<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider
WXW and all,
I just love this diatribes or WXW's. Their so off in left field as to be
terribly humorous. ROFLMAO. Now let see if I can break these
very questionable arguments down to something a little more accurate.
(See more below WXW's )
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello NameCritic,
>
> Saturday, June 16, 2001, 8:25:08 PM, NameCritic wrote:
>
> > My last post for the day on this. If I enable dns settings for one of the
> > other roots, since they are inclusive I can go to com net org AND all the
> > others.
>
> BUT, that is only because the alt.root operators DECIDED to include
> them. They are not REQUIRED to.
Deciding to do so was a stated matter of wishing to work WITH ICANN
not against ICANN. To work WITH the stakeholders, not in their
detriment. Of course the "Competitive/Inclusive" root and registry
operators aren't REQUIRED to do this, they did so out of conviction
and consideration more than any other reason, and have repeatedly stated
thus...
>
>
> Of course, being in a minority position, they have little choice
> practically, but the bottom line is that they do NOT have to, and the
> only reason those TLDs are included is for self preservation purposes.
Well if as you say below that the "Competitive/Inclusive" root and registry
operators are doing so out of self preservation and yet can NEVER "Win",
as you put it, surely self preservation motives is known a pure folly! >;)
>
>
> > By not doing so my choices are limited to whatever ICANN approves.
>
> As it is your choice is limited to whatever the alt.root managers
> approve.
Yes, and in doing os is much less limited than what ICANN has thus
far provided in open competition.
>
>
> It just so happens that they know that if they don't grant a default
> approval to the com/net/org/edu/gov/mil/int/ccTLDs that they would
> never get any penetration at all.
Do they really? Can you demonstrate that? I doubt that you can.
This seems to be much akin to pontificating rather based upon
something more factual.
>
>
> > The funny thing in all this is that you are asking everyone to trust a bunch
> > of lawyers to look out after our best interests and you expect us to buy
> > that.
>
> No, that isn't what he or me or anyone else is asking.
>
> The problem is that you are too blind to see what we are saying.
Could it possibly be that "you" (Plural I suppose in this context),
have not been explicitly clear enough? And if not, why not?
>
>
> You are so antiICANN without any possibility of being otherwise, that
> you assume that anyone who doesn't blindly agree with the alt.root
> position that let's any person who wants to create a TLD is 100%
> behind everything ICANN says/does.
I don't see that a personal attack, can or has any merit on the subject at hand
here.
Sure, any potential organization can create a registry if they have the where with
all,
knowledge base, will and desire to do so. That is one of the wonderful
flexibility's purposefully built into the DNS. The DNS was intentionally
designed.
>
>
> All I can say to that is that if you want people to take you
> seriously, and see you as a part of trying to bring about real change,
> then you need to take a step back.
Progress and innovation rarely occurs by stepping back or backwards.
Only forward thinking coupled with innovative thinking will bring about
real and lasting change that can and will in some instances be a benefit
to mankind. The very innovation of the internet itself stand out starkly
as just such and example...
>
>
> The free for all anarchy that is the alt.root system is NOT going to
> ever win. NEVER.
A characterization of "Anarchy" combined or related to other
root structures and registries is a misnomer in the extreme...
No other root structure could be accurately be even closely
defined as and "Anarchy"... ICANN on the other hand
is a different story with lotteries, and the like to point to...
>
>
> And to be honest, it shouldn't win. The principle they have that
> let's anyone do anything simply because no one else is, is not sound,
> technically or otherwise.
I have yet to see any other root structure or registry that is not technically
sound yet. One can agree or disagree with their method of providing
the service(s) that they do provide, but if they work and work consistently,
than they are more than likely technically sound.
>
>
> What you should be doing, Chris, is becoming a part of the process.
> As a critic inside the process, you can work to change things. As
> someone whose only mantra is that ICANN is 100% wrong, and alt.roots
> are 100% right, you can never do that.
ICANN has thus far not done anything based upon their contractual
requirements (White Paper and MoU) that is consensus based. As
such and by that as a standard of definition IS 100% "Wrong" so to
speak...
