Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to responsetoresponse)

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

This is exactly what we all see and some of us admit to.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Marsh" <marshm@anycast.net>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:04 PM
Subject: RE: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to
responsetoresponse)


> See below.
>
> Gene...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga-roots@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-roots@dnso.org]On Behalf
> > Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:28 AM
> > To: Milton Mueller
> > Cc: ga-roots@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to
> > responsetoresponse)
> >
> >
> > At 21:57 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > >Harald:
> > >to put it another way: Leah Gallegos is upset that .biz got allocated
in
> > >the ICANN process that she chose not to participate in. Whether that
> > >constitutes a conflict or not is in the eye of the beholder.
> > >
> > >MM:
> > >You can't have it both ways. Either alternate roots
> > >such as Leah's are threats to the integrity of the
> > >Internet, or they are "not really conflicts."
> > >Which is it?
> >
> > Leah does not have the power to threaten the integrity of the
> > Internet, IMHO.
> > new.net might have that power, given its larger budget.
> <SNIP>
>
> Harald, is this the position you really want to take?  By walking down
this
> path, the "threat", as you have defined it, is not dependent upon the
rights
> or technical viability of an organization's efforts, but solely on their
> size/money.  It ignores the rights an organization might have.  It puts
> images like this in the minds of the reader:
>
> ICANN Person #1: "What is it this CarribeanRoot Inc. claims to have
> established?  An operating business using a TLD?"
>
> ICANN Person #2: "Yeah, but they are pretty small."
>
> ICANN Person #1: "How small?"
>
> ICANN Person #2: "They don't even have a lawyer on staff.  Not much of a
> budget for marketing, either."
>
> ICANN Person #1: "So, what happens if we just ignore that they have any
> legal claim?  They can't do anything about it anyway, right?"
>
> ICANN Person #2: "Probably not.  They might make a little noise, but that
> will blow over."
>
> ICANN Person #1: "What about this other company, Old.web Inc.?  They seem
to
> have some money."
>
> ICANN Person #2: "Yeah... they could be a problem.  They have really
started
> to make some inroads, and they have money for a legal fight."
>
> ICANN Person #1: "Don't they have some new and conflicting TLDs?"
>
> ICANN Person #2: "They don't conflict with anything currently in the root.
> And remember, the others are like CarribeanRoot Inc.: They can't do
anything
> about it anyway"
>
> ICANN Person #1: "I see.  So the problem really is just one of money.
> Old.web might be able to gain some serious mindshare, whether they have
> established the rights to the TLDs or not, while CarribeanRoot can't do
> anything about serious mindshare, even if they HAVE established an
operating
> business!"
>
> ICANN Person #2: "Yes.  We need to be concerned about mindshare, not the
law
> or what is right."
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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