My Reply to Winthrop Yu on his PICS letter

I received an email today from Winthrop Yu of PICs. Apparently, Winthrop is writing the PICs paper that I talked about earlier. Since I am not a member of the PICS mailing list, I thought I’d post my comments here.

> [Joel]
> I was given the delegation for PH by Jon Postel in
> 1990 based on the fact that we were connected at
> that time to the Internet via uucp to UUNET, and
> I had the necessary Networking background, having
> worked on Macintosh Networking & Communications
> products in Santa Clara, CA for five years.

[WYn]
Thank you. My understanding is that EMC was not
connected to the (TCP/IP) Internet directly and
that there were others who were doing this at
the time, IIRC - some people at Clark (and/or Subic),
Obet Verzola, FEBC (the Far East Broadcasting Corp.),
etc.

Hello Winthrop. Actuallly, in 1989 the Internet was mostly uucp-based. There were many networks, but TCP was only starting to emerge as the dominant protocol. Apple was pushing Appletalk; IBM was pushing SNA; Novell was pushing IPX/SPX; Microsoft was using Netbeui; the Telcos were using X.25; the BBSes were using FTSC. It was only when the Mosaic browser came along in 1992 that the Internet gained steam, and hosts began to switch from uucp to TCP. UUCP connectivity was all that Jon Postel required of us in 1990.

The information you have on local connectivity in 1990 seems to be incorrect. Obet Verzola was using his own BBS, which - in 1990 - wasn’t connected to the Fidonet network, much less the Internet. (I believe Obet updated Andromeda later to support FTSC connections; Obet was one of the latter BBSes to connect to the local Fidonet network because he had written the code for Andromeda BBS, and thus had not put in support for the FTSC protocol). Bill English at Cubi Point ran his own BBS, but Bill would only dial the US to connect to the US Fidonet, and not the Internet. Jonathan Marsden of FEBC was also running FTSC - not uucp - to connect with another Christian BBS in the US (and later, in Korea). Jonathan’s group in the Philippines was receiving wire feeds which they would edit for “christian tastes” and re-transmit this to their Christian network in the US/Korea. It was much later - I think 1992 when the Christian BBS (in the US) connected to the Internet (using uucp, I might add).

> [Joel]
> DotPh is in full compliance with all ICANN
> regulations, especially RFC-1591.

[WYn]
Only RFC-1591? What about ICP-1 which is an
elaboration of RFC-1591

It is a bit complicated, but the ccTLDs generally regard ICP-1 as a document crafted by ICANN staff, and not approved via the ICANN process. Hence it doesn’t have the same status as RFC-1591.

> [Joel]
> Only a handful of ccTLDs have signed a contract
> with ICANN. …

[WYn]
Thank you, it’s good to clarify the fact that there
is no formal documentation of the current .ph domain
management and that this is something that simply
continues on a day-to-day basis.

I’m not sure what you are trying to suggest here. Our relationship with ICANN is exactly the same as DotHK’s, as InternetNZ’s or Nominet’s (UK) or DENIC’s (Germany) relationship. If you think we are running on a day-to-day basis, then you’ll have to conclude that the world’s largest ccTLD Registries (UK and DE) are day-to-day as well.

> [Joel]
> I find it even more telling that some of the
> complainants[who had filed complaints against DotPH] didn’t even bother to show up [at the DTI hearings].

[WYn]
Surely you’re not suggesting that all the
complaints are invalid if *all* complainants
don’t show up?

The DTI gave them 4 chances to show up. We would dutifully go to the hearing, only to be told that the complainant couldn’t make it, or had called to say they had a schedule conflict. The DTI would then reschedule the hearing, and we would go back after 2 months, only to repeat the same drill. This went on for a year and a half! So yes - if the complainant doesn’t show up after all these attempts to get them to come, then I think the complaint is extremely suspect.

