the head of DG XIII, the telecommunications directorate,
then accepted a position paying about $1 million a year with Telefonica, 
the Spanish telco, while he was still responsible for regulating it.

--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +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 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jeff Williams]

Dave and all,

  Dave, according to Esther Dysons own testimony on July 22,
ICANN has NO authority.  Are you saying now that they do?
If so, what is the nature of that authority?  Or maybe Esther
can answer this question for us, Again???

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 09:44 AM 7/29/99 , Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > > At 12:29 PM 7/29/99 , dibu wrote:
> > > >Well, I think is not the same.
> > > >NSI domain names are international, but country code based domain names
> > > >not.
> > >
> > >  From anticompetitive and functional standpoints, it is exactly
> > > the same.  The market is the performance of registration/name
> > > resolution value added services for the Internet.
> >
> >Indeed, I can also purchase .cc, .to, and a host of others here in
> >the U.S., and they're country code domains.
> >
> >The lines have blurred sufficiently.
>
> As usual, the distinction between administrative assignment, versus sales
> decisions by the administrative agent, is being ignored.
>
> ccTLDs are assigned on a per-country basis and it is ultimately the
> decision of the country authority how their TLD shall be
> marketed.  Countries vary widely in their views concerning competition and
> its relevance to this service.
>
> gTLDs are stricty global and have no intervening authority other than
> IANA/ICANN.  Competition on gTLD space is a matter for IANA/ICANN and no
> matter how much NSI resists it, is is happening.
>
> d/
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
> Brandenburg Consulting   Fax: +1 408 273 6464
> 675 Spruce Drive 
> Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Kent Crispin]

On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 12:39:17PM -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> At 12:29 PM 7/29/99 , dibu wrote:
> >Well, I think is not the same.
> >
> >NSI domain names are international, but country code based domain names
> >not.
> 
> 
>  From anticompetitive and functional standpoints, it is exactly
> the same. 

Apparently DG IV does not agree with you.

-- 
Kent Crispin   "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[A.M. Rutkowski]

At 12:29 PM 7/29/99 , dibu wrote:
>Well, I think is not the same.
>
>NSI domain names are international, but country code based domain names
>not.


 From anticompetitive and functional standpoints, it is exactly
the same.  The market is the performance of registration/name
resolution value added services for the Internet.


--tony

[IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[dibu]

Well, I think is not the same.

NSI domain names are international, but country code based domain names
not.
regards,

Javier A. Maestre
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.dominiuris.com

-Mensaje original-
De: Antony Van Couvering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fecha: jueves 29 de julio de 1999 17:56
Asunto: RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI


>Tony,
>
>This is a very excellent question and one that has not escaped my mind.  If
>you know of any initiative in this regard, or would like to initiate one,
>let me know.
>
>Antony
>
>+-Original Message-
>+From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of A.M.
>+Rutkowski
>+Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 11:13 AM
>+To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>+Subject: Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
>+
>+
>+Jim,
>+
>+Have any potential registrars filed complaints with DG IV
>+to open up competitive registrar opportunities for the various
>+monopoly European country member domains?
>+
>+
>+--tony
>+
>+
>
>
>

RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Antony Van Couvering]

Tony,

This is a very excellent question and one that has not escaped my mind.  If
you know of any initiative in this regard, or would like to initiate one,
let me know.

Antony

+-Original Message-
+From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of A.M.
+Rutkowski
+Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 11:13 AM
+To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+Subject: Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
+
+
+Jim,
+
+Have any potential registrars filed complaints with DG IV
+to open up competitive registrar opportunities for the various
+monopoly European country member domains?
+
+
+--tony
+
+

Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[A.M. Rutkowski]

Jim,

Have any potential registrars filed complaints with DG IV
to open up competitive registrar opportunities for the various
monopoly European country member domains?


