[ga] Re: In defense of the assignment of .edu to EDUCAUSE

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

All remaining assembly members,

  From the NCDNHC list:

Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:

> By the way, my observation about the inconsistency of the alleged
> limitations of use of ".edu" and the fact Educause fails to meet the
> criteria and yet owns an EDU domain, should not be taken as criticism from
> me of the choice of Educause. It was merely a logical problem I saw that I
> felt needed to be addressed.

  It did, and still does need addressing.  Thank you for bringing it to
our
attention.

>
>
> What comes out of all this for me is the lack of clarity: Is ".edu" really
> solely restricted (or supposed to be) per the IANA page? If so, indeed what
> about all the institutions around the world and here in the States who are
> not degree giving 4-yr colleges (including Educause itself ...) that
> therefore are not "supposed" to have this domain but who all have it?

  Good questions here, and ones that should have been flushed out BEFORE
the contract with Educause that DOC has let, was consummated or
otherwise
awarded.  However, it is doubtful now or at least moot that the last of
your
two questions here will ever be reasonably resolved in an honest way.
As such, it seems fairly clear to me and others that a bad precedent
has been set here.  Next will be .ORG and .NET should DOC/NTIA
approve the new Verisign "New Deal" contract.

> But if
> ".edu" is meant to be purely for U.S. 4-yr colleges then perhaps the
> selection of Educause is appropriate ... again, it is a lack of clarity as
> to what one should expect to take place that has caused this entire thread.

  Hummm?  This doesn't logically follow, Tim.  If Educause is NOT
a 4 year accredited college, than how does it become appropriate
when it has a .EDU Domain Name?

>
>
> Last, to play devil's advocate, consider -- rather than "senior person in
> ICANN gets favoritism and his entity is granted registry rights in .edu",
> think "given the key historic role of 4-yr colleges and education in the
> growth of the Internet, that someone involved with EduCom/Educause may have
> just been a natural for involvement in ICANN" ...  just a thought..

  The word "MAY" is key here in your thought process and logic/reason.
It implies that Educause (Mike Roberts) MAY NOT have been so as well.
After all Mike Roberts was "Hand picked" by Jon Postal, and not elected
by the stakeholders.  I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that the
Stakeholders would have preferred to have had the option to CHOOSE
whom would be a better choice for CEO.  I know in my company our
employees and stock holders (Private), do...  Just a thought though.... 
>;)

