Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency
At 07:59 PM 4/9/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > Hence the burden for making their case lies with those seeking the change.
>There is significant benefit in making
>all applicants members of the gTLD constituency in that it prevents those with
>a vested interest in delaying the process
Well, let's see. Your underlying philosophy appears to be that each and
every constituency needs to have balancing forces. This is an entirely
flawed philosophy, since the balance is supposed to come from the MIX of
constituencies, not a balancing within each. In fact, each constituency is
SUPPOSED TO BE BIASED, in that it is supposed to represent its constituency!
But let us take the philosophy and apply it equally:
ccTLDs have shown a similar interest in delaying addition of new TLDs, so
we had better require that the CCTLD constituency admit anyone who wishes
to be a ccTLD registry.
The non-commercial constituency has shown downright ANTI-commercial
tendencies, so I guess we had better require them to admit a balancing set
of commercial members.
The intellectual property constituency has shown entirely too much tendency
to be biased towards protecting intellectual property holders, so we had
better require them to admit the anti-IP groups...
and so on.
> > Your personal wonderings about people's motives are entirely inappropriate
> > in a public discussion...
>I disagree. My motives, for example, are based on the fact that I work for
>an application-pending registry.
Oh, so the reason that you feel the need to undermine other's arguments by
attacking the speaker's motives is because you want to win, and evidently
do not feel that the merits of your arguments are sufficient. Well, thanks
for the honesty.
>Yours, for example, are based on the fact
>that you are on the payroll of NeuStar,
And, of course, the fact that they became one of my clients only recently
but that I have asserted pretty much the same points of view for the last 3
1/3 years means, what? I anticipated their needs?
That's the problems with attacking people's motives, Chris. The attack is
usually pure slander: false and malicious.
And it has nothing at all to do with the real merits of the arguments being
>a company with an interest in
>an application-accepted registry.
And if you look at my posting delineating the full range of choices, for
inclusion in the gTLD constituency, you will find that the personal
preference I put forward is curiously at odds with the co-opted perspective
you are predicted.
So, again we see that your basis is flawed to the point of silliness.
> > So anyone who forks over 50K should be allowed to be a member of that
> > constituency?
>If you care to make that the gating function, you're welcome to do so. I
>wouldn't put it that way,
No, of course you wouldn't, since it makes it so clear that the criterion
you are favoring means that anyone can buy their way into that constituency.
> I believe it's more appropriate to simply
>say that the constituency is comprised of those gTLD registries under
>contract or with accepted applications pending.
Let's check for consistency in your view:
Do you believe that anyone who has applied for US citizenship should be
entitled to vote in US elections?
Dave Crocker <mailto:email@example.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html