Subject: Re: Reuters: EC slams domain proposal

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:19:39 +0000

Mark and all,

  Dave conveniently left out some important parts of the article however.  Such
as
"The European Union executive, in a text that it hopes
  will be adopted by the 15 EU states, urges
  Washington to adopt a more international approach
  and to enter into "full bilateral consultations" before
  proceeding."

  And if you have read the GP closely and understand the reason for the
Request For Comments, than you would understand that The GP prepossess
to do have 'Full bilateral consultations", before proceeding.  The GP
is only a framework, not a final document.

  In addition this part of the article was conveniently lef out of Dave's
posting as well.

  "

                EC slams domain proposal
                By Reuters
                Special to CNET NEWS.COM
                February 24, 1998, 5:10 p.m. PT

                BRUSSELS, Belgium--The European Commission
                has criticized a U.S. proposal for reforming the
                Internet's naming and address system, saying it
                would give Americans too much control over the
                global computer network.

                "The current U.S. proposals would...seem to
                consolidate permanent U.S. jurisdiction over the
                Internet as a whole, including dispute resolution and
                trademarks used on the Internet," it said in a draft
                reply to the initiative.

                The European Union executive, in a text that it hopes
                will be adopted by the 15 EU states, urges
                Washington to adopt a more international approach
                and to enter into "full bilateral consultations" before
                proceeding.

                The U.S. government formally published a proposal
                last week for phasing out its management of the
                address system for Internet locations--such as email
                and Web sites--and turning it over to a U.S.-based
                nonprofit corporation.

                It would also end the monopoly of U.S. company
                Network Solutions (NSI), which registers the most
                popular Internet addresses, including those ending in
                ".com," ".org," and ".net." Known as generic
                top-level domains (TLDs), they signify commercial
                users, not-for-profit organizations, and network
                service providers.

                The plan would create up to five new generic TLDs,
                each with a registry to manage a database of
                addresses. Other companies would compete to
                register the addresses.

                The Commission's draft reply, to be discussed by EU
                telecommunications ministers on Thursday, accuses
                Washington of ignoring a plan for a new registry
                system drawn up by the International Ad-Hoc
                Committee (IAHC), a group of Internet companies
                and organizations.

                IAHC proposed last year setting up seven new
                generic domains--such as ".store" for shops and
                ".arts" for culture--along with an international council
                of registrars.

                The commission also faults the U.S. "green paper"
                for seemingly giving the United States jurisdiction
                over all conflicts over trademarks in Internet
                addresses and failing to mention efforts to set up
                Internet dispute-resolution procedures within the
                World Intellectual Property Organization.

                The U.S. Commerce Department gave interested
                parties until March 23 to comment on the proposal.
                A U.S. official in Brussels said the initiative was "not
                set in stone" and that comments by the EU and other
                parties would be taken into account.

                "There have been consultations going on and there
                will be further consultations going on before we put
                the plan into action," the official added, noting that
                the proposal built on previous work on the issue."

  And....

               " The EU telecommunications ministers are likely to
                direct their ambassadors in Brussels Thursday to
                finalize an EU response, diplomats said."

  These two parts of this article seem to be quite clear that there is a serious
intrest in the EU's concerns.  In addition it seems quite clear that the EU has
certainly not made any FINAL decision.  They have only expressed an
initial concern.

  But all this is not unusual for Dave Crocker.  He has persistently quoted
statements of others out of context to further his own personal desires.

  You might want to ask yourself, do you want this type of leadership?  The
decision is yours of course.

I know my answer....

Marc Hurst wrote:

