RE: [ga] Older registrations

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.net>]

At 07:21 AM 3/25/00 +1030, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 07:53 PM 3/22/00 -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>OK, here goes. It will almost certainly garner the ire of those who 
>>should know better (watch the replies

As predicted, Dave Crocker, one of the "blue-ribbon" IAHC members, has 
responded in an effort of self-preservation, once again attempting to 
change others perspective on history to serve his own interests. Note that 
he cannot provide an alternative explanation because there isn't one.

>Successful propaganda is built upon a base of truth.  When it is woven 
>well enough, it can be difficult to state simply how it is, ultimately, a 
>lie.  Simon's "history" falls into the camp of nicely written 
>propaganda.  We have all batted these issues back and forth, so I'll 
>refrain from yet-another point-by-point countering, unless there is some 
>clear need demonstrated.

Dave refrains from point-by-point counters in these situations because he 
can't. These events that I have described actually happened as I have 
described. The facts are the facts. End of story.

>The rogue effort likes to claim it worked under IANA permission.  It 
>didn't and would never be able to prove that it did, to satisfy a 
>judge.  We have one, relevant legal evaluation pertaining to this realm 
>and I posted the most cogent statements from the judge's opinion.

Let me stand in front of a judge, and let the judge decide. It's 
interesting to note that the IAHC went way out of it's way to prevent my 
public testimony in the past. A clever technique of subpoenaing me and then 
refusing to take my deposition. I wonder why that was?

>But treating it as anything other than one person's (self-serving) 
>fictionalization of history would put any serious analytic effort at grave 
>risk.

Dave, you do no-one any service by continuing to make character 
assassinations. After-all, you cannot counter with the facts because you do 
not have them, so all that is left is personal attacks of this nature. 
Unfortunately, this has been the constant attitude from the members of the 
IAHC to those who worked with the Postel draft. Even if anyone still wishes 
to side with you, the DNSO members can now see that at least two things 
happened:

1. Work was done to introduce new TLDs under the Postel draft long before 
the IAHC was formed
2. The IAHC wish to erase all memory of this by telling you it never happened

This reply from Dave Crocker is a classic example of this revisionist 
history. The truth is the truth, and any good analyst can see that, in 
spite of the blue ribbon smoke screen that Dave is part of. Gordon Cook's 
Cook Report is an excellent example of independent third-party analysis. 
He's not afraid to call it as he sees it, and he certainly doesn't paint a 
pretty picture of Dave's legacy to us all.


Best Regards,

Simon

--
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and
then you win. And once you have won, they join you." - Mahatma Gandhi

--
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