Re: [ga] Verisign: ".com/net not a necessity" replying to anti-trust concerns of WLS

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

Don and all assembly members,

  Some members of the GA have been purveyors of various forms
of censorship.  That practice of course is fundamentally wrong.
Perhaps WXW and Ross support certain forms of censorship?
It appears that is the case here.  But Don I thank you for
your encouraging input and views on this subject area or issue.
I happen to share them with you.

Don Brown wrote:

> Ross, I hear what you are saying, but I failed to deliver my point
> (I'm only 52, I'll try harder and get better as I gain more mileage -
> hopefully, anyway). It was not the substance, but only the concept
> that I was speaking to. I think this forum is open to ANYONE,
> including gays, perverts, catholics (I am one), protestants, jews and
> anyone who wants to put forth their views and even those radicals
> types -- whoever they may be.
>
> My point was that we, as a community, are not obligated to the views
> of others, but we do, however, have to respect their point of view.
> That leads to new ideas, a different perspective and opportunities.
>
> It doesn't matter if I, personally, view them as the "anti-Christ,"
> they should, never the less -- and this is an open list as it espoused
> to be, have an equal and unfettered opportunity to share their ideas.
> Even though I may, personally, think the content s*cks or they are
> cold, stone idiots, they should have, never-the-less, the same
> opportunity to vent their view as anyone else.  If we stray from that
> elementary principal then we share a censorship view.  However, I will
> not be a participant in that mindset, and knowing who you are and where
> you come form, you won't go there either.  I think we just had a
> miscue on this one.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 9:01:33 PM, Ross Wm. Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
>
> RWR> I hear what you're saying Don, but I think I'm leaning more towards William
> RWR> than you on this one.
>
> RWR> I'm, quite frankly, tired of the rhetoric and tired of the interruptions.
> RWR> The Anglican Church doesn't hold recruiting drives at the local Mosque
> RWR> during worship. If the alt.root crowd wants to recruit followers, they can
> RWR> do so in much more appropriate venues without jumping up every five minutes
> RWR> and interrupting our "meeting".
>
> RWR> "What's so important to the alternative root crowd that only ICANN's
> RWR> failure, and the ruin of the opposition, would accomplish their goals? It
> RWR> seems to this observer that the alternative root crowd has assumed the
> RWR> righteousness of their position and failed to take the argument to the
> RWR> people who could appreciate it most. No one has presented (at least to our
> RWR> knowledge) a coherent well-argued case that the overthrow of the DNS will
> RWR> lead us anywhere that sensible people would want to go at a price that we
> RWR> would want to pay. ICANN at least proposes an answer, which is that a
> RWR> process can be devised that more or less satisfies participants that no
> RWR> rules will be made which absolutely violate their interests. There is no
> RWR> final resolution of some of the issues inside the DNS, nor can there be."
>
> RWR> A Case For Predictable Driving (and what this has to do with the Alternate
> RWR> Roots).
> RWR> http://www.byte.org/predictable-rules-denton-rader-171001.pdf
>
> RWR> Thanks,
>
> RWR> -rwr
> RWR> ----- Original Message -----
> RWR> From: "Don Brown" <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>
> RWR> To: "William X Walsh" <william@wxsoft.info>
> RWR> Cc: "John Palmer" <jp@ADNS.NET>; <ga@dnso.org>
> RWR> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:12 PM
> RWR> Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Verisign: ".com/net not a necessity" replying to
> RWR> anti-trust concerns of WLS
>
> >> I don't think this is spam, at all.  I think it is an opinion and,
> RWR> although
> >> you and I may not agree with it, he does, never-the-less, have some
> >> elementary right to share his thoughts.  This list is suppose to be
> >> open and not bigoted - at least I thought so, going in.
> >>
> >> I may even agree with some, or all, of what he said, although I am not
> >> stating that is my position, at this time. Please be sure to recognize
> >> that I am not writing this in support of what was said, because that
> >> is not the purpose of this post. I'm also not saying that I totally
> >> disagree with what was said. My position on this matter is not the
> >> point.
> >>
> >> The point is that, even if we may loath hearing the message for the
> >> upteenth time or we may be diametrically opposed to the view
> >> expressed, it is not appropriate to criticize the message just because
> >> of its topic or the person posting it. The content, in my view, is
> >> what needs to be challenged and discussed - not the person who posts
> >> and not the topic.  IOW, I don't think it is appropriate to call it
> >> "spam" just because you don't like the subject matter, poster or the
> >> content.  Let's challenge the ideas presented -- that's healthy.
> >>
> >> The value of a list, in MHO (George, I am humble, sometimes) is that
> >> we have the opportunity to hear different points of view and differing
> >> ideas. Sometimes, it opens our eyes to a bigger picture or a different