> Yeah, like thats' a big surprise...
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > FYI.
> >
> > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 00:25:26 -0500 (EST)
> > From: Robert Watson <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Reuters: EC slams domain proposal
> > X-Sender: [email-masked]
> > To: [email-masked]
> >
> > Excerpts of interest from:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,19450,00.html
> >
> > EC slams domain proposal
> > By Reuters
> > Special to CNET NEWS.COM
> > February 24, 1998, 5:10 p.m. PT
> >
> > BRUSSELS, Belgium--The European Commission
> > has criticized a U.S. proposal for reforming the
> > Internet's naming and address system, saying it would
> > give Americans too much control over the global
> > computer network.
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> > The Commission's draft reply, to be discussed by EU
> > telecommunications ministers on Thursday, accuses
> > Washington of ignoring a plan for a new registry
> > system drawn up by the International Ad-Hoc
> > Committee (IAHC), a group of Internet companies
> > and organizations.
> > ...snip...
> >
> > The commission also faults the U.S. "green paper" for
> > seemingly giving the United States jurisdiction over all
> > conflicts over trademarks in Internet addresses and
> > failing to mention efforts to set up Internet
> > dispute-resolution procedures within the World
> > Intellectual Property Organization.
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> > The U.S. Commerce Department gave interested
> > parties until March 23 to comment on the proposal. A
> > U.S. official in Brussels said the initiative was "not
> > set in stone" and that comments by the EU and other
> > parties would be taken into account.
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> > Story Copyright  1998 Reuters Limited All rights reserved.
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > Dave Crocker                 Brandenburg Consulting         +1 408 246 8253
> > [email-masked]       675 Spruce Drive         (f) +1 408 249 6205
> >
> > www.brandenburg.com         Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA
> >
> >
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]

---

From: Robert Watson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:57:42 -0500 (EST)

Jeff,

The snipping in question was actually on my part, and not on Dave's. I
selected the passages that reflected the current conversation on the IETF
mailing lists -- specifically, where the issues presented by the EC were
congruent with opinions expressed on the mailing list, hence my choice of
words, "Excerpts of interest from...".  My excerpts were selected to
reflect the concerns and opinions spoken of in the article; specically,

1. The current GP is not sufficiently international in approach
2. Ignores an existing and valid plan
3. Does not address the international trademark issue correctly
4. The time range of the comment period, and a specific quote that it was
not set in stone.

These are all issues that have been brought up on the IETF mailing list. I
provided a full URL at the beginning with the intent that people would
have access to the article.

>   These two parts of this article seem to be quite clear that there is a 
> serious intrest in the EU's concerns.  In addition it seems quite clear
> that the EU has certainly not made any FINAL decision.  They have only
> expressed an initial concern.

You will note that several of the paragraphs I selected appear in the text
you describe as "part of the article was conveniently lef out".

>   But all this is not unusual for Dave Crocker.  He has persistently
> quoted statements of others out of context to further his own personal
> desires. 

I believe it is standard practice to assess articles of interest for
relevence to the topic, select the quotes of immediate interest, and refer
the reader to the remainder of the article for full detail.  As we are all
aware, and as is stated in the quotes I selected, this is a comment period
on an proposed draft; similiarly, the response from the EC is currently in
draft form, and while opinions have been stated, they are not in the final
form yet.  I specifically included text from the US official indicating
the lack of "set in stone"-ness of the GP.

If you must criticize Dave, please do so on the basis only of the

>>Yeah, like thats' a big surprise...

I agree with his sarcastic comment -- it is of no surprise to me that the
international community is responding to the GP with a variety of
comments, including potential problems with what is currently a US-centric
proposal.  The only debatable choice of words was Reuters': "EC slams
domain proposal." 

Robert

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Mark and all,
> 
>   Dave conveniently left out some important parts of the article
> however.  Such as 
>   These two parts of this article seem to be quite clear that there is a
> serious intrest in the EU's concerns.  In addition it seems quite clear
> that the EU has certainly not made any FINAL decision.  They have only
> expressed an initial concern. 
> 

  Robert N Watson 

Carnegie Mellon University http://www.cmu.edu/
SafePort Network Services  http://www.safeport.com/
[email-masked]   http://www.watson.org/~robert/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:33:50 -0800

>>>Yeah, like thats' a big surprise...

That was Marc Hurst's response to my forwarding Robert's note.  The only
thing I added to Robert's original note was the line "FYI" at the beginning
of the body.

>comments, including potential problems with what is currently a US-centric

With this assessement, I concur completely.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:33:50 -0800

d/

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:12:05 +0000

Robert and all,

> 4. The time range of the comment period, and a specific quote that it was

  Well than first of all let me humbly apologize to Dave Crocker on this
particular misstatement on my part.  Dave I do apologize!

  Second, let me take exception again for you choice of "Excerpts" from
the article in question and your purpose for those particular "Excerpts",along with
some very wise observations from Ellen Rony.

