Re: WC:>: Japan doesn't "get" the net yet

[Joop Teernstra]

Dear Barry,
At 10:37 AM 8/2/98 -0700, you wrote:

>Joop , I believe it is saying that, if you do not host a .jp domain with a
>Japanese-based ISP/hosting service that charges high prices, for net users
>in Japan your domain name will not be accessible: NO web access. For those
>outside Japan, the domain name will be accessible.
>
Are you saying that all Japanese ISP's would be applying filtering on the .jp TLD? And only allow browsing to .jp domains hosted with a cartel member?
That sounds truly incredible to me.

>This is extremely foolish and short-sighted on the part of the Japanes
>hosting services, IMO.
>
If it were true, I would have even stronger words for that. It would also slow down traffic the way it does in China, where everything has to pass blacklist filters. At least to my knowledge this is still the case.
I just can't believe that this happens in Japan.

<you snipped my part about racketeering>
>>For the .com, .org, .net TLD's this is about to change, with the U.S.
>>government starting to take charge.
>>An open question is wether this will mean US jurisdiction over .com domains.
>
>I have not read anything suggesting that "the U.S. >government starting to
>take charge." Quote me a source on that please. It is proposed to be a
>non-governmental body, I believe.
>

You must have heard of Ira Magaziner's "Green paper" of last year and his toned down "White paper" of this year.

This is what he was quoted to say at the last "combatants" (WIPO, ITU, IANA, CORE, ARIN, APNIC, Alternic, POC, PAB, gTLDMoU, NSI, etc, etc) meeting in Geneva:

> * Domain Debaters Are Given Deadline Warning, by Andrew Craig (TechWeb -
> July 24, 1998) - http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19980724S0007
>
> GENEVA -- President Clinton's Internet adviser issued a stern
> warning to Internet-community members Friday to reach a consensus
> about the future of Internet-address management, or risk losing control
> of the process.
> [snip]
> "We won't accept two different proposals," Magaziner said, emphasizing the
> Sept. 30 deadline. If you do [submit two proposals], I will just send you
> back and lock you in a room until you do find consensus. You've got to come
> out with one opinion," he said.
> [snip]
> Magaziner said some in the U.S. government, who would prefer to continue
> governing the Internet, are watching and waiting for self-governance to
> fail.

The current white paper speaks indeed about a non-governmental body, but at this very moment Magaziner has started government involvement by trying to force the contenders to come to a consensus. ("We won't accept..")
<soapbox>
Frankly I think the process is set up to fail and "some in the US government" is double-speak for current White House thinking.
After all, why have an Internet Czar, when you don't want to be involved?

On the other hand , how can self-governance be credible if it is not broad- based, with the domain name owners having a right to vote for those who have the power to take their money and mean to represent their interests?
</soapbox>



Joop Teernstra LL.M.
Democratic Association of Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz

____________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done directly from our website for all our lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------