[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] Re: [dnso.discuss] Modifications to ICIIU Guidelines a nd NCDNHC definition
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 02:14:15 +0100
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: [dnso.discuss] Modifications to ICIIU Guidelines a nd NCDNHC definition
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:32:25AM +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > Bullocks.
> > Just because the ISOC does things also which are non commercial
> > doesn't take away from the fact that most of the advocacy it does in
> > this process is on behalf of COMMERCIAL organizations.
> 1) In fact, the advocacy it does is on behalf of the 6000 or so
> INDIVIDUAL members who elect the BoT -- not the 200 or so
> organizational members, only some of which are commercial to begin
This was not factually demonstrated in Berlin as the record of
to the NCDNHC discussions point our very clearly. This does not also ring
very true either in Don Heaths previous activities without the knowledge
of it's members in those very members names, as Roeland pointed out
last week I believe it was. This sort of improper behavior and false
from Mr. Heath has shown itself on several other occasions in the past as
as the current record enumerates quite clearly.
> 2) ISOC has consistently argued that the top level domain space is a
> public trust -- not exactly a commercial point of view.
To consistently argue a point is not the same as practicing it, Kent.
Nor has many other statements and actions of the ISOC been in this light,
which is also a matter of public record as you well know already. Nice
try to come to the ISOC's defense in order to ingratiate yourself in some
small way to their leadership, but it is not playing well here in the
forum unfortunately for you.
> 3) Using *your* argument -- even if ISOC did advocate a commercial
> point of view, that wouldn't mean that it was a commercial
> organization. It would be perfectly possible for, say, the Red
> Cross to support something that would also benefit commercial
> interests. As *you* said, there is a vast difference between being
> "non-commercial" and being "anti-commercial". You are in fact
> making the same irrational demands on ISOC that you accuse Mr Sondow
> of making in general.
I don't agree with you here Kent. WIlliam was simply pointing out and
one case correctly so, that the ISOC more often than not, speaks out of
both sides of its proverbial mouth, so to speak. In other words, if the
chooses to lead the effort for the NCDNHC, as Mr Sondow has informed us,
and it certainly seems as though it is attempting to do, it is doing so
inappropriately. And any insistence of Don Heath made at the Berlin
meeting, in this respect was both irrational and ineffectual.
> 4) Many, many clearly non-commercial entities have commercial
> corporate sponsors -- the Red Cross, the Sierra Club, the United Way,
> Churches, Libraries, Museums, Symphony Orchestras, Schools -- all
> have commercial corporate sponsors.
Yes they do. And in most cases this is a healthy thing. It is when
commercial corporate sponsors attempt to use that very sponsorship
for achieving other political agendas, or purposes that it becomes an
unhealthy thing. This seems to be what the ISOC under it's current
leadership is doing, most especially Don Heath.
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208