Follow up on my too vaugue request to Antony

[Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com>]

My call for a re-query of challenged iaTLD claims about ccTLDs was
intended only for .GP, which is the one that is challenged, and not
for the entire ccTLD collection.

I regret not being clear about this, as redoing all the unchallenged
support claims is not what is needed.  Just the one that has been
challenged.

My apologies to Antony!	And to all! 		Cheers...\Stef


------- Forwarded Messages

From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
Reply-to: Stef@nma.com
To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
Cc: John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>,
    domain-policy@lists.internic.net, list@ifwp.org, discuss@dnso.org,
    avc@interport.net
Subject: Re: Draft New Draft 
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 20:06:17 -0800


Hey Guys -- It seems terribly clear at this point that since IATLD has
been challenged regarding its claims that IATLD should repeat its quey
and this time be very careful about wording and about exactly what you
are asking for by way of "support", and why you are asking again.

Doing this will be vastly more productive than to continue this
argument, which cannot be resolved without repeating the query.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Tue, 09 Feb 1999 12:23:40 -0800 (PST):
}
}
}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

------- Message 2

From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
Reply-to: Stef@nma.com
To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
Cc: John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>,
    domain-policy@lists.internic.net, list@ifwp.org, discuss@dnso.org,
    avc@interport.net
Subject: Re: Draft New Draft 
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:23:11 -0800


I am more concerned for the effectiveness of the result.

Please repeat the query and get new data and be done with it.

Or stop arguing about it on the lists!

Just get and display the facts regarding the endorsment as of this week.

I fully expect that the result will confirm your claims, but at this
point, refusing to re-query only adds more doubt on the whole thing.

And, in any case, a challenge has been mounted and it needs to be
answered.

Best...\Stef

>From your message Tue, 09 Feb 1999 21:37:55 -0800 (PST):
}
}
}On 10-Feb-99 William X. Walsh wrote:
}>  
}>  On 10-Feb-99 Einar Stefferud wrote:
}> >  Hey Guys -- It seems terribly clear at this point that since IATLD has
}> >  been challenged regarding its claims that IATLD should repeat its quey
}> >  and this time be very careful about wording and about exactly what you
}> >  are asking for by way of "support", and why you are asking again.
}> >  
}> >  Doing this will be vastly more productive than to continue this
}> >  argument, which cannot be resolved without repeating the query.
}>  
}>  I don't see a argument.  I was one of the ones originally contacted, and I
}>  remember the discussions on the wwTLD and apTLD lists about this.  Mr
}>  Broomfield's statements are disingenuous, and do not reflect that fact that
}>  significant discussion on this took place prior, during, and after this
}>  question was asked.
}>  
}
}It should also be noted that the same questions where asked by Mr Broomfield
}then, and that was last year, he has had ample time to convince his admin
}contact otherwise.  I don't know about him, but I was in regular twice weekly
}contact with our admin contact.  
}
}Mr Broomfield said he would examine the question of how the Paris Draft support
}was asked of the ccTLD managers and get back to us.  He has yet to do that, and
}I would like to tell us the results of his query, even if they are not
}favorable to his argument.
}
}----------------------------------
}E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
}Date: 09-Feb-99
}Time: 21:35:54
}----------------------------------
}"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

------- End of Forwarded Messages