[ga] Re: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Darryl and all,

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> |> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 3:39 PM
> |> To: dassa@dhs.org
> |> Cc: [ga-roots]
> |> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings
>
> |> > |> us that have been around for awhile and have read your nonsense are
> |> > |> quite use to this as a norm for you.
> |> >
> |> > Can't attack the content so attack the person eh Jeff
> |>
> |>   Not at all Darryl.  Are you having reading comprehension problems?
> |>
> |>   I said (See above) that your CONTENTION was incorrect.  Or did
> |> you miss that part?  That is a direct attack of your argument.
> |> A precursor
> |> if you will...
>
> Saying something is incorrect but not showing any valid reasons for the
> belief and then launching a personal attack is not a valid argument style.

  I had already gave the valid reasons Darryl.  Perhaps you missed them
or ignored them?  No personal attack was levied.

>
>
> |> > |> >  They are not alternative roots and continueing to call
> |> > |> > them such is conveying a degree of legitimacy to what
> |> they are doing.
> |> > |>
> |> > |>   Yes they are not Aternitive Roots, but "Competitive Roots" or
> |> > |> "Inclusive Root structures".
> |> >
> |> > No, they are not competitive or inclusive, if anything, they
> |> are rogue.
> |>
> |>   You have YOUR opinion.  Millions of others don't seem to agree with
> |> it however.  RFC's do not either.  But this is a minor factor, of course
> |> as RFC's are requests for comments nothing more...
>
> Millions of others would appear to agree with my opinion and interpretation
> of the the relevant documents including RFC's.  They demonstate their
> agreement by following the guidelines and best practices the Internet runs
> under.   I only see limited percentages not agreeing.

  Possibly your vision is impaired?  The stakeholders have and are
voting
with their dollars or other currency and with their registrations, such
as
the 16m for New.net.  And this is only one example amongst several.

>
>
> |>
> |>   But many including New.net's, ORSC's ect., are not outside of the
> |> legacy root structure.  They simply set on top of it.  Hence they are
> |> "Competitive or Inclusive Roots" by definition and by operation.
>
> They can't be both under your definition.

  Yes they surely can. And they are. Why do you believe that they
cannot?

>  They are outside of the legacy
> root structure although attempt to profit from an association with it.

  No they are part of the legacy root structure.  They may not be
part of ICANN's desired practice, but within the best practices
for Inclusive Networks.

>
> They use the Internet addressing schema and as such they are not on top of
> the legacy root system but a rogue element within it.

Some sit on top, some are within the legacy root structure.  RFC1591
was not followed by the ICANN BoD with regards to assignment of
new TLD's.  New registries that are or have been around for some
several years now, have been doing so.  Sense MDR, additional
registries other than the ones that the ICANN BoD in a rogue manner,
selected in abeyance to RFC1591, BTW, have taken their lead in some
ways from the MDR ICANN BoD decision in this area.  As such,
they are getting their input from their potential or existing
stakeholders
or registrants.  A much more consensus building method than the
ICANN BoD took in MDR.

>
>
> |>   Incorrect again.  But of course you don't seem to understand what
> |> a public network is or is comprised of it seems.  That is not surprising
> |> however.
>
> Saying something is incorrect without validating that viewpoint is not
> constructive and neither is the continued personal references.  It only
> highlights the inadequency of your arguments.

  My argument was stated and largely is supported by our members as
well as millions of other Competitive/Inclusive Root structures now in
operation and was stated in my previous post.  This comment was
a simple follow up to that post....

>
>
> A public network is not one under the control of an individual although it
> will as a rule contain such linkages.

  Right!  We agree here.  Amazing!  >;)  And it is also true that a
public
network is not under the control of a small GROUP of individuals either.
So your point here is both well taken and begs the question as to why
you felt the need to make it in response to my comment (See above)?
For instance the ICANN BoD does not own the DNS or the legacy
Roots.  The USG does to and extent.

>  The inclusion of any additional
> private network into a public network requires the private network to
> conform to the rules and guidelines of the public network.

  Guidelines are not laws first of all.  They are only guidelines.  Any
private network which joins the Internet is part of the public resource
to which it is connected to, but can still be privately owned. 
Guidelines
provide allot of flexibility to interpretation as to how they are
operated
in as much as a private network is part of the public Internet.

>  That is not
> what we are seeing with the rogue name spaces.

  I disagree.  As do a number of ISP's as you now know.  There are
no rogue name spaces that are part of the legacy root structure or
inclusive of it.  They may have different rules or practices of
operation,
that are not exactly in line with the ICANN BoD's desire.  That does
not make them rogue.


>
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html