Re: [ga] Answers please.
Harold Whiting wrote:
> At 11:57 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >Harold, so that you don't frustrate yourself, just know that I will no
> longer respond to you or William X Walsh on the public boards. I've
> received multiple e-mails from people who've been on the ga list for a long
> time cautioning me about you two, and from what I've seen, they speak from
> experience. Shame on me for my naiveté in tangling with you earlier.
> Interesting response, considering I have only been a member of the GA list
> for less than a week and have had no problems with anyone else.
> Additionally, the questions I posed stand on thier own, no matter who asks
> them. How convenient that you refuse to answer them. DO you not think
> that others want these answers too? I believe they do, and have asked as
> well. How long will you be able to dodge the issues that we ALL want
It's pretty evident that both Ron Wiener and Chuck Gomes
are not providing ANY answers to the questions and
concerns articulated by numerous members of the GA.
It is also quite evident that there is a general CONSENSUS
among the members of the GA which clearly speaks against
the implementation of the Verisign WLS proposal.
Further, it is more than patently clear that the only
explicit support for the WLS proposal comes from the two
companies which stand to gain by it: Verisign and
Nonetheless, based on the press reports and other
publicized activities surrounding the issue, it appears as
if Verisign is going to implement their WLS schema and
basically force it on everyone. So much for CONSENSUS
based decision models! If ICANN and the US DOC allow
Verisign to implement this schema it will be evidence of
what I stated on this list during the WG-Review exactly
one year ago today:
On Monday, January 15, 2001 I wrote: "I believe
"consensus" is a recipe for gang rule; the most powerful
and organized gangs rule!"
In the absence of any real definition of any consensus
mechanism or qualification(s), it is not surprising that
Verisign will be allowed to get away with their WLS
proposal. Who is truly at fault? In my opinion: the US
Government and their DOC. Not surprisingly, the USA is
not governed by consensus policy but they expect to
enforce such a rule on the rest of the world via their
control of the DNS: which is (in their own words) a public
resource! It is becoming increasingly clear that
consensus policy within ICANN and its sphere of influence
means US corporate domination of an international
community. The great irony of it all is that a US company
like Microsoft has to face charges of monopolistic
activities, while Verisign is to be rewarded.
As for the ludicrous WLS proposal itself, only a dolt
could deny that anyone who holds any valuable domains will
be checking to see if their names are on a WLS, and that
they would more than likely take the appropriate
countermeasure (renewal of registration) should they
discover such a state of affairs. If we were to discover
that one of our domain names was on a WLS, rest assured
that we would renew such registrations assiduously. Anyone
opting for WLS on one of our domains would be wasting
their money. Not that Verisign cares about value for
money or anything outmoded like that...
Hermes Network Inc.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html