> >> take on the subject matter, sometimes we may think the person posting
> >> it is an idiot.  Regardless, the value of people posting their
> >> thoughts is what makes a list valuable and a means of helping build
> >> the all important consensus.  I wouldn't like to see anything which
> >> discourages anyone from expressing their views openly and liberally.
> >>
> >> FWIW.
> >>
> >>
> >> p.s. I even like you, William, and I think you do well at cutting
> >> through the fat to the core issue, most of the time. I just don't
> >> agree with the method, this time.  Humbly and respectfully, that's my
> >> take FWIW.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 5:14:45 PM, William X Walsh
> RWR> <william@wxsoft.info> wrote:
> >>
> >> WXW> Can we keep the alt.root spam to a minimum please?
> >>
> >> WXW> Tuesday, Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 2:53:16 PM, John Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
> >> >> To: <ga@dnso.org>; <cgomes@verisign.com>
> >> >> Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:18 PM
> >> >> Subject: [ga] Verisign: ".com/net not a necessity" replying to
> RWR> anti-trust
> >> >> concerns of WLS
> >> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> You know, the inclusive namespace is still out there. We haven't gone
> >> >> anywhere. When
> >> >> you guys are tired of "working within the process" (which is rigged
> RWR> since
> >> >> the ICANN
> >> >> board is basically VSGN, Neustar/Neulevel and Afilias) - You can come
> RWR> on
> >> >> board
> >> >> the inclusive bus right now.
> >>
> >> >> If you are an ISP - see http://www.open-rsc.org or
> RWR> http://www.pacroot.com to
> >> >> find
> >> >> out how to make ICANN irrelevant to your company and customers right
> RWR> now. If
> >> >> your ISP wont, you can do it yourself (and then get an ISP that
> RWR> respects
> >> >> your right
> >> >> to see all of the internet, not just websites whose operators are
> RWR> cowering
> >> >> in the corner
> >> >> afraid that VSGN/ICANN/USG will pull the plug on them using one of the
> >> >> myriad of
> >> >> increasingly burdensome contract provisions that are FORCED on people
> RWR> before
> >> >> they are allowed to get a .COM/NET/ORG).
> >>
> >> >> The Inclusive Namespace has none of that.
> >>
> >> >> No UDRP, in other words, no binding  mechansim that allows rich
> RWR> concerns to
> >> >> steal
> >> >> domains from poor people.
> >>
> >> >> No rigged Board that claims it is "a consensus based, open, community
> >> >> process"
> >> >> (gag)
> >>
> >> >> No USG "big stick" lending authority to the aforementioned corrupt and
> >> >> rotten
> >> >> situation.
> >>
> >> >> We've been here all along. Don't you understand? If enough people leave
> >> >> ICANN's root
> >> >> networks, they will be irrelevant.  Right now, 7-12% of the internet
> RWR> looks
> >> >> away from ICANN,
> >> >> and this number is growing.
> >>
> >> >> There are some pretty powerful figures lurking here. If everyone would
> RWR> only
> >> >> get up and move,
> >> >> we could hasten ICANN's demise (a GOOD thing) as a 900lb gorilla.
> RWR> Without
> >> >> your help it
> >> >> will take a bit longer, but it will happen.
> >>
> >> >>> As for dot-com and dot-net not being a necessity, that's true in the
> >> >>> sense that they're not like food, water or shelter. However, if
> >> >>> Verisign truly believed their own argument then the "one year test"
> >> >>> could be conducted with equal efficacy using the dot-TV or dot-CC
> RWR> TLDs,
> >> >>> and not dot-com/net. If it's true, I'm willing to trade Verisign
> >> >>> gs34jkhgds-jkhg.org for the NSI.com domain name. I believe someone
> >> >>> forgot to tell GreatDomains (a Verisign company) that other TLDs are
> >> >>> now pervasive:
> >> >>>
> >>
> >> >> How about domains like mydom.USA, mydom.AMERICA, mydom.EARTH,
> >> >> mydom.WEB?? How about 8,000 - 9,000 TLDs to choose from??? They exist
> >> >> now, and most without any nasty UDRP, USG or WIPO.
> >>
> >> >> Thats what we have now in the Big World out there.
> >>
> >> >> There is a solution, its right under everyone's nose. When are you all
> RWR> going
> >> >> to
> >> >> get the picture that ICANN ignores all of you and keeps you busy
> RWR> bickering
> >> >> amongst each other on these lists. Name one thing, ONE SUBSTANTIAL
> RWR> THING
> >> >> that you have accomplished in the past 2 years (apart from running
> >> >> elections, polls
> >> >> suspending people for getting a bit too hot under the collar).
> >>
> >> >> They (ICANN) are playing you for fools. Either get up, leave and go
> RWR> make a
> >> >> real difference or else let progress pass you by. The game is rigged.
> RWR> You
> >> >> are
> >> >> ignored. Face it. Move on to progress or give up.
> >>
> >> >>> Sincerely,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> George Kirikos
> >> >>> http://www.kirikos.com/
> >> >>>
> >>
> >> >> John Palmer
> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> >> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> >> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> >> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> >> ----
> >>
> >> --
> >> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> >> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >>
> >>
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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