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 Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
