Re: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Two standards
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, at 21:56 [=GMT+0200], Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> Well, Marc, some alluded to the Tea Party for the ccTLD move.
Well, it is not my history, but for what I understand, the Boston Tea
Party was part of the (successfull...) getting out under the British
crown and parliament. So if that is what is happening, does this mean
we should stop wasting our breath on ICANN? I mean, a Boston Tea Party
would make ICANN rather (to borrow a word from its President in a
pamflet recently issued) "insular". Well, the British kings still
called themselves king of France in 177x in their acts, didn't they?
> > As I see the situation is as this:
> > - the Lords supported by the Crown (sorry, USG)
> "I can as ICANN"
> - the Gentlemen Farmers from the Country Club
> - the rebels from the TLDA
> - the Pirates from New.net and Nameslinger.
> - the non commited (NC) from drowning DNSO
> Question: will the Gentlemen Farmers turn Insurgents?
> May be the key will be the Boxers Revolt.
> There is a big meeting next forthnight in Paris on ".eu"
> as the key for European e-commerce. I presume the
> main question from the public will be: "will Europe join
> the WWAccTLD?"
> On 19:59 02/06/01, Marc Schneiders said:
> >Pardon me for being short. You forget two things:
> >1. ICANN is backed up by your government, the US. Others accept this
> >so far. That gives all those supported by ICANN a huge
> >advantage, at no cost. Nearly all ISps use the ICANN root. Don't tell
> >others to be competitive. They haven't this free support.
> >2. ICANN is still pretending it is working on some democracy in its
> >organisation. I have not much faith in that, but the long talking
> >process slows down counter efforts, e.g. a euroroot. Alternatives (say
> >under the UN) are perhaps worse. So we'll all wait, and wait, and
> >wait, and wait.
> >Well, now we are not even supposed to discuss alt roots anymore in the
> >DNSO. Or did I get that wrong?
> >On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, at 09:54 [=GMT-0700], Eric Dierker wrote:
> > > It is not so doom and gloom. When the bully makes an ass out of himself
> > > he loses some of his power. As Michael Powell noted in his interview
> > > recently, we need less regulation and not more. It is consumer choices
> > > which will drive this ether communicated world. ICANN is really not
> > > holding up anyone. Technical and commercial forces are moving as fast as
> > > they can at 10,000 new users a day- 400 plus per hour. Catch a movie and
> > > have a nice dinner and you have just missed over a thousand new
> > > customers. ICANN controlling or slowing things down is like Wilbur
> > > stopping a train wreck.
> > >
> > > Our tiny little company drives over 14 million hits per month, and we do
> > > not focus on driving hits, we just build them and they come. Do you think
> > > we could not throw a million or so toward or against an alt root. ICANN
> > > is good for discussion, but if you think they control the net and hold
> > > things up - rethink.
> > >
> > > eric(or has the "names" council given me a new one - oops that is outside
> > > their scope)
> > >
> > > Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > >
> > > > Apparently there are two standards in operation. That is if I
> > > > understand Cochetti some 10 minutes ago on the NC webcast.
> > > >
> > > > We should let VeriSign go on with its multilingual testbed, although
> > > > there is no IETF standard, nor an ICANN board decision regarding
> > > > non-ASCII domain names. They cannot freeze for two months
> > > > until the IETF sets a standard. Why? Because otherwise others will run
> > > > away with it and make the money, in stead of the ICANN backud up
> > > > companies...
> > > >
> > > > However, where there are already TLDs running, for years, in the
> > > > normal English language ASCII world, there we should protect against
> > > > outside of ICANN processes. Therefore we ignore the alt roots, new.net
> > > > and the like. We have a strong enough foot in this market and use
> > > > ICANN to keep others out. So we do not even want to discuss talking to
> > > > these others.
> > > >
> > > > If ICANN buys this line, it clearly shows that it is just legitimizing
> > > > some favoured companies.
> > > >
> > > > Two standards. The only difference: we have the market already, or we
> > > > don't. Are we buying this?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> > > > Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> > > Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> >Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
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