Fw: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

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

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.DiscountsOnDomains.com
http://www.XMISP.com
http://www.VirtualAdFirm.com
http://www.NameCritic.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
To: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version


>
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
> To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version
>
>
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 06:02:39PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > > Stuart:
> > >
> > > I would request that you modify your statement to indicate that there
> > > currently is NO stated consensus policy on the adoption of TLD
> > > assignments by ICANN that are in use in alternate or competing roots.
> >
> > On the contrary, I think the statement should be strengthened, for
> > exactly the reason that the Tucows representative gave:  to give any
> > deference whatsoever to alternate root providers would simply encourage
> > avoidance of the ICANN process.  Right now the big players don't do
> > alternate roots for two reasons:  1) they realize the technical
> > instabilities it would create; and 2) even more important, they realize
> > the total chaos that would prevail if ICANN gave any credence
> > whatsoever to alternate roots.
>
> The sky is falling! The sky is falling! That is exactly what you remind me
> of when you claim including other roots would create total chaos. Where is
> the proof of that. Do you have any? I bet you were really stocked up for
> that Y2K End of the World thing too.
>
> >
> > > I can prove easily that there is no policy: ICANN has explicitly
avoided
> > > a conflict in the case of .WEB, and it has created a conflict in the
> case
> > > of .BIZ.
> >
> > You have a pretty weak notion of "proof".  If anything, what we have is
> > clear proof that ICANN has simply been following a policy of ignoring
> > any precedent set by alternate roots.
>
> The only thing CLEAR about ICANN policy is the clear intention of ruling
the
> Internet and crushing anyone that gets in the way and a clear policy of
> ignoring the rights of individuals or the notion that it should actually
> have a bottom up consensus on anything.
>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > The White Paper simply does not address the issue.
> >
> > Yes, it did.  There is a large load of policy inherited from history,
> > and official rejection of alternate roots is one.  Moreover, whether you
> > like it or not, the IAB *is* the the most authoritative technically
> > competent opinion available, and ICANN simply cannot ignore that fact,
> > no matter how much you would like it to.
> >
> > > Working Group C
> > > did not address it.
> >
> > Of course not.  Neither did working groups A, B, D, or E, because that
> > wasn't in *any* of the WG charters.  You could just as well note that
> > President Bushes latest speech doesn't address the issue.
>
> Of course not. As I stated to you in the WG-Review. The Members of the
Names
> Council participate in the WGs to make sure it isn't discussed. The Names
> Council has carefully engineered the WGs to avoid the issue altogether
just
> as they did in Stockholm. And to quote from there Members of the NC are
not
> qualified to make opinions or discuss alternate roots.
>
> >
> > > Nor did the Names Council resolution passing on
> > > WGC's recommendation to create new TLDs.
> >
> > Of course not.  See above.
> >
> > > In your unilateral policy statement known as the "discussion draft,"
> > > you made it clear that you do not like alternate roots. I would ask
> > > you to look beyond that, as it is irrelevant to the question I am
> raising.
> > > We must not confuse the question of whether there is a prior
> > > policy with the question of WHAT the policy should be. We may agree
> > > or disagree on the latter. But the only conclusion an honest person
> > > cam come to about the former is that it is a policy question that has
> > > not been carefully defined and explored.
> >
> > Sorry, that is utter nonsense, and please don't cloak yourself in the
> > "honest person" flag -- an honest person would notice that there are
> > many more possible and likely interpretations of past events than the
> > facile one that you propose.
>
> I'd suggest you refrain from calling others dishonest lest they take a
> closer look at your possible conflicts of interest and personal agenda as
> well.
>
> >
> > It is undeniable fact that there is a long and continuous history of
> > rejection of alternate roots, a history that preceeded ICANN by years.
> > And it is I believe completely obvious that what the Tucows
> > representative said is true: any deference to any alternate root would
> > instantly open the floodgates, and worldwide there would be thousands of
> > new alternate tlds immediately insisting on recognition.
>
> The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
>
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> > kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > --
> > 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