Re: Draft New Draft

[jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

William and all,

  Pot kettle black again!

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Mr Broomfield CONTINUES to take things out of context and make them say things
> they never said.
>
> On 09-Feb-99 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> > > I'm happy to see that you're not interested in spreading FUD, since in
> > > recent days you've accused the IATLD of being a fake, me of having some
> > > economic incentive in promoting and defending the IATLD (why else would the
> > > IATLD stand up for ccTLDs in developing regions?), and me of always getting
> > > my facts wrong.
> > >
> > > It's easy (and a favorite game in these lists) to take a remark out of
> > > context and twist it.  Congrats, you can do it too.
> > > Antony
> >
> >  In the past few days I have battled with you on three blanket subjects
> >  which you launched as a given, and I threw a few questions about them
> >  which at least prove that it's not as clear cut as you said.
> >
> >  -You said that only 2 out of the top 20 ccTLDs had any relationship with
> >  their governments, meaning that government involvement in ccTLDs is very
> >  minor.
> >  I looked up a bunch of "major" ccTLDs and I think it was only Mexico that
> >  had NO relationship with the government.
>
> I read your post on this, and you looked for ANY way you could possibly stretch
> the work "relation with the government."  It was quite obviously an attempt to
> do everything you could do to define a ccTLD's "relation with the government"
> even when they clearly did not exist in a formal way.
>
> >  -You came out in defence of the iaTLD and of its backing by 73 ccTLDs. I
> >  pointed out that this backing was not as clear as it may seem.
>
> No you did not point this out.  You laid a claim (that you unsuccessfully made
> when the IATLD was formed) that .GP's admin contact did not support RFC1591.
> You had to stretch this so far to say that people answer emails by reading only
> the subject, and that the body of the email is "the small print" and not
> expected to be read before someone sends in an answer.
>
> >  -You gave a listing of 5 ccTLDs in a way that seemed to imply that they were
> >  private for-profit systems, and that you had another sixty-something like
> >  them. It was clear that those listed were not as clear-cut for-profit
> >  companies as you made out.
>
> No he didn't.  He listed >>5<< ccTLDs that permit ANYONE globally to process
> registrations.  He NEVER implied that there were private for-profit systems,
> and was mentioning them because you implied that any ccTLD that was doing that
> was being irresponsible.  Antony pointed out that of the 60+ ccTLDs that do
> that, 5 of them were amongst the largest.
>
> >  When you try to back your arguments of government exclusion based on the
> >  "fact" that they are not in general aware/involved anyway, that your system
> >  is backed by a lot of ccTLDs and you argue about how good it is for
> >  registries to be for profit because so many of them are
> >
> >  When you try to back your arguments of government exclusion (based on the
> >  "fact" that they are not in general aware/involved anyway), about how good
> >  it
> >  is for registries to be for profit (because so many of them are), and that
> >  there is wide support by many ccTLDs of these proposals (because of the
> >  iaTLD), then it stats to look to me as if there are unpleasant things
> >  happening. If your arguments can't stand up on their own merits and need to
> >  be backed by not-quite-as-they-seem "facts", then maybe it's because they
> >  CAN'T stand up on their own merit. Dunno.
>
> Actually, it seems as if your criticisms are the one having a hard time
> standing up on their own merit, as they have no basis whatsoever in fact.
>
> I have pointed this out time and time again, and you ignore those arguments,
> choosing only to answer small insignificant parts and snipping the rest from
> your responses.
>
> It says a lot about the veracity of your claims, and about your character, that
> you continue to make these criticisms despite your knowledge that they are
> false.
>
> ----------------------------------
> E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
> Date: 09-Feb-99
> Time: 12:15:47
> ----------------------------------
> "We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
> of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
> - Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208