>
>
> The bottom line, Chris, is that if ICANN is so evil and doomed, why
> the heck are you here?
I can't speak for Chirs directly. But from what I have seen him and others
like him post and speak to, he seem to be here to help the ICANN BoD
and staff see the light that what decisions they are making in the stakeholders
names, is NOT what they want, need, desire. Companies such as New.net
are showing that clearly, others will come sometime soon that will add
to those voices and votes...
>
>
> In the end, a central authority is necessary.
Why? Such a blanket statement is not a sufficient argument to
justify any position.
> And you may not like
> it, but for at least the foreseeable future ICANN is it.
Well 16m other registrants don't seem to agree with your statement here.
And there is more and more every day...
> You may not
> like it, you may not like WHY it is this way, but that doesn't change
> that it is, and there is no credible evidence to support that any
> serious challenge to it exists in the near or distant future.
You need to look around. See http://www.new.net for a start...
>
>
> So you can be a part of the problem or you can be a part of the
> solution.
I see Chris as part of the solution, and thus far the ICANN BoD and
staff as part of the problem... It seems obvious to me that many if
not most of the ICANN participants/stakeholders are not happy with
the ICANN BoD and staff...
>
>
> But this 100% negative campaign you are on does nothing to help bring
> about reforms that would address the issues you raise.
Many seem to disagree with this assessment or personal opinion. Without
disagreement, than the ICANN BoD and staff cannot know where the
problems are in their policy considerations or adequately formulate
consensus based policy....
>
>
> Like you I believe in an aggressive namespace expansion. ICANN has
> not done that yet. However, I also recognize that such an expansion
> MUST take place in a controlled and technically sound fashion.
Indeed a technically sound fashion is a wise policy. And other
root structures and registries are doing just that, and doing so much
more quickly to meet market demand as such. The ICANN BoD
seems more interested in the "Politically Correct" approach as the
stalwart of their policy of expanding or adding TLD's....
>
>
> Having been involved in Workgroup C, along with a large number of
> others here, I appreciate the hard work that had to happen to get even
> the expansion we DO have happening right now. And the be perfectly
> blunt with you, the ONLY way that further expansion will occur is if
> this expansion goes smoothly.
>
> The constant attempts to stop ICANN's expansion by alt.root advocates
> who don't recognize that they are NOT a part of the ICANN space (which
> previous they agreed with when there was no threat of ICANN expanding
> its namespace and seriously beginning to offer new choices in TLDs)
> does NOT help the case for a further and aggressive expansion.
Nothing that I have seen is toping or even slowing the ICANN BoD
and staff down in creating new TLD's. However the method(s) that
the ICANN BoD and staff edicted upon the stakeholders did seem to
create their own slow down problems.
>
>
> You may not like what I have to say, but I will say this anyway.
>
> The worst enemy of the alt.root/tld community and those among them who
> support real aggressive namespace expansion, IS THEMSELVES.
Where ICANN fails, others will prevail!
>
>
> They do more harm to their own efforts and positions, and in a more
> consistent and predictable manner, than any group of their kind I have
> seen, in or out of the domain policy arena.
Well you seem to be 100% against the other root structures and registries.
How does that lend itself to constructive dialog or solving and addressing
market demand? The short answer is it doesn't...
>
>
> I can almost predict to a fault what each of them will say in
> response to particular messages, which ones of them will disagree with
> the other, and roughly how many messages in a particular thread
> regarding a dispute before one party or the other threatens a lawsuit
> against the other.
Threats mean very little. Actual filings are a different thing all together...
>
>
> The infighting alone is insane. Anyone want some amusement, join the
> ORSC lists and just lurk. It's a drama that would put the american
> soap operas to shame some weeks.
I am on the list WXW. I don't see allot of what you are referring to.
>
>
> The real problem is that passionate people like yourself lack the
> experience necessary to see that railing against the wall gets them no
> where, and have no effect at all to bring about the changes they
> seek.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-icann@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-icann" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
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-icann@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-icann" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|