Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

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

Roeland and all assembly members,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 4:55 AM
> >
> > Friday, July 27, 2001, 12:41:53 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > ... and you are just parroting FUD.
> >
> > No, he is stating facts, something you seem to be short of.
> >
> > > I'm sorry, but I just can't let you get
> > > away with this. New.Net didn't have any conflicting TLDs
> > until ICANN chose
> > > to create new conflicting TLDs.
> >
> > Wrong.  Go back and check with your ORSC croonies.  One of their big
> > complaints with new.net when it started was the conflicting TLDs.
>
> MDR happened in Nov00, NewNet hadn't announced existance yet. ICANN
> conflicted, with BIZ, in Nov00.

  Yes and the already existing .BIZ registry was NOT New.Net.

> That was the signal that it was okay for
> NewNet to also conflict. Why not? If ICANN can ignore the ORSC then NewNet
> has no reason to acknowlege the ICANN.

  I don't believe that New.Net was acting out of not recognizing ICANN BoD
selected (read paid for by lottery) registries, but rather the contrary.
New.Net
was a reaction too the ICANN BoD selected (nov00) registries but was
careful not to include conflicting gTLD's.  The ICANN BoD was not
careful to do so.  This shows intent on the ICANN BoD's part.  But none
the less, Roeland your point is well taken in that if the ICANN BoD
can determine/select TLD registries without the stakeholders consent,
than private enterprise can with stakeholders consent also do the same.
The difference is distinct in that ORSC, New.Net, UDNS, ect, ect.,
are doing so with great care, the ICANN BoD is not because it finds
that inclusive and/or competitive registries either are ignored, or
are not part of "Their DNS", which of course is advocating the
fracturing the DNS.  We [INEGRoup] find that an amazing concept
and disingenuous in it's intent.

The facts are that New.Net didn't

> conflict because they didn't exist at the time.
>
> > You really need to check your facts and make sure you know the subject
> > before commenting on the honesty of another member.
>
> I was at MDR, you were not. I have other reasons to very firmly remember
> when NewNet announced existence. The time-line says that I am correct. If
> Kent isn't being dishonest then he's senile or at least, badly mistaken. He
> makes a habit of making such "mistakes".

  Kent is not making a mistake, IMHO.  Rather he seems to be back
to his old IAHC days habit of trying to rewrite history to fit his own
purposes.  That's dishonest!

>
>
> > Your message is sanctionable in my opinion and I've asked that you be
> > censured by the monitors.
>
> ... and for posting such a threat on the GA list I am making my, first ever,
> complaint about you.
>

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