[ga] individual or sub-list abuse

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

The following mail from Kent Crispin has been brought to my attention.  It 
rises three problems:


1. this mail is absurd.

Mr. Crispin's quote is opposite to his argument: he wants to show TLD 
community lacks cooperation. And he  quotes an exchange where in spite of 
potentially suing one another the parties talk together and commit to a 
third operator (me) that in spite of their dispute they will go by their 
mutual duties out of by respect to the users.

Should the iCANN keep its positions but respect its obligations the same, 
there would be no more problem.


2. The matter of this mail is offensive.

This quote is offensive for the three of us and cross-posts without 
authorization a mail sent to me. It is also disruptive of my known and 
public efforts to keep the GA-FULL as a fair and open link to the iCANN.


3. Who is competent to address that abuse?

Mr. Crispin has never sent me that mail. He is on a ML where I am not. But 
that ML is part of the GA I am a Member of and is subject to the same rules 
in the same control space. I have no direct ground to complain against Mr. 
Crispin, I have only grounds to complain against the ga-roots list.

I therefore ask to the ga-roots Chair which action he has undertaken 
against Mr. Crispin. If none I ask the GA Chair to issue a warning to the 
ga-root Chair or to the ga-root if no Chair and - until we have set-up a 
global anti GA Member abuse scheme - that all the sub-lists be suspended. I 
was warned, but how many were not? This is not acceptable. I fully support 
Erica Roberts call for some rigor in this matter.


Positive Suggestions to Danny and Patrick

We have to move fast and all of us to agree. I therefore move to the list 
the following ideas:
1. all the mails from all the sub-lists to be copied on GA-FULL. This will 
remove the need for cross posting.
2. to agree that a list may be warned and then suspended for offensive wording
3. to agree that sentences will be doubled when the offended is a GA Member 
not subscribed to the sub-list
4. to give each sub-list one month to come with a Chair or to be suspended 
until they get one.
5. Weekly/Yearly(?) sub-list report to the GA to include a part about 
courtesy about sub-list Members.


Comment

I proposed the Center of Interest working system on the WG-R after a 
suggestion of Karl Auerbach. It was a open scheme for the DNSO. This was 
the "jefsey proposition" documented by Joana Lane's the WG-R site and 
supported by Danny Young (this is why I seconded Danny as a Chair). It was 
about freely created Centers of Interest by the GA Members. They could 
range from a few participants for a temporary work to a full permanent 
constituency. It was based on an initially private *site* (where the 
purpose, the self decided rules, the participants positions, the reached 
agreements could be documented) with one or several MLs. Their only 
relation with the GA was a link on the GA site and reports of their 
conclusion to the GA. Four tentative CIs had been created [IDNH, sTLD, DN 
Definition, Working by Consensus].

This shows I am not against the sub-MLs. I am against the CI concept having 
been twisted into artificial and unproductive MLs. Now, the sub-list do 
exist for a short wile (Danny has agreed to Philip to close them) we
can try to integrate them properly so they are not too much disruptive of 
he GA works.


