Re: [ga-roots] Re: Criminalization of alt roots

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 01:07:44PM -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 07:43 AM 5/3/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 11:55:36PM -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> > > So very incorrect.  It is ICANN that will cause the  pandemonium with
> > > setting the precedent making duplication okay.  It is ICANN's
> > > responsibility to avoid it.
> >
> >Nope.  It was the alternate roots responsibility to avoid it, by
> >cooperating with whatever generally accepted process were in place.
> 
> What complete and utter nonsense! The alt.roots are the consensus.

Consensus of who? Certainly not of the vast majority of Internet users
(who never heard of you), or the vast majority of businesses, large and
small (who also never heard of you), or of essentially the entire
Internet engineering community (who have heard of you and for the most
part consider you to be irresponsible opportunists), or the intellectual
property community, or pretty much anyone else.  In fact, the ONLY
consensus the alt-tld community can claim is the self-serving consensus
of the alt-tld community itself.

> > > Regardless of the rhetoric you and others backing ICANN and special
> > > interests may use, the fact is that there are not separate DNS's.  It is
> > > all one system and the most illiterate user understands it once it is
> > > explained.
> >
> >Right.  And hence it is totally irresponsible to be creating alternate
> >roots.
> 
> The very first alt.root was used as the test bed for Draft Postel. You 
> can't kill off something that has a right to be there - and numerous TLDs 
> still around have Jon Postel/IANA's permission to be in an alt.root.

You have a delightful way of twisting words.

> IANA 
> even provided wording for registries in an alt.root to use as a waiver of 
> legal liability.

Nonsense.  IANA never indemnified you or anyone else.

> Until ICANN recognizes and addresses these things the alt.roots are going 
> to continue to route around ICANN because they have the right to be there, 
> and ICANN does not have the right to displace them.
>
> Of course, you weren't privy to what really went on in the IANA conference 
> room, so any rebuttal you can think of is going to be more lies and 
> revisionist FUD.

It makes no difference whatsoever went on in the IANA conference room.  
Bill Manning wasn't in a position to guarantee anything at all.  Feel 
free to sue him for misrepresentation, if you like, but it will fail, and 
regardless of what was or was not said, you have really haven't a leg 
to stand on.  To repeat:  whatever was said in that private little 
meeting has absolutely no bearing on anything.  If there is anything 
that you should know by now -- private little meetings are not going to 
get you anywhere.

> My best advise to you, Kent, is to shut up and go away.

Hmm.  I knew that advocating criminalization of alternate roots would be
controversial, but you must actually be worried.  That's good -- shows 
that you are more aware of the issues than you let on :-)

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html