>
>
> Tim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <George.Sadowsky@nyu.edu>
> Cc: <NCDNHC-Discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 2:10 PM
> Subject: Re: In defense of the assignment of .edu to EDUCAUSE
>
> > George:
> >
> > I don't think Educause as such is the issue anyone is concerned about. We
> would like to see a proper process followed, one that gives other ideas and
> organizations a chance to make a proposal and issue comments on the merits
> of alternate proposals. That is just the right way to do things.
> >
> > We would also like clarification, and perhaps modification, of the
> policies defined for EDU.
> >
> > Your comparison to SITA is precisely the point.
> > SITA had to tell the world what it planned to do with  .aero, it had to
> obtain worldwide support from related organizations, the public could review
> and comment on its proposal, etc. etc. And SITA got its delegation from the
> organization that, whatever its faults, the world agreed would be
> responsible for this.
> >
> > >>> George Sadowsky <George.Sadowsky@nyu.edu> 04/13/01 03:56PM >>>
> > At the risk of being flamed again, I'd like to approach this from a
> > slightly different angle, one that I hope will yield a coherent point
> > of view, although not everyone will necessarily agree with it.
> >
> > First, EDUCAUSE is a member institution.  More than 600 (the last
> > time I looked)  institutions of higher education belong to it,
> > including every such institution of any significance in the United
> > States.  Second, EDUCAUSE has been _the_ institution in the United
> > States most involved in the development of national networking in the
> > United States, starting in the 1970s to my knowledge, and perhaps
> > even earlier.  This involvement has been deep and intimate, with
> > strong links to national policy processes as well as technical
> > advances.  EDUCAUSE is without question _the_ educational networking
> > association in the United States (and possibly in the world, but
> > let's not touch on that quite yet)
> >
> > I hope that you have all had a chance to look at what SITA is
> > planning to do with .aero.  They are _the_ recognized international
> > air transport association.  Rosa Delgado, who is heavily involved
> > with .aero, showed me the taxonomy of secondary, tertiary and other
> > names in the structure that they had planned.  It was logical,
> > reflected the industry structure with a view toward mediating
> > appropriate names and placements for the universe of air travel
> > interests  BEFORE implementation so that their constituency would
> > want to use the domain efficiently and productively.  In my mind, she
> > as done an extremely good job.
> >
> > It's true that there was competition in obtaining A new TLD, but
> > there was probably no competition at all in deciding to award it to
> > SITA and let them represent their sector.  One of the great virtues
> > of this non-competitive aspect is that the policy of the industry
> > group is made by the association of which the industry players are
> > members, so that there _can_ be complete consistency between what the
> > membership decides and how the domain looks and is administered.
> >
> > The awarding of registries should not _necessarily_ always be awarded
> > to the lowest bidder or the most competent player.  If that were the
> > case, perhaps IBM or CISCO or someone like that should always run the
> > registries.  Coherence and active bi-directional feedback between the
> > constituency and its members on the one hand, and the shaping and
> > administration of the domain, on the other, is a larger benefit than
> > the others.  After all, who knows best what the needs of the
> > constituency are other than its members through their membership
> > organization.  (This assumes that the organization has the capacity
> > to operate the service; in the case of EDUCAUSE and its members, that
> > is beyond dispute.)
> >
> > Barbara, I appreciate your examples, but I think that they're further
> > away than EDUCAUSE from the higher education constituency.  ACM is
> > focused upon computer science and technology and serves multiple
> > other constituencies, same for IEEE.  Please don't misunderstand;
> > I've been a member of ACM for over 40 years, and I'm a member of the
> > IEEE Computer Society; it's just that they're really don't represent
> > the constituency in the same direct manner.  And I think that the
> > other examples share equally an uncomfortable divergence from the
> > core of higher education generally.
> >
> > What has bothered me somewhat is the overtone to this discussion is
> > that competition is good for competition's sake, no matter what the
> > circumstances.  I surely would feel uncomfortable seeing ACM, for
> > example, competing with EDUCAUSE for this  -- why _should__ ACM be so
> > interested in providing this service.  Is the incentive financial -
> > to the extent it is, I think it's improper.
> >
> > I hope that examples like .aero and .edu are emulated by other
> > groups, where there are moderately clear clusters of organizations
> > and individuals who share a common industry, or goal, or whatever,
> > and that ICANN will choose coalition-building representatives to
> > provide the service and let the cluster organize itself to best
> > advantage.  Come to think of it. ,museum is another such example that
> > I think makes sense.
> >
> > The international aspect blurs this argument a bit, but just a bit.
> > And the concern of whether .edu was meant to be international blurs
> > it a bit.  I don't enough facts at my disposal to comment.  But I
> > doubt whether either of these issues is sufficiently strong to
> > detract from the major benefits of letting the recognized membership
> > association, having made an enormously strong and productive
> > contribution to the Internet, provide the service in accord with
> > their members' wishes.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > George Sadowsky
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > George Sadowsky, Executive Director                64 Sweet Briar Road
> > Global Internet Policy Initiative             Stamford, CT  06905-1514
> > Center for Democracy and Technology               Tel: +1.203.329.3288
> > 1634 I Street, N.W.                               Fax: +1.203.329.8922
> > Washington, D. C.  20006-4003            George.Sadowsky@attglobal.net
> > Tel: +1.202.637.9800                   http://pws.prserv.net/sadowsky/
> > Fax: +1.202.637.0968
> > http://www.cdt.org/              Voice mail and E-fax: +1.203.547.6020
> >
> > GIPI is a project of Internews & the Center for Democracy & Technology
> >
> > INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!  Join the Internet Society. Help make it so.
> > INET 2001: In Stockholm, 5-8 June 2001   http://www.isoc.org/inet2001/
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: mueller@SYR.EDU
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
> langdell@technologist.com
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org
> >
> >
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html