Re: [ifwp] Re: Proposal for a new ORSC/DNSO project

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Stef and all,

  Well so far this discussion is playing out right along the lines we had predicted

some two years ago now.  We have to in part agree with Stef's rebuttal.
However, Stef, at one point you and others had thought that this debate could
be settled rather simply.  I believe that you are now beginning to realize
that that thought was a bit off base, unfortunately. :(

  WIlliam, though I can understand you point of view from a manager of a ccTLD,
It is unlikely that ignoring of "Prior Use" as in canonized in law is going to be
ignored.  So, that being well known, and again said, the only realistic question
remaining
is how can the ICANN identify ALL of the "Alternative" registries/registrars and
their respective TLD's in order to find a solution or a method of determining
a solution to this problem?

Einar Stefferud wrote:

> Hello William --
>
> First, by your logic, by even discussing this with you I am giving
> credibility to your argument, and in fairness, I should not do
> anythign the will give your voice any possibility of having any
> credibility.
>
> Well, I reject such logic, so here is my rebuttal.
>
> You seem to have "fairly" decided, on your own, within the parameters
> of your own private biases, that ALL (repeat - ALL!) prior claims to
> TLD namespace should be erased and we should ALL start over from
> scratch when and if ICANN ever figures out how to make consensus
> decisions about these things, and then we should ALL trust ICANN to be
> fair in handing out TLD "franchises" to applicants without any kind of
> fair hearings (lest the illigitimates gain some improper credibility)
> and that applicant history must not be given any value.
>
> Now, when I use the term "ALL" I mean ALL in the sense of everyone and
> every event involved before the future date that ICANN will choose to
> be time zero, which at this point is both unknown and unkowable, so
> all activity in preparation should now be stopped, including formation
> of a DNSO, as all history is to be ignored until after some unknown
> time zero.
>
> So, now I have to ask:
>
>         On what date do you want to start the
>         "relevant TLD history clock" running?
>
> Next year?
> Tomorrow?
> Today?
> Yesterday?
> When ICANN was incorporated?
> The date of the White Paper?
> The date of the Green paper?
> The date of the NOI in 1997?
> When IAHC declared its takeover rights to .WEB and 6 other TLD names?
> When Draft-Postel was published?
> Wehn DNS was installed and made operational?
>
> You are on a very slippery slope here, with no well defined point in
> time after which history can be declared to suddenly become relevant,
> and before which history has no relevance.
>
> Now, if you admit that any history has value and a need to be heard,
> understood, and honored, then you have to pick a specific date.
>
> So, I leave you here with two  questions:
>
> What Date Do You Choose?  And why do you choose that date?
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
> >From William X. Walsh's message Wed, 02 Dec 1998 21:36:15 -0800 (PST):
> }
> }On 03-Dec-98 Joop Teernstra wrote:
> }> At 11:42 2/12/98 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> }>
> }>>I am sure I am not alone in a basic feeling that these people/organizations
> }>>should probably not have any higher standing in consideration for new gTLD
> }>>registries.  Their applications should be considered alongside any others
> }>>applying for new or different gTLDs.  Those who choose to NOT setup a
> }>>"renegade" gTLD or root server network and instead to work within the system
> }>>for change should NOT be penalized and placed at the end of the queue.
> }>>
> }>>This would be patently unfair.
> }>>
> }> William and all,
> }>
> }> But you would not be against giving all these people a fair hearing, would
> }> you?
> }> That's what Stef's proposal is about.  Let the panel sort out what is fair
> }> and (patently) unfair.
> }> The proposal has my support.
> }
> }That lends some sanction to their claims