Jefsey


> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
> > To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:57 AM
> > Subject: [ga-roots] response
> >
> >
> > Response to Mueller's:
> > > Analysis of the Crispin Internet-draft.
> >
> > Unfortunately, Mueller apparently did not actually read the draft,
> > so it is hard to respond.  However, to correct a couple of inaccuracies:
> >
> > > The draft is based on two assumptions, both easily questioned.
> > >
> > > One: "I implicitly postulate that multiple roots exist and are in heavy
> > > use and that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> > > (ICANN) has somehow approved of them."
> > >
> > > That assumption is self-contradictory.
> >
> > The draft is not based on this assumption -- quite the contrary.  In
> > fact, that there is a contradiction in that assumption is a FUNDAMENTAL
> > POINT of the draft.  That is, the contradiction is explicitly recognized
> > in the draft, and indeed, that contradiction leads to the fundamental
> > conclusion: ICANN *cannot* approve multiple roots.  Indeed, as a matter
> > of policy, ICANN must do everything it can to discourage them, which
> > implies that ICANN must never give any credence to TLDs that were
> > developed through alternate roots, since such acknowledgement would
> > simply encourage the proliferation of alternate roots and alternated
> > TLDs.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Two: he assumes that multiple roots would not converge on a coordinated
> > > zone file.  In other words, his very definition of a "multiple root
> > > regime" assumes that registries, Internet service providers, and
> > > consumers will heedlessly create and buy conflicting names in a
> > > fragmented name space.
> > >
> > > That assumption is inconsistent with what we know about the the
> > > economics of standards competition, and for the most part is
> > > contradicted by the current behavior of alternate root operators.
> >
> > Both clauses above are simply incorrect.
> >
> > 1) In fact, the economics of standards competition provides an array of
> > examples of non-convergence, and I discuss this in the paper.  Shapiro
> > and Varian, in their chapter "Waging a Standards War", give several
> > examples: Nintendo vs Sony in the game console market have evolved to a
> > duopoly; the multiple competing standards for digital phones, and HDTV
> > are other examples, and they explicitly discuss the *fact* that
> > standards competition may not lead to convergence.  Given that Mueller
> > is supposed to have some expertise in this area, his inaccuracy on this
> > point is especially egregious.
> >
> > There is no way to predict with certainty what might happen in a large
> > scale standards war over root zones, and indeed (as I mention in the
> > paper) political or cultural factors may completely overshadow any
> > economic considerations.
> >
> > 2) The current behavior of the alternate root operators, in fact, is a
> > clear indication of precisely the opposite of what Mueller claims.  The
> > history of the alternate root movement is notable for the strife --
> > Richard Sexton's refusal to cooperate with name.space is a recent
> > example, and an even more recent example is illustrated by this
> > fragment from an email on the ORSC list, in an exchange between Joe
> > Baptista,
> > Einar Stefferud, and Jefsy Morfin:
> >
> > > From: Joe Baptista <baptista@pccf.net>
> > > Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 14:19:40 -0400
> > > To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
> > > Cc: admin@tlda.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ORSC.DOMAIN-POLICY] Re: [TLDA.ADMIN] Fwd: Re: [ORSC.TECH]
> > >   does the ORSC want to   end up in a court of law   with little ol
> > >   me???
> > > Reply-To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
> > >
> > > At 01:01 AM 1/1/70 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >Hello Jefsey --  ORSC is not removing Dr. Joe's TLDs from our ORSC
> > > root!
> > > >
> > > >My problem with Dr. Joe is that he threatened me (and ORSC) on public
> > > >lists, with court involvement, without any effort to contact me (or
>ORSC)
> > > >in private
> > > >to discuss his problems.
> > >
> > > This is completely untrue.  And I can produce documentation to that
> > > effect.  You however were not contacted - richard sexton was contacted.
>I
> > > spent several days just trying to get the orsc to remove the original
>pccf
> > > roots when diebold incorporated went wacko and disconnected the pccf
>arpa
> > > roots.  I was ignored.  I eventually just gave up and sexton only
>changed
> > > the root file when the new diebold arpas were ready for root service.
>The
> > > same situation appled to the SETDNS program.  In fact there are public
> > > archives on the netsol domain-policy list in which i made it clear the
> > pccf
> > > arpas should be removed and sexton said i was over reacting.
> > >
> > > So you see steff - i have extensive documentation that i made every
> > attempt
> > > to reduce the orsc's and diebold liability to us - and we were ignored.
> > >
> > > As for your claim that I threatened you with court involvment - well
>thats
> > > nonsense.
> >
> > ...and so on.  One can't get a very good feeling for the stability
> > offered by these root zone operators.
> >
> > new.net is using TLD names that collide with prior "claims".  Examples
> > of *current* name collisions can be multiplied easily.
> >
> > In fact, the history of the alternate root community is notable for
> > its lack of cooperation -- indeed, it has been notable for bitter
> > strife for its entire existence.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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