  Your #1, stating in essence that the GP is not sufficiently international in
approach, is of course both remaining to be seen, and premature.  This
was pointed out in the sections of the article that I posted.  ANYONE or
ORGANIZATION has until March 23, to post, submit or ask a question,
with respect to the GP draft framework.  These comments WILL be
taken very seriously I am sure.  Hence my evaluation of your
#1.

  Your #2, The GP certainly does not ignore the MoU plan as you indirectly
indicate.  In fact it contains parts of it.  This has been observed by others on this

list.

  Your #3, You are correct here.  Nothing much if any directly or indirectly
addressed International Trademark concerns.  This really is not the purpose,
nor should it be for international trademark issues to be addressed in this
area of the internet.  That is for the Trademark lobby to do.  However I am
sure the International trademark organizations will be given the same
consideration should they decide to post a official response by March
23.

  Your #4, I don't understand at all.  Please elaborate a bit.

  Now here is a very wise and interesting comment that Ellen posted earlier.
"Now that the Internet is a multi-billion dollar enterprise, the quest for
"consensus" becomes far more elusive. Both the stakes and the stakeholders
are expanding.  Big business requires stability. Consumers demand
accountability.  Accountability presumes authority.  If no international
consensus is reached, someone (nation, organization) will assert authority
and the discussion shifts from who is in charge to why a particular nation
or organization assumes that role.  That is where the DNS has been for the
past year."

"The commercial community gave the DNS wings, but US-based ARPA gave it
roots (double entendre there).  Therefore, I think it appropriate for the
USG to suggest a framework for the technical administration of the evolving
DNS.  An historical note: The Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property (1883) was originally ratified by only 11 nations.  It
was revised in 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967 and amended in 1979. By
October 29, 1997, it had 143 signatories .  I mention this because I think
the stakes are too high and the velocity of change  too accelerated to wait
for "consensus" on Internet governance and administration.  Given the
historical legacy of the development of the DNS, I applaud the USG for
taking a prudent and appropriate course of action (certainly from its
requirement of accountability to U.S. taxpayers) and think we should devote
our time to suggesting specific improvements to the framework of the US
GP--with an eye to the March 23 deadline."

> have access to the article.

  Yes you did.  But you also paraphrased the portions that were of a negative
view of the GP.  This is misleading, and therefore not accurately informing.
In addition, by posting those "Excerpts", you are attempting to emphasize
a specific negative attitude to the reader.

> the reader to the remainder of the article for full detail.

  Nice try, no cigar.  I am not buying this at all.  (See above comment).

> As we are all

  Very well.  I stand corrected.

> proposal.  The only debatable choice of words was Reuters': "EC slams

  Along with your choice of inaccurate choice of "Excerpts", and your
#'s 1-4.

 Regards,

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:12:05 +0000

Robert and all,

list.

 Regards,

---

From: Robert Watson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 18:03:06 -0500 (EST)

Because of subscriptions and posting restrictions, I cannot post this
message to the [email-masked] mailing list.  If this
email is of interest there, feel free to forward it there.

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, Jeff Williams wrote:

> ... 
> the article in question and your purpose for those particular
> "Excerpts",along with some very wise observations from Ellen Rony. 

Excerpts was probably a poor choice of words given the brevity of my own
comment on the original posting.  I felt that by including the words "of
interest" I would be interpretted as meaning, "that I think are of
interest".  Indeed, as you point out, the excerpts that I selected in part
are those that involve criticism of the GP.

>   Your #1, stating in essence that the GP is not sufficiently
> international in approach, is of course both remaining to be seen, and
> premature.  This was pointed out in the sections of the article that I
> posted.  ANYONE or ORGANIZATION has until March 23, to post, submit or
> ask a question, with respect to the GP draft framework.  These comments
> WILL be taken very seriously I am sure.  Hence my evaluation of your #1. 

My points refer not to my own beliefs, but to how the article describes
the EC comments.  The article states (as the excerpts indicate) that there
criticism of the degree of internationality in the GP was insufficient.
Specifically,

  "The current U.S. proposals would...seem to consolidate permanent U.S.
  jurisdiction over the Internet as a whole, including dispute resolution
  and trademarks used on the Internet," it said in a draft reply to the
  initiative. 

The article specifically uses the word "criticize" to describe the draft
response's treatment of the GP.

