Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Thank you for responding to me in such a forthright manner.
I will address your comments in reverse order, those of us who are lunatics
appreciate the Alice and Wonderland approaches.

The nominee for U.S. Attorney General has made it clear he will not stand for
improper interference in the matters of a smooth flowing e-commerce. I am not
saying he will beat up ICANN to help us little ones.  What I am saying is that
he will not want to be imbarrassed by arrogance at ICANN, this will be a new
administration.  Do you know anything about the new DOC appointments?

ccTLDs can run almost independent of ICANN once the ccTLD is accredited the
authority ends there.  If you don't believe me ask Mr. De Banc if he can
enforce and agreement with a marketer who is not accredited but endorsed by the
country.

No sir congress people are interested in keeping their jobs.  Which Party
supports ICANN and which one does not.  Let me suggest that if ICANN gets much
more bad press, neither party will endorse their behavior, bad for votes.

If most of this group learns just how disenfranchised people like you are with
regard to ICANN then the time spent in the group has not been wasted.  I feel
for your bitterness and have been moved to try and help your cause.  I have put
my money, my time and my mouth behind working for a better represntation base
in ICANN and help fix the problem.  That is at least one more than you had
three weeks ago.

Visiting your site I could not help but think your visits got increased during
this excercise. That also is a step in the right direction.  Merry Christmas
Mr. Scrooge.

Tiny Tim

Michael Sondow wrote:

> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Please Mr. Sondow, don't be so cynical, this wg has in no way failed
> > yet.
>
> It has wasted its short time in sterile discussions of ways and
> means to conform to exigencies made by others, people who want the
> WG to be ineffectual. There is need to prove anything to the Board
> or the NC. The Board and the NC were not, themselves, selected by
> any democratic process, and they have used their hypocritical
> demands for "consensus" and such like tomfoolery as a device for
> hamstringing you.
>
> > Let us watch what they will do with the report.
>
> I know what they will do with it. It is clear as day from all that
> has gone before, and from the remarks of Ms. Swinehart and others
> from the ruling clique.
>
> > May I be so bold as to
> > suggest that the congressional investigation will take note of how the
> > report is handled.
>
> Don't be silly. The Congressional Committee has only one interest:
> placating the large businesses in the jurisdictions of House members
> who are angry that they didn't get a piece of the TLD pie.
>
> > Also I believe that the ccTLDs are quite interested.
>
> Which ccTLDs? Interested in what, a recommended revision of the
> constituency structure, or a recommendation from this WG that the
> constituencies be abandoned, both of which will end up in the trash?
> The ccTLD regsitries have more on their plate than that; their
> economic existence is under threat, exhorbitant fees are being
> demanded of them and at the same time that their right to continue
> operating their registry is at risk by the GAC, so that they are
> afraid to say "no dough". Do you imagine that they care whether
> there are a couple of new constituencies or not? Use your head.
>
> > I have it on good authority that abuse of these matters will be viewed as
> > misuse of assets by some and treated as such.
>
> This WG is a lunatic asylum.
>
> M.S.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard