Re: Re[3]: [ga] Verisign: ".com/net not a necessity" replying to anti-trust concerns of WLS

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

I hear what you're saying Don, but I think I'm leaning more towards William
than you on this one.

I'm, quite frankly, tired of the rhetoric and tired of the interruptions.
The Anglican Church doesn't hold recruiting drives at the local Mosque
during worship. If the alt.root crowd wants to recruit followers, they can
do so in much more appropriate venues without jumping up every five minutes
and interrupting our "meeting".

"What's so important to the alternative root crowd that only ICANN's
failure, and the ruin of the opposition, would accomplish their goals? It
seems to this observer that the alternative root crowd has assumed the
righteousness of their position and failed to take the argument to the
people who could appreciate it most. No one has presented (at least to our
knowledge) a coherent well-argued case that the overthrow of the DNS will
lead us anywhere that sensible people would want to go at a price that we
would want to pay. ICANN at least proposes an answer, which is that a
process can be devised that more or less satisfies participants that no
rules will be made which absolutely violate their interests. There is no
final resolution of some of the issues inside the DNS, nor can there be."

A Case For Predictable Driving (and what this has to do with the Alternate
Roots).
http://www.byte.org/predictable-rules-denton-rader-171001.pdf

Thanks,

-rwr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Brown" <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>
To: "William X Walsh" <william@wxsoft.info>
Cc: "John Palmer" <jp@ADNS.NET>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:12 PM
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Verisign: ".com/net not a necessity" replying to
anti-trust concerns of WLS


> I don't think this is spam, at all.  I think it is an opinion and,
although
> you and I may not agree with it, he does, never-the-less, have some
> elementary right to share his thoughts.  This list is suppose to be
> open and not bigoted - at least I thought so, going in.
>
> I may even agree with some, or all, of what he said, although I am not
> stating that is my position, at this time. Please be sure to recognize
> that I am not writing this in support of what was said, because that
> is not the purpose of this post. I'm also not saying that I totally
> disagree with what was said. My position on this matter is not the
> point.
>
> The point is that, even if we may loath hearing the message for the
> upteenth time or we may be diametrically opposed to the view
> expressed, it is not appropriate to criticize the message just because
> of its topic or the person posting it. The content, in my view, is
> what needs to be challenged and discussed - not the person who posts
> and not the topic.  IOW, I don't think it is appropriate to call it
> "spam" just because you don't like the subject matter, poster or the
> content.  Let's challenge the ideas presented -- that's healthy.
>
> The value of a list, in MHO (George, I am humble, sometimes) is that
> we have the opportunity to hear different points of view and differing
> ideas. Sometimes, it opens our eyes to a bigger picture or a different
> take on the subject matter, sometimes we may think the person posting
> it is an idiot.  Regardless, the value of people posting their
> thoughts is what makes a list valuable and a means of helping build
> the all important consensus.  I wouldn't like to see anything which
> discourages anyone from expressing their views openly and liberally.
>
> FWIW.
>
>
> p.s. I even like you, William, and I think you do well at cutting
> through the fat to the core issue, most of the time. I just don't
> agree with the method, this time.  Humbly and respectfully, that's my
> take FWIW.
>
>
> Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 5:14:45 PM, William X Walsh
<william@wxsoft.info> wrote:
>
> WXW> Can we keep the alt.root spam to a minimum please?
>
> WXW> Tuesday, Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 2:53:16 PM, John Palmer wrote:
>
>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
> >> To: <ga@dnso.org>; <cgomes@verisign.com>
> >> Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:18 PM
> >> Subject: [ga] Verisign: ".com/net not a necessity" replying to
anti-trust
> >> concerns of WLS
> >> [...]
>
> >> You know, the inclusive namespace is still out there. We haven't gone
> >> anywhere. When
> >> you guys are tired of "working within the process" (which is rigged
since
> >> the ICANN
> >> board is basically VSGN, Neustar/Neulevel and Afilias) - You can come
on
> >> board
> >> the inclusive bus right now.
>
> >> If you are an ISP - see http://www.open-rsc.org or
http://www.pacroot.com to
> >> find
> >> out how to make ICANN irrelevant to your company and customers right
now. If
> >> your ISP wont, you can do it yourself (and then get an ISP that
respects
> >> your right
> >> to see all of the internet, not just websites whose operators are
cowering
> >> in the corner
> >> afraid that VSGN/ICANN/USG will pull the plug on them using one of the
> >> myriad of
> >> increasingly burdensome contract provisions that are FORCED on people
before
> >> they are allowed to get a .COM/NET/ORG).
>
> >> The Inclusive Namespace has none of that.
>
> >> No UDRP, in other words, no binding  mechansim that allows rich
concerns to
> >> steal
> >> domains from poor people.
>
> >> No rigged Board that claims it is "a consensus based, open, community
> >> process"
> >> (gag)
>
> >> No USG "big stick" lending authority to the aforementioned corrupt and
> >> rotten
> >> situation.
>
> >> We've been here all along. Don't you understand? If enough people leave
> >> ICANN's root
> >> networks, they will be irrelevant.  Right now, 7-12% of the internet
looks
> >> away from ICANN,
> >> and this number is growing.
>
> >> There are some pretty powerful figures lurking here. If everyone would
only
> >> get up and move,
> >> we could hasten ICANN's demise (a GOOD thing) as a 900lb gorilla.
Without
> >> your help it
> >> will take a bit longer, but it will happen.
>
> >>> As for dot-com and dot-net not being a necessity, that's true in the
> >>> sense that they're not like food, water or shelter. However, if
> >>> Verisign truly believed their own argument then the "one year test"
> >>> could be conducted with equal efficacy using the dot-TV or dot-CC
TLDs,
> >>> and not dot-com/net. If it's true, I'm willing to trade Verisign
> >>> gs34jkhgds-jkhg.org for the NSI.com domain name. I believe someone
> >>> forgot to tell GreatDomains (a Verisign company) that other TLDs are
> >>> now pervasive:
> >>>
>
> >> How about domains like mydom.USA, mydom.AMERICA, mydom.EARTH,
> >> mydom.WEB?? How about 8,000 - 9,000 TLDs to choose from??? They exist
> >> now, and most without any nasty UDRP, USG or WIPO.
>
> >> Thats what we have now in the Big World out there.
>
> >> There is a solution, its right under everyone's nose. When are you all
going
> >> to
> >> get the picture that ICANN ignores all of you and keeps you busy
bickering
> >> amongst each other on these lists. Name one thing, ONE SUBSTANTIAL
THING
> >> that you have accomplished in the past 2 years (apart from running
> >> elections, polls
> >> suspending people for getting a bit too hot under the collar).
>
> >> They (ICANN) are playing you for fools. Either get up, leave and go
make a
> >> real difference or else let progress pass you by. The game is rigged.
You
> >> are
> >> ignored. Face it. Move on to progress or give up.
>
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>>
> >>> George Kirikos
> >>> http://www.kirikos.com/
> >>>
>
> >> John Palmer
>
> >> --
> >> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> >> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> >> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> 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