[wg-c] exactly what are we trying to accomplish here ?

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

it is my understanding the purpose of this working group was to try to
develop a methodology for introduction of new GTLD's

Chris Ambler from the very beginning indicated an intense desire to be
included in the working group and  to contribute

unfortunately to-date....

mr ambler has used this forum principally to "whine" about the process,
criticize, engage in personal attacks, berate other parties  and promote the
IODesign claims to the .web registry while in the meantime throwing in a few
very insightful & perceptive comments and a couple of "i agree with milton"
postings.

it is truly sad to see the working group list being used for this purpose
and it would seem that the commentaries mr ambler posts would better belong
in a general list like "domain policy"

it is quite clear from some of his postings that mr ambler has a background
that could provide
very significant insight and frankly its sad to see that his attitude
towards the working group's goals and responsibilities is and has been from
the beginning quite negative and his actions primarily oriented in other
directions beside the groups mandate.

i would appeal to mr ambler to try to adopt a more constructive attitude
towards the task here and focus his contributions towards the task at hand.
if he feels the need to promote his company or berate i would suggest that
he use the domain policy, ifwp, orsc or any other general list.

to head-off potential criticisms that my concerns her are without basis, i
felt it might be appropriate to review the list archives from list inception
to approx one hour ago. i strongly  urge anyone who feels that these
"excerpts" are not truly representative of mr amblers contributions to  date
to please review the entire archive of mr ambler's postings.

ken stubbs

let us take a short trip back over his postings and see what we have here:

7/13 (4 days after group "c" list went live ):
"I am, however, strongly considering resigning from the DNSO. This
process is obviously going nowhere, "

7/14
"This group has less chance of reaching consensus than all of the
groups before it did."

7/14
"You're kidding, right?
$20,000+ to join CORE (and be one of many, all in competition via CORE's
SRS)"

7/17
"Now we have ICANN, and I've even participated in that forum,
making more compromises. Frankly, it looks like it's going to be scrapped.
Pardon the hell out of my cynicism, but I've been at this for over
4 years now."

7/18
"I continue to maintain that the outcome of this working group has
already been determined, and we are just going through the
motions of creating the illusion of process."

7/20
Javier Said :.
> I find Kent's position the most coherent one around here.
 amblers comment : "Of COURSE you do."
.
7/21
"I predict that this working group won't reach consensus on any point other
than there should be new TLDs, and even that will have dissenting points
regarding what needs to come before new TLDs are introduced."

7/27
". I feel that Image Online Design can market .Web with its value-added
services, and still present a lower price, better policy, and guarantees
against detrimental lock-in than any other
registry

7/29
"This working group is a joke, and we should ALL be
ashamed of ourselves."

8/6
'> gTLD registries need to be run in the interests of the internet public
"And fast food joints need to be run in the interests of the
burger-eating public.
Quick, let's divest the Big Mac and Whopper and rename them
the "fast burger one" and "fast burger two" and let McDonalds
and Burger King differentiate themselves on the value-added
quality of their ketchup. "

8/6
"Indeed it is, and no, we haven't. Nor do I suspect we will. We could just
take a vote, which would express the personal opinion of the less than
50 people on this list. That's about as worthless as anything else we could
do at this point. I suspect ICANN would look at it, thank us for our
time, and enact the decision that I know for a fact they've already
discussed."

8/6
"Always a joy to debate with you, Kent. You reinforce
my position that this working group will accomplish
absolutely nothing."

8/7
"I disagree, and am willing to pay for the chance to prove you wrong
when IOD's .web is in the roots."

8/8
"Who owns those trademarks in the class of service denoting
network routing and infrastructure? Hint: I can tell you who
owns such a trademark in .web."..

8/12
"I believe the complaint, and I share it, is that the statement is very
misleading and continues CORE's history, over the past few
years, of moving the date ahead while continuing to claim that
CORE would be first into the root.Recent actions like applications for
trademarks on already
used marks just reinforces the scorn."

8/12
"Unlike CORE, IOD has never claimed to be in
charge, has never claimed to be the anointed successor of the root,
and has never claimed that its registry would be in the root by a
certain date, changing that date as it came and went. It also has
not chosen a TLD that was previously trademarked. I could go on,
but I think the difference is clear.