[ga-roots] Re[4]: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Chris,
let it drop. Recalls me the IBM's position about no one having right to 
produce a PC..... iCANN only does the same thing: IBM produced half an OS, 
iCANN produces half of a root. Enjoy life and real roots!
Jefsey


On 06:52 17/06/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello NameCritic,
>
>Saturday, June 16, 2001, 8:25:08 PM, NameCritic wrote:
>
> > My last post for the day on this. If I enable dns settings for one of the
> > other roots, since they are inclusive I can go to com net org AND all the
> > others.
>
>BUT, that is only because the alt.root operators DECIDED to include
>them.  They are not REQUIRED to.
>
>Of course, being in a minority position, they have little choice
>practically, but the bottom line is that they do NOT have to, and the
>only reason those TLDs are included is for self preservation purposes.
>
> > By not doing so my choices are limited to whatever ICANN approves.
>
>As it is your choice is limited to whatever the alt.root managers
>approve.
>
>It just so happens that they know that if they don't grant a default
>approval to the com/net/org/edu/gov/mil/int/ccTLDs that they would
>never get any penetration at all.
>
> > The funny thing in all this is that you are asking everyone to trust a 
> bunch
> > of lawyers to look out after our best interests and you expect us to buy
> > that.
>
>No, that isn't what he or me or anyone else is asking.
>
>The problem is that you are too blind to see what we are saying.
>
>You are so antiICANN without any possibility of being otherwise, that
>you assume that anyone who doesn't blindly agree with the alt.root
>position that let's any person who wants to create a TLD is 100%
>behind everything ICANN says/does.
>
>All I can say to that is that if you want people to take you
>seriously, and see you as a part of trying to bring about real change,
>then you need to take a step back.
>
>The free for all anarchy that is the alt.root system is NOT going to
>ever win.  NEVER.
>
>And to be honest, it shouldn't win.  The principle they have that
>let's anyone do anything simply because no one else is, is not sound,
>technically or otherwise.
>
>What you should be doing, Chris, is becoming a part of the process.
>As a critic inside the process, you can work to change things.  As
>someone whose only mantra is that ICANN is 100% wrong, and alt.roots
>are 100% right, you can never do that.
>
>The bottom line, Chris, is that if ICANN is so evil and doomed, why
>the heck are you here?
>
>In the end, a central authority is necessary.  And you may not like
>it, but for at least the foreseeable future ICANN is it.  You may not
>like it, you may not like WHY it is this way, but that doesn't change
>that it is, and there is no credible evidence to support that any
>serious challenge to it exists in the near or distant future.
>
>So you can be a part of the problem or you can be a part of the
>solution.
>
>But this 100% negative campaign you are on does nothing to help bring
>about reforms that would address the issues you raise.
>
>Like you I believe in an aggressive namespace expansion.  ICANN has
>not done that yet.  However, I also recognize that such an expansion
>MUST take place in a controlled and technically sound fashion.
>
>Having been involved in Workgroup C, along with a large number of
>others here, I appreciate the hard work that had to happen to get even
>the expansion we DO have happening right now.  And the be perfectly
>blunt with you, the ONLY way that further expansion will occur is if
>this expansion goes smoothly.
>
>The constant attempts to stop ICANN's expansion by alt.root advocates
>who don't recognize that they are NOT a part of the ICANN space (which
>previous they agreed with when there was no threat of ICANN expanding
>its namespace and seriously beginning to offer new choices in TLDs)
>does NOT help the case for a further and aggressive expansion.
>
>You may not like what I have to say, but I will say this anyway.
>
>The worst enemy of the alt.root/tld community and those among them who
>support real aggressive namespace expansion, IS THEMSELVES.
>
>They do more harm to their own efforts and positions, and in a more
>consistent and predictable manner, than any group of their kind I have
>seen, in or out of the domain policy arena.
>
>I can almost predict to a fault what each of them will say in
>response to particular messages, which ones of them will disagree with
>the other, and roughly how many messages in a particular thread
>regarding a dispute before one party or the other threatens a lawsuit
>against the other.
>
>The infighting alone is insane.  Anyone want some amusement, join the
>ORSC lists and just lurk.  It's a drama that would put the american
>soap operas to shame some weeks.
>
>The real problem is that passionate people like yourself lack the
>experience necessary to see that railing against the wall gets them no
>where, and have no effect at all to bring about the changes they
>seek.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
>Userfriendly.com Domains
>The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga-icann@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga-icann" 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