>   Your #2, The GP certainly does not ignore the MoU plan as you
> indirectly indicate.  In fact it contains parts of it.  This has been
> observed by others on this list.

Nonetheless, the statement in the article concerning the EC response
indicated that the EC believed otherwise:

The article specifically uses the word "accuse" to describe the treatment
provided in the draft.  Regardless of the actual contents of the GP, this
is what the article states.

> consideration should they decide to post a official response by March

The point may or may not be correct; regardless, however, the article
indicates that this is an issue in the draft response:

Reproduced here:

> > 4. The time range of the comment period, and a specific quote that it
> > was not set in stone.
...
>   Your #4, I don't understand at all.  Please elaborate a bit.

The following text appears in the article:

This is what I refer to, and was in my original excerpts.  I included the
text both as a reference to the GP for those less familiar with the
discussion.  Specifically, I included this text because it appeared to
reflect a response by the Commerce Dept concerning the EC draft response
-- that things were "not set in stone".  Also because it describes the GP
as a "proposal" with an open comment period.

> a specific negative attitude to the reader.

I paraphrased nothing -- all quotes were in their original wording, and
the only text I added to my initial email was the "excerpts" line.  In a
later email I enumerated a series of points that I felt the article was
trying to express, and how the excerpts fit these points.  Indeed, the
excerpts I selected largely covered a view negative to the GP, but this
seems appropriate given that the title of the artcle was "EC slams domain
proposal".  The last paragraph I excerpted indicated that the process was
an open process and that nothing was set in stone; this is not a negative
view, however.

>   Nice try, no cigar.  I am not buying this at all.  (See above comment).

The gyst of the article appeared, to me, to be a strong criticism of the
GP in the draft response of the EC.  I excerpted paragraphs that made
specific claims about the nature of the GP, and seemed consistent with the
article.  Finally, I excerpted a paragraph concerning current responses of
the Commerce Dept to the draft response, as gathered by news.com (CNET).

>   Along with your choice of inaccurate choice of "Excerpts", and your

However, they were not merely Excerpts, but Excerpts of Interest. :)  My
points were a seperate email which served the goal of explaining my choice
of excerpts given the response that Dave had given a misleading
representation of the article.

My feeling is that you are confusing my opinions with those represented in
the article.  I read an article that described what it represented as
criticisms of the GP by the EC draft response.  I excerpted specific
passages of the article that seemed consistent with this interpretation
for the purposes of debate of the contents, and to provide insight into
the views of those not direct participants of the IETF-discuss mailing
list.  My points #1-#4 described my interpretation of the article and goal
in forwarding the excerpts, and were in response to your complaint that it
was misleading.

> > 4. The time range of the comment period, and a specific quote that it 
> >    was note set in stone.

For the record, my beliefs are similar to these statements in the areas
where I have sufficient knowledge to judge the contents of the GP:

1. I believe the current GP is not sufficiently international in approach.
This does not mean that I believe the GP will remain this way; indeed, the
criticism of the EC will no doubt result in changes.

2. I do not have sufficient background knowledge to decide whether the
IAHC plan is ignored by the GP.  I would be very surprised if elements of
the IAHC plan were *not* included in the GP, given how much research has
no doubt been put into the GP.  Whether the IAHC plan is valid, and
whether the GP sufficiently incorporates the IAHC features that are
desirable is probably beyond the range of my knowledge at this time.

3. I believe the GP does not adequately address the issue, and largely
because of point #1.  I believe that the GP can be fixed to cover this,
and must be fixed to cover this.

4. Indeed the GP is still in a period where comments are being requested,
and I have strong hopes that the comments submitted will cover all of the
problems found in the current GP implementation.  I have never stated that
I believe the GP is terminally flawed, merely that it has all the signs of
being in a comments period: it still requires work.  I believe that the US
government must at some point make its perspective clear in the area of
Internet Governence, even if it is only to wash their hands of it :).  The
GP appears to be the correct medium to do this with.

I will be glad to debate these points, and change my opinions if provided
with evidence to the contrary.  I would rather not debate the points of
the article as though they are my own beliefs, as they are not.  If I have
misrepresented the article, I apologize.  I recommend that those
interested read it themselves.  However, I do believe that my coverage of
the article was relatively accurate.  I cannot speak for the accuracy of
the article itself in covering the EC response, which I look forward to
reading.  Similarly, until I see the EC response, I cannot speak
accurately concerning its accuracy :).

