Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Thank you Roeland,
Today we specifically review your matter.  You have a great illustration
between
the technical aspects of a registry versus the political. I have come to
realize
they are not always combined.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Hello Erik,

 (Erik is the Scandinavian spelling, I am black Irish, a mix of Basque
and
 Irish and Italian, do not let the Dierker fool you I am adopted, both
bio
 parents in Arizona illegally)

> Where did you miss the part about MHSC being a registry? Go back and read
> again. This is exactly why we aren't in the DNSO/BC. The MHSC root zone is
> on ROOT-SERVICE.NET. The only difference is that MHSC.NET does not run a
> publically available registration service on the web. We never have. All VPN
> registrations are done  as a part of an MHSC Engagement Agreement and MHSC
> never sells a registration unbundled from a development project. The zone
> file entries are done manually. No, we don't sell as many names that way.
> But, selling names is incidental to our main business and the names would be
> useless without the rest of the architecture. But, MHSC is still a registry.
> Our AboveNet-based servers show a steady 1.5Mbps throughput, each. The Web
> is not the whole Internet. It is only a very small part.

I just don't know what to do with this.  Yes you are a registry.  Did
you know
that in many countries the registry service is mandated to a department
and that
department is tasked with the approval of naming and the coordination
with
foreign bodies, but is not tasked with running the architecture of the
Internet
for that country so the ccTLD lie dormant.  All because; "why would the
politicians know the difference."

>
> New.Net has reached exactly the same impasse that MHSC reached years ago. I
> was actually quite vocal about it at the last MdR meeting. According to the
> rules of the DNSO/RC neither MHSC nor New.Net are accredited ICANN
> registries. I don't know about New.Net, but MHSC will not sign the ICANN
> contracts as written. The DNSO/BC is a different matter, but they're being
> their normal pig-headed selves. I might point out that the ORSC,
> AtlanticRoot, and PacificRoot are also in this same boat, except that they
> choose to not be involved with the ICANN.

It probably will be important to note the ccTLDs also will not sign the
contract.  Let us not regard it as an impasse yet, not that you are
wrong, just
that we are now in a process, let us look at this as a rapid in a long
river not
a dam.  You know I am most distressed with your language that "they
choose not
to".

>
> Whilst I'm on the topic of the DNSO/RC, if MHSC pays out $50K then MHSC
> expects to see guaranteed results. MHSC does not buy lottery tickets. MHSC
> would be better served buying me a Porsche Boxter and keeping the change
> (not quite enough for a Jag XK8 <sigh>). At least, one can kick the tires
> after having spent the money.

If it boils down to this {not the car} then we have more than a major
problem.
Are you suggesting that the recent court injunction regarding illegal
lottery
scams and domain names, carries the same truth to the 50 grand thrown
down for
the right to be a registry.  Wow, on reflection I think you may be
right.

Please help me with the following;

Petition in proper fashion for both of the constituencies.

Be mindful of the timing.

I know you have been through it all before but please provide us with
some
historical links and further thought.

How is it that you are a GA member?  What remedies have you tried to
date?  Will
you attend MDR this year?

Sorry Roeland if it is not a Citroen, it is just another car.

Sincerely,
Eric

>
> --
> R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company
> tel: +1 925 373 3954
> cel: +1 925 352 3615
> fax: +1 925 373 9781
> http://www.mhsc.com
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:eric@hi-tek.com]
> |> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:10 AM
> |> To: Roeland Meyer
> |> Cc: 'William X Walsh'; Joanna Lane; ga@dnso.org
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding
> |>
> |>
> |> {on this matter I welcome any and all attacks both personal
> |> and professional,
> |> here you may kill the messenger for I truly believe that my
> |> brethren have been
> |> wronged and it is personal}
> |>
> |> Dear Members,
> |>
> |> We have a bigger problem than we took in at first look at
> |> this problem.  Mr.
> |> Meyer and MHSC faces the same problem as Mr. Hernand and
> |> NewNet, however they
> |> are facing a disease that has metastasized in different
> |> areas of the same body -
> |> ICANN.  Due not worry cancer is curable if caught in time and treated
> |> aggressively.
> |>
> |> MHSC belongs in the BC and has been excluded by legalism and
> |> discriminatory
> |> practices.
> |>
> |> While NewNet has been excluded by the BC, I do not believe
> |> they belong there.
> |>
> |> NewNet has been excluded by the Registry Constituency into
> |> which they truly
> |> belong.  They are a registry and belong in that
> |> constituency.  We believe that
> |> is where any petition belongs.
> |>
> |> Verisign acting alone has developed a rule that excludes any
> |> Registry not
> |> approved by ICANN.  In other words they exclude all who are not them.
> |>
> |> Mr. Hernand has been reflecting his company policy of
> |> openness and transparency
> |> and my new research assistant, Brooks has worked overtime on
> |> this issue.  Thank
> |> you both.
> |>
> |> Brooks informs me that we have until sunday the 21st to
> |> submit this for an
> |> actual (virtual?) vote by the NC at their next grouping.
> |> But I add a caveat, we
> |> have until 5pm on Monday due to queer Sabbath laws in California.
> |>
> |> Dotcommoners and members of different persuasions I beg of
> |> the thusly;
> |>
> |> Petition our NC promptly.  Ask for consideration of your
> |> denied application for
> |> membership, in any constituency.
> |>
> |> Review our Registry membership provisions.
> |>
> |> Support and engage in dialogue your other members on this
> |> critical subject.
> |>
> |> MHSC petition in good order and within time parameters, be
> |> the leader we know
> |> you are with Mr. Meyer at the helm.
> |>
> |> NewNet petition in good order and within time parameters,
> |> focus upon what your
> |> are - a registry - and demand inclusion.  The only
> |> alternative is exclusion and
> |> that is unacceptable as the status quo.  Please also petition my BoD
> |> representative Mr. Karl for he is a good man and a trusted
> |> servant of right.
> |>
> |> We are meeting at a confluence of raging waters, those who
> |> fight the consensus
> |> to flow downhill will soon be caught in an eddy where the
> |> float scum gathers.
> |>
> |> May you silently and privately giggle and reflect on the
> |> silliness of bickering.
> |>
> |> Sincerely,
> |> Eric
> |>
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html