Re: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings)

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>
To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings)


> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: owner-ga-roots@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-roots@dnso.org]On Behalf
> |> Of Simon Higgs
> |> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 3:52 AM
> |> To: ga-roots@dnso.org
> |> Subject: RE: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings)
> |>
> |>
> |> At 10:44 AM 5/12/01 +1000, you wrote:
> |>
> |> >|> ICANN is the one who created a collider !!!
> |> >
> |> >No, ICANN has not created any colliders.
> |>
> |> What part of this don't you understand? Aside from all of it?
>
> My understanding is not in question.  It amazes me how often those who
> support the rogue roots will stoop to personal comments instead of
> concentrating on the comments.  If I disagree with your point of view, it
> does not mean I have less understanding.  Just a different viewpoint.
>
> |> Ah yes, forcing the alt.roots to use non-routable IP addresses
> |> is a most noble task. It's identical to forcing Aborigines (or Native
> |> Americans) into reservations, while stripping them of their land.
> Something
> |> you'll be able to proudly boast about to your grandchildren.
>
> Totally out of context for this discussion and offensive.
>
> >From your recent posts I assume you favour having a free for all with
> anyone being able to create any TLD and run/control any name space on the
> Internet.  Why don't we all start using any IP addresses we want also?  I
> rather fancy having 111.111.111.111 with the mask 111.255.255.255.  Hang
> on, those are strictly controlled aren't they, mmm...I'll have to make
sure
> I set up enough infrastructure to make it visible, then connect it to the
> Internet.

 No one owns numbers, why should I allow myself to be controlled
> by some remote body which decides what IP numbers I can use.

That's what a lot of us said, but ICANN started anyway.

>
> As in any structure we need rules and procedures.  I am against any one
> just jumping in and trying to circumvent the established rules and
> guidelines.

Again we agree, but ICANN continues to do this.

>
> Yes, I would rather see only the legacy root name spaces on the Internet
> and believe any other name space belongs on a private network.

Thanks for stating your belief. You do realise the fact that you believe
this does not make it correct right?


We are all
> free to set up our own networks using whatever IP address scheme and name
> space we wish, however, at the points that interact with the Internet we
> should take care to follow the guidelines and structures that have been
> deemed acceptable there.

"The Internet" includes all the roots and IP addresses in the world. How can
you set up a root that isn't on the Internet?

That is the co-operation evident from the past,
> in recent times we have some individuals and organisations that are not
> being co-operative and are not following the guidelines.

I know. ICANN, the NC, the DNSO, and the members of the existing
Constituencies.

 Some of these are
> doing so out of frustration and a perceived need to force issues, others
> are doing so with financial gain in mind.

I agree, those I mentioned above are mostly doing it for financial gain
IMHO.

Although I may understand why
> they do so, it does not mean that I need to condone their actions.

Me either.

NameCritic
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html