In some cases, some complainants did show up - like Gerry Kaimo (of pldt.com fame). In the end, Gerry dropped his case. His stated reason? He couldn’t afford a lawyer. Jim Reyes showed up - and lost his case (dismissed with prejudice). Jim Ayson was the only other complainant to show up. The DTI asked Jim “do you have any evidence to show against Dotph”? Jim had do admit that he didn’t have any - but that didn’t stop him from asking DTI to give him the authority to open our books and go on a fishing expedition! I thought it was hilarious - and sad.

In the end, DTI cleared us of all the complaints. You have to realize the context in which this ocurred, given that there must have been 60-70 articles written about us in the Press (mostly by Jim Ayson and his buddies) in a span of six months. A website was created (at phildac.com), asking people to document their complaints against DotPH. And then a lot of email was sent to the local mailing lists, asking people to come forward with their complaints.

If you think about it, it isn’t really possible for a company to operate for 11 years without screwing up once in a while. So when a determined group of individuals attempt to dig up some dirt against your company - and they’re unable to - I can only smile! That says a lot about our quality of service.

[WYn]
In any case, i believe that “proceeds” to the
*Registry* (domain manager/trustee) should be used
solely for the continuing, reliable and neutral
operations of .ph domain administration. Any
concern regarding “profits” should properly lie with
the several, distinct *Registrars* (who sell domain
names).

Certainly there are some people, like yourself, who believe that the Registry should be run on a non-profit basis. But I think you have to consider that non-profit companies such as co-operatives work best in remote areas that are underserved. Eg - fifteen years ago, a Telephone co-operative would make sense in a place like Camiguin or Bontoc. People didn’t have a choice, and PLDT felt that those markets were too small for them to bother putting up Microware Relays, switches, fixed lines, etc. TODAY - the people in these markets have a choice - they can get Globe or Smart. So what is happening, is that these non-profit cooperatiives are reeling from the competition and are struggling to stay alive. Their first step to becoming competitive? To seek capital and to go FOR-PROFIT.

The Domain business is similar. The average Filipino has a choice - he can get COM, NET, ORG, INFO, BIZ - and ICANN is about to create even more domains! There is nothing that forces the Filipino to choose PH; our only weapon is to innovate -and to dramatically lower the price (as we have with the i.ph domain, which retails at $5/yr). Buti sana if people bought both COM and PH. But that’s not the case. The odds are, once you’ve bought a COM domain, you modify your calling card to use the domain, you modify your letterhead to use the COM domain; you do the same with your corporate literature. Most people stay with COM and don’t bother anymore to get PH.

So if DotPH were to go non-profit, it will be as uncompetitive as those non-profit Telephone Cooperatives in the provinces. If you look at how badly the government runs the GOV.PH Registry, or how a non-profit entity runs the EDU.PH Regsitry, you will get a good idea of how uncompetitive PH will become.

[Joel]
> 1) what are the problems with the way DotPH is
> run, and is there any data to indicate that
> serious problems do exist - problems so serious
> that a total change in management is necessary?

[WYn]
Rather than get side-tracked and distracted by
specific complaints (such as those submitted to
DTI at the beginning), it would be best to go to
the root of the problem and review policy, regulation
and compliance.

The point is - accountability, community (involvement)
and transparency by any .ph domain administrator,
whoever he or she may be.

[Joel]

Then perhaps you can highlight what DotPH policies you have a problem with? Would you have preferred a different policy?
Or perhaps you can point out some regulations we haven’t complied with? Perhaps you can talk about instances where we should have involved the community more? How would you have involved the community if you were in our shoes? When have we failed to be accountable for any errors we have made? What has DotPH not been transparent about?

I think it is unfortunate that you don’t want to answer the question I have posed in (1). You’re suggesting that we give the Government the keys to the Registry, lay off people, and kiss all our work and investments good bye. And you’re not even able to document a single problem. Somehow that sounds unfair, and very un-filipino (unless of course, you’re a politician)

In the end, the real issue is - if you did have your way and PICS was one of 12 entities that ran the Registry - what would you do differently? How will things be better for the consumer and Nameholder? What is it that you think you can give the Nameholder that DotPH cannot do today?