  Robert N Watson

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:03:25 +0000

Robert and all,

> email is of interest there, feel free to forward it there.

  I will do so in this response to your comments.

> are those that involve criticism of the GP.

  Very well.  Non the less the selection in the manner in which you selected them
seems to be intended to "Highlight" a negitive slant in the article.  Indeed this
is NOT the case.  The article was on ballance for the most part.

>   and trademarks used on the Internet," it said in a draft reply to the

  Yes and this statment was was an opening remark or "off the cuff" remark.
not a spicific possition officialy.  Hence to select this particular "Part"
of the article is by your initiitve, a blatent attempt to paint it as a possition
that the EC currently has.  This is not the case, as they have yet to
submit a spicific "Official" reaponse to date.  I find this type of
Parapharasing, yes PARAPHRASING, an attempt to slant an opinion
of the EC that is not yet "Officia;y" known to date.

> response's treatment of the GP.

  Yes as a comment it does.  Not as any official response by the EC to date.
And your using this selection of part of that article is again an attempt to
to say that it is, without doing so directly.

> indicated that the EC believed otherwise:

I was not comment on the article in this comment.  SO your point isinmaterial and
irrelevent.

>   Committee (IAHC), a group of Internet companies

  Very true.  But again I will point out that you are obviously attempt to put
the GP in a light that the article did not do on the part of any party, on
ballance.  This I find is ok for politicking, but is certianly not factual.

> is what the article states.

  And again is not stated as an "Official" statment of the EC.

> indicates that this is an issue in the draft response:

  Yes the article does state this.   That is not what I am taking exception to
in your original post.  I am taking exception to what parts, all of which were
in a negitive light towards the GP, in an attempt to paint a spicific negitive
picture that may unjustly and scariously taint the thinking of an alternitive
perposal to the MoU.

> as a "proposal" with an open comment period.

  And it is.

> the only text I added to my initial email was the "excerpts" line.

  IMHO, and with all due respect, I disagree strongly.  You puposly
used a old trick of paraphrasing to slant an opinion that is not even
officialy expressed yet by the EC to date.

> In a

  Yes, and as not a negitive view, the tatle of the article was just an attention
getter, to a reasonable reader.  I am going out on a limb here, but I assume that
you are at least an avrage reader.  I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong
>;)

> the Commerce Dept to the draft response, as gathered by news.com (CNET).

  Than again maybe my "out on a limb" comment as to your reading ability
was premature.

> representation of the article.

  May be Excerpts of YOUR intrest, and those supporters of the MoU.  This
is fine for politicing.  But lets be honest that that is just what it is.

  To use an old saying from an old politician.  "All politicians lie, they just
do so with remarkable dextarity."

> in forwarding the excerpts, and were in response to your complaint that it

  Nice try again, but the insightful reader can see through this nonsense
very eeasly and quickly.  At least I can.  You are attempting to be
clever and influence opinion.  This is indeed a trait of a politician.  But
your attempts will not sway me in any way.  It may others however.
And to do so in a manner that is not intended nor stated, taken the article
on the whole, is a terrible sham.

> where I have sufficient knowledge to judge the contents of the GP:

  I am now wondering if you have sufficient knowledge to make such a judgment
on this article, the GP, or any other areticle to come on the GP or the MoU.

> criticism of the EC will no doubt result in changes.

  The GP in it;s current form is not intended to be "Sufficient" in international
participation.  It will evolve.

> desirable is probably beyond the range of my knowledge at this time.

  I compleatly agree!!

> and must be fixed to cover this.

  I most likely will.  However it does in several areas.  SUch as the IANA's
requested participation.

> GP appears to be the correct medium to do this with.

   You are now sounding better.  But not quite there yet.  Honest critisism,
is good and usefull.  Misrepresentation is not.

> accurately concerning its accuracy :).

  Well Robert.  You didn't gain any confidance in this posting.  :|

> [email-masked]   http://www.watson.org/~robert/

 Reagrds,

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:03:25 +0000

Robert and all,

  And it is.

  I compleatly agree!!

 Reagrds,