[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-c] Comments

Kent, Dave,

As charming as Milton's offerings usually are, I think I really don't
care how ridiculous his current pose is, or how incongruous it is to
his last sitting. If he can convince anyone that "E implies B", who
really cares? His efforts along this line with Ms. Pam Creasy verged
upon the comic, but it was a risk he courted. Let me know if you want
to plow through the pendantry-to-a-gradschool-Indigena, it has a few

The one observation I feel comfortable making is that the groups which
nucleated about the BWG and the dnso-ip list and Milton (less the few
banal golddiggers) here, have over a period of three years still failed
to find the means to self-organize into capable bodies. Milt's postures
that he speaks for Everyman are his, but in the millions of opinionated
netheads he actually can't get above a score of people to care about
free markets and the rest of the line, who want to put a gun to ICANN's
virtual head and march it out some number of new TLDs per unit of time.
The failure isn't his, it is shared by each of these right minded actors
of high purpose (and varried means), who've got great ideas, at home or
in some isolated list rant. 

The other shoe is that there doesn't appear to be many netheads who are
opinionated one way or the other over the issues that drive the authors
of C either. Consumer fraud, etc appear to have the same fascination on
the millions of users, e-com users included, that the Y2K bug had about
one minute after midnight two weeks ago -- little to none.

Two houses in fair Verona, both equal in pretentions to speaking for,
or at least for the interests of, Everyman. Both insisting that no new
TLD be created except upon their very cogent and necessary terms. About
whom global digeratti disinterst is generally equitably divided, if not
utterly complete.

Looking for the vox populi in the B or C endorsee list seems an exercise
in mystical projection to me.