Mr. Crispin's Unconstitutional Proposal was Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re: Additional Mailing Lists)

["John Palmer" <jp@ADNS.NET>]

No Kent, you are willing to ask congress to pass a law to protect the system
that you will
use to make big money. Let me remind you that Kent has a financial interest
in shutting out
competitive models. People like Kent have taken over ICANN and are using it
as a tool
to protect their own monopoly-like powers. Kent is a bad actor, plain and
simple.

Inclusive namespace TLDs are not "experiments" - they are businesses with
payrolls and are
part of the economy.

I would remind Mr. Crispin that people have the right to choose what root
server networks that
they use and that TLD operators are publishers who are protected by the 1st
Amendment. Our
business products are also protected from taking without just compensation
by the 5th Amendment.

Mr Crispin, you are the worst hypocrit on the list. YOU are a profiteer, not
a noble wise man
who is just "protecting the internet from evil forces".

ADNS has been operating our TLDs for almost 7 years now. We will not roll
over to ICANN or
any other force. Our business operation is protected by the US Constitution
and other laws and
we will defend it at all costs. Yes, we would like to some day make a
profit, but thats not a crime
and we don't intend to do it by supporting nazi-like goverment (or
quasi-government) actions that
limit the free and open trade within the industry. We support the addition
of as many TLDs
as anyone wants to add.

I submit these facts to to the public as another example of what ICANN
really is. Mr. Crispin has
today exposed a side of ICANN that many of us knew was there, but was not
always visible.

ICANN is a good old boys club that is designed to protect a clutch of
monoplists by making policy that
shuts out all other business models. ICANN insiders have made one move after
another
to shut out dissenting voices and solidify their control. ICANN must be
stopped.

John Palmer
President/CEO
AGN Domain Name Services, Inc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
To: "[GA]" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] "All roots" (Re: Additional Mailing Lists)


> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:56:52AM +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > Hi Harald
> >
> > Many lists would consider your posting to be a breach of list rules of
the "me
> > too" variety.  In this case you simply say that you do not agree without
> > stating any reasons.
> >
> > The argument is for a working group to discuss the policy implications
of
> > alternate roots.
> >
> > Can you be specific, please, not necessarily by answering Kristy's post
but by
> > stating why you think there are no policy implications for alternative
roots?
>
> Alternate roots and alternate TLDs destabalize the name space, and hence
> the primary policy question is how strongly ICANN should condemn them.
> So far ICANN has been content with letting the alternate roots (and
> alternate TLDs) self-destruct, but I think that with the appeance of
> new.net a case could be made that a stronger policy is necessary.
>
> That's probably worth another motion:
>
>     I move that the GA petition the NC to ask the Board to submit a
>     formal letter to the US Federal Trade Commission calling for the
>     immediate investigation of all alternate root and alternate TLD
>     providers.
>
> Moreover, I think the US congress should be informed, and that, for
> those of us in the US, we should encourage our congresspersons to pass a
> law to make knowingly attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the public
> Internet a criminal offense.  In other countries I think responsible
> people should take similar measures.
>
> I'm not saying this to be provocative, incidentally -- I really do
> believe that attaching alternate roots or TLDs to the Internet runs the
> risk of doing serious harm.  As long as the experiments are very small
> the risks of damage are very slight, but if the number of participants
> in these experiments gets very large, I believe the possibility of
> serious damage becomes quite real.
>
> > In other words, if you are saying the subject is not worthy of
discussion then
> > why is much of this list taken up with discussing it?
>
> Because there are a number of people who are either living in a
> technical dream world, or are willing to damage the Internet for their
> own personal gain.
>
> > As I said, it would
> > free up the main list.
>
> That's highly doubtful.
>
> > The other alternative is to keep ruling it "off topic" and banning
almost
> > everybody.
>
> Interesting that you think that the alternate root crowd is "almost
everybody".
>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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
>
>

--
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