RE: [ga] "All roots" (Re: Additional Mailing Lists)

[PacificRoot Hostmaster <idno@tallship.net>]

Good explanation Roeland, but why don't we let Sotiris spend a little
effort on his own. That's really the only thing that gives people the
realization of truth in a sobering sense :)

Sotirus can begin his quest here:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200102/05/eng20010205_61600.html

and here too:

http://www.cnnic.net.cn/e-index.shtml

or, if he prefers....

here:

http://www.cnnic.net.cn/

I'll be looking forward to hearing back from Sotirus on his fact finding
research mission.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > From: Joe Kelsey [mailto:joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 5:32 PM
> > 
> > Patrick Corliss writes:
> >  > 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?
> >  > 
> >  > 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?
> >  > As I said, it would free up the main list.
> > 
> > The subject is not worth discussing because there can never be an
> > accomodation with the so-called "alternate" roots.  The only people on
> > this list who want to talk about the subject are those who 
> > have a vested
> > interest in one so-called "alternate" root or another, in other words
> > those with a conflict of interest with ICANN.
> 
> False ... prove it.
> 
> > There is nothing to be gained by re-hashing the same old 
> > tired arguments
> > that have already been re-hashed on every single mailing list that has
> > anything remotely to do with this whole process (e.g., IAHC, white
> > paper, etc., etc., ad naseaum).  What are the possible outcomes of any
> > discussion of the so-called "alternate" roots?
> > 
> > o ICANN BoD agrees that the so-called "alternate" roots represent a
> >   legitmate claim on the namespace and grandfathers them in.
> 
> How is this going to happen if it's not discussed? Besides, at least one BoD
> member is running the ORSC root zone.
> 
> > o ICANN BoD maintains their existing policy that the so-called
> >   "alternate" roots represent nothing more than what they 
> > claim and have
> >   always claimed, namely an alternate view of a global namespace,
> >   perfectly reasonable in a free market.
> 
> I may be mistaken, but I thought a counter argument was recently (this
> month) posted.
> 
> > There is absolutely no reason to believe that ICANN will ever change
> > their position, no matter how many so-called "alternate" root
> > sympathizers manage to yell and scream on the GA list or in 
> 
> I severely resent this mischaracterization. The only ones screaming and
> yelling are the folks that don't want to talk about it...like you. BTW, I
> consider micharacterizations, name-calling, FUD, and other misdirection
> techniques the equivalent of screaming, yelling, and general temper-tantrum
> behavior.
> 
> > any working
> > group.  There is no logical reason to continue to discuss this matter
> > which has already been beaten to death over and over and over and over
> > and over and over again and again and again and again...
> 
> More screaming and yelling, I see... 
> 
> >  > The other alternative is to keep ruling it "off topic" and banning
> >  > almost everybody.  I am not sure the GA would agree to impose that
> >  > sort of a role on the list monitors.
> > 
> > It is off-topic because there is no new information to add to 
> > a subject which everyone has already made up their minds on.  Every 
> > single person who is calling for the discussion has a vested interest in 
> > seeing one or another of the so-called "alternate" roots succeed, probably
> because
> > they have some monetary stake in it. 
> 
> That is a characterization, unfounded in fact. I can prove that it's false.
> 
> > Everyone else thinks that there is
> > absolutely nothing to discuss because the so-called "alternate" roots
> > have always been free to publicize their own private 
> > namespaces and they
> > have always been free to promote their views in every other forum they
> > want, especially in the commercial marketplace, the only forum that
> > matters.
> 
> Considering that I am one of those "Everyone", I can easily disprove you
> declaration.
> 
> >  > BTW I have only included multilinguals to the extent that they are
> >  > running alternative roots as I thought, with respect, should have
> >  > been obvious.
> > 
> > Multilingual DNS is a technical issue that does not belong in a
> > political forum.
> 
> Not all of us are so myopic that we can't see the policy implications of
> multi-lingual DNS.
> 
> Thus far, all you have stated was your personal opinion and have tried to
> claim it as everyone's opinion, sans proof. Substantial discussion can be
> substantially furthered if we had less of this and more reasoned argument.
> --
> 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
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.com

--
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