[ga] Representation!?

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

The following is from the Jones and Day letter published through ICANN
to New.net through their Attorneys.
1.    Can anyone point me to where this guy got his data and what the
heck discussion he is talking about?
2.    I think this paragraph alone justifies everything Sotiris is
saying about Mr. Stienberg's election.

{"    As you may have learned from your client, the view it
advocates—that the Internet's long-standing consensus-based system of
coordination should be replaced with a system under which the community
would be required to embrace proprietary naming services launched by
private, for-profit companies with no accountability—was rejected by
most participants in the discussion. You may also have heard from your
client about the broad support for the proposition, confirmed just last
year by the Internet Architecture Board, that "it is not technically
feasible for there to be more than one root in the public DNS."
Participants in the discussion also expressed grave concerns that
consumers are being misled by suggestions that New.net's "domain name
extensions" should be viewed as equivalent to ".com, .net, and other
existing top-level domains." Indeed, the concept of multiple roots
clearly leads to the potential for conflicting top level domains and
consequent Internet instability, which is directly contrary to one of
ICANN's stated objectives of promoting Internet stability. "}

The last thing we need is more lawyers involved in the process.  They
should be used to reflect the process and write it up accordingly.  In
this instance this lawyer was; a. involved in back room discussions or,
b. misrepresenting what was said in discussions.  And all that is dandy
for advocacy but damning for consensus.

Sincerely,


--
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