RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
Jim Dixon wrote: snip 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. snip. 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
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. snip. 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
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
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 http://www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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
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
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
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 wrote: Correction: Christopher Wilkinson has to the best of my knowledge never been a member of CORE. snip 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
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
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
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. snip 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
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
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 Council Telecommunications Director
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
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
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
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
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
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 [Attention Mark Measday]
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 Director VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI [Attention Mark Measday and Joe sims]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
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
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 http://www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
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
