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

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@corliss.net>]

On Sunday, May 13, 2001 21:29 +10, Dassa wrote:

> The point remains the Internet was intended to operate with a unique root
> zone.

Let's agree generally although we may need to define what that means.

> Introducing other root zones that may be in conflict with the legacy
> root zone is not the action of an individual co-operating with the system.

The main contention here is that argument cuts both ways.

> The main arguments I've seen for the formation of other root zones are
> based around anarchy.

Assuming you're not being emotive with the use of the term "anarchy", you
are suggesting that a "free for all" is not desirable.  On that, everybody
agrees.  It is misleading to suggest otherwise.  In fact that's exactly why
this debate is occurring to seek a controlled environment.

> The majority of others, have been purely commercial
> interests.

There's nothing wrong with commercial interests.  Verisign has them and so
does Melbourne IT.  I'd guess that you probably have some yourself.  Your
implication is that those advocating "other roots" are driven by commercial
interests and their arguments should be discounted because of bias.  The
corollary is that ICANN is acting with pure intentions.

Neither of these propositions stands up to close examination.  In particular
many of the "other roots" are genuine idealists who want to see the internet
opened up.  They also consider the present system has been captured by
"purely commercial interests".  In any case that's a "red herring" argument.

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

> It would be informative if we heard from some of the operators

You have heard (or at least this debate, generally, has heard) from a number
of root operators.  I do not need to name them but can easily call upon them
in support.  Most of us know who they are and what they think.

> as to the management structures employed by them and how these may compare
> to community based efforts.

I don't see why that would be informative as to the debate.

> I'm sure there are some purely community based
> efforts but we have not heard a great deal on how these operate.

As is stated in the subject heading under which you are posting.  This is a
"red herring" and a diversionary tactic.  Whether they are commercial
operations, community based operations, ccTLDs or even free give-aways is
not at all relevant to the argument.  I'm sure you mean well but the problem
is that they EXIST not that they are pink with blue stripes.

If you check the archives for this subject header you will see that there
have been at least 20 or 30 posts since you laid this false trail.  Yet you
still come back to it time and time again.  Let's move onto the proposed
policy or you will stand accused of diverting this debate.

> Feel free to filter out my posts if you have no wish to read them.

Never.  I'm having too much fun ;-)

But I would caution everyone:

   Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
   The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
   Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
   The frumious Bandersnatch!"

In this case "Beware the diversionary tactic".

> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

Sincerely
Patrick Corliss







--
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