--tony

[IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI

[Jim Dixon]

 without comment 

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/cgi/rapcgi.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/99/596|0
|RAPID&lg=EN

(User name: guest, Password: guest)

--

Commission investigates Internet agreements under EU competition rules



DN: IP/99/596 Date: 1999-07-29


TXT: FR EN DE
PDF: FR EN DE
Word Processed: FR EN DE

IP/99/596

Brussels, 29 July 1999

Commission investigates Internet agreements under EU competition rules

The European Commissioner responsible for competition, Mr Karel Van Miert,
has ordered his services to look into the licensing agreements between
Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) and test bed registrars of second-level
Internet domain names in the .com, .org and .net domains. These licensing
agreements are set to be temporary and to be amended and approved by the
United States (US) Department of Commerce before the end of the test bed
period, which now postponed until 16 July 1999, instead of 25 June 1999.
This new anti-trust inquiry is part of an overall monitoring of on-going
developments in the management of generic Top-Level Domain Names such as
.com and of the Commission's efforts to guarantee the openness of the
Internet.

Mr Van Miert wants to ascertain whether the licensing agreements fall within
the scope of Article 81 (1) EC Treaty (formerly Article 85 (1) of the
founding Treaty of Rome) and of Article 53 of the European Economic Area
(EEA) Agreement, which prohibit agreements restrictive of competition.
Certain provisions in the agreements or related actions taken by NSI might
also constitute an abuse of NSI's dominant position under Article 82 EC
Treaty (formerly Article 85 (1) of the founding Treaty of Rome) and Article
54 of the EEA Agreement.

The Commission's Directorate-General for Competition (DG IV) has informed
the US Department of Justice (US DoJ) and the US Department of Commerce (US
DoC) that it has opened a procedure enclosing a number of concerns and
questions related to the licensing agreements as well as details on some
recent related developments in the Internet field. DG IV hopes that raising
such questions and concerns regarding the current standard NSI-Registrar
Licensing Agreement will help the US DoC in its negotiations with NSI
regarding its review.

DG IV wrote to Ms Becky Burr, Associate Administrator of the Office of
International Affairs within the National Telecommunications & Information
Administration of the US DoC, on 21 June 1999. In that letter, DG IV stated
its awareness of the US DoC joint efforts together with ICANN to create a
competitive environment for the registration of second-level domain names in
the generic Top-Level Domains and its full support of such efforts. In
particular, DG IV expressed concerns related to:


the lack of safeguards to prevent NSI registry from discriminating against
competing registrars in favour of NSI registrar;

the fact that NSI as a registrar is not subject to the conditions and
obligations set out in ICANN accreditation agreements and NSI-Registrar
Licensing agreements, as NSI has not been accredited by ICANN as a
registrar. However, DG IV believes that NSI should be required to get
accreditation from ICANN and be subject at least to the same obligations as
competing registrars as stemming from those accreditation rules;

certain requirements to enter the market, e.g. a performance bond of USD
100,000, which could constitute barriers to market entry; and

the domain names portability rules and NSI's related policy, which DGIV
believes could act as strong deterrents for SLD holders to transfer their
SLD to another competing registrar.
Mr Van Miert decided to open an informal inquiry after receiving a number of
informal complaints against the licensing agreements itself, against
problems in the implementation of the agreements and against alleged abuses
of a dominant position by NSI. DG IV will investigate these allegations in
close co-operation with the US DoJ whilst continuing to fully monitor NSI's
operations with a view to ensuring that EU competition rules are respected.

Background

The Internet Domain Name System maps user-friendly names onto the difficult
to remember numbers that identify computers connected to the Internet. For
commercial organisations on the Internet, the .com generic Top Level Domain
(gTLD) is the most important and most widely used, in comparison with
country code Top Level Domains (ccTLD) such as .be or .fr, and is
increasingly valued while e-commerce is taking off.

Until beginning of October 98, the gTLDs system was operated by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), the
latter under contract from the US Government (USG) (the NSI-USG co-operative
agreement), acting as a monopolistic registry and registrar of .com, .net
and .org world-wide. The registry functions consis