RE: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:eric@hi-tek.com]
|> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 8:23 AM

|> Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > Hello Erik,
|> 
|>  (Erik is the Scandinavian spelling, I am black Irish, a mix 

Sorry, differing cultural backgrounds. The Dansk spelling always comes to
mind for me. I wont make that mistake again.

|> > Where did you miss the part about MHSC being a registry? 
|> > Go back and reada gain. 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."

Yes, and for ccTLDs, I actually agree with that. If you had met with me last
Summer, like we were supposed to, ....  Oh well. The failure was on your end
and you didn't properly convey, to Tommy, the nature of MHSC and what we
wanted to do. It was a test, you failed.

|> > 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".

Actually, MHSC is >that< far from simply not being here. However we may
regard it, the damned dam is still a dam and the rapids take on more of the
characteristics of Niagra Falls. This was seen over two years ago and is the
reason why some have specifically chosen to not be a part of the ICANN. Some
of my business associates wonder why I waste my time here. Sometimes, I do
too. 

|> > 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.  

In a lottery, one buys a chance to win a major prize, via some sort of
selection process. This selection process can vary from random drawings, to
physical contests, to the output of a political committee. Regardless of
selection process, the purchaser is not guaranteed *any* results and in some
cases, the results can be negative (a "black" lottery can cost you your
life, i.e. Russian Roullette). In all cases, the original purchase is
forfeit and the buyer has little/any opportunity to effect the outcome. 

|> Wow, on reflection I think you may be right.

Arguably, by this definition, NYSE or NASDAQ can be considered lotteries.
Legal definitions argue that some element of player-skill, effecting the
outcome, modifies the game from being a pure lottery. By this argument,
billiards and stud poker aren't lotteries. Rather, they are contests of
skill. IMHO, a small but important difference that applies, as well, to NYSE
and NASDAQ. It is also the difference that pervents the US adversarial legal
systems from being a lottery (it certainly isn't always based on "black
letter" law). I'm sure that you've had this philosophical discussion in law
school. It's a first-year or second-year discussion, isn't it? I can't
remember ... too many decades.

|> 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.

I am sorry that I cannot accomodate you. All the required material is on the
IFWP, ORSC, NSI, and ICANN, domain-policy discussion list archives. I simply
don't have the time to dig up the research. Rather, to put that much effort
into a low-probability trajectory.

|> How is it that you are a GA member?  

Because no one cares who is a member of a body that has no voting power, no
political weight, no say, and is designed to corral and defuse the
opposition. Arguably, the DNSO/GA is outside of ICANN. An appropriate
analogy is the servants's entrance. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of
it.

|> What remedies have you tried to date?

DNSO/BC and DNSO/RC memberships are a matter of black-letter requirements.
Registries and registrars are simply not allowed in the DNSO/BC. Other
activities simply do not modify that clause. The DNSO/RC requires members to
be ICANN accredited or to be bound by ICANN contracts. Alternatively MHSC,
by no stretch, runs a ccTLD and we have recently declined the opportunity to
run one (the business case simply could not be made, therefore funding
wasn't available) and we have deliberately chosen not to bid for US, due to
the poison-pills [multiple] built into US registry requirements. 

|> Will you attend MDR this year?

At this time, I am uncertain. The possibility is very high that I won't be
there. As a sales event, last year was a bust. As a marketing event
(mind-share), it is marginal at best. As a point in a process that in any
way enhances MHSC corporate interests, the ICANN produces none to negative
results. I've had clients ask me why MHSC wastes time on ICANN affairs (the
negative results. There is a reason that DNSO.NET is a separate site and
that there are no links, from either MHSC.NET and MHSC.COM, to DNSO.NET).
Other MHSC shareholders have asked me similar questions, especially after
last year's expenditure. Times are tougher this year and MHSC needs to
expend its resources more on activities that are more deterministic, wrt
revenue generation, and less on non-revenue-effecting activities (ICANN).
Basically, third-quarter sux, fourth-quarter is going to sux harder, and
first-quarter 2002 isn't looking real good. At least, MHSC hasn't followed
Scient, MARCHfirst, Viant, Lavastorm, et al, down the drain.

|> > --
|> > 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