Re[5]: [ga] Verisign: ".com/net not a necessity" replying to anti-trust concerns of WLS

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Ross, I hear what you are saying, but I failed to deliver my point
(I'm only 52, I'll try harder and get better as I gain more mileage -
hopefully, anyway). It was not the substance, but only the concept
that I was speaking to. I think this forum is open to ANYONE,
including gays, perverts, catholics (I am one), protestants, jews and
anyone who wants to put forth their views and even those radicals
types -- whoever they may be.

My point was that we, as a community, are not obligated to the views
of others, but we do, however, have to respect their point of view.
That leads to new ideas, a different perspective and opportunities.

It doesn't matter if I, personally, view them as the "anti-Christ,"
they should, never the less -- and this is an open list as it espoused
to be, have an equal and unfettered opportunity to share their ideas.
Even though I may, personally, think the content s*cks or they are
cold, stone idiots, they should have, never-the-less, the same
opportunity to vent their view as anyone else.  If we stray from that
elementary principal then we share a censorship view.  However, I will
not be a participant in that mindset, and knowing who you are and where
you come form, you won't go there either.  I think we just had a
miscue on this one.

Thanks,



Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 9:01:33 PM, Ross Wm. Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

RWR> Thanks,

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


>> I don't think this is spam, at all.  I think it is an opinion and,
RWR> 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
RWR> <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
RWR> 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
RWR> since
>> >> the ICANN
>> >> board is basically VSGN, Neustar/Neulevel and Afilias) - You can come
RWR> on
>> >> board
>> >> the inclusive bus right now.
>>
>> >> If you are an ISP - see http://www.open-rsc.org or
RWR> http://www.pacroot.com to
>> >> find
>> >> out how to make ICANN irrelevant to your company and customers right
RWR> now. If
>> >> your ISP wont, you can do it yourself (and then get an ISP that
RWR> respects
>> >> your right
>> >> to see all of the internet, not just websites whose operators are
RWR> 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
RWR> 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
RWR> 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
RWR> looks
>> >> away from ICANN,
>> >> and this number is growing.
>>
>> >> There are some pretty powerful figures lurking here. If everyone would
RWR> only
>> >> get up and move,
>> >> we could hasten ICANN's demise (a GOOD thing) as a 900lb gorilla.
RWR> 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
RWR> 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
RWR> going
>> >> to
>> >> get the picture that ICANN ignores all of you and keeps you busy
RWR> bickering
>> >> amongst each other on these lists. Name one thing, ONE SUBSTANTIAL
RWR> 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
RWR> make a
>> >> real difference or else let progress pass you by. The game is rigged.
RWR> 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
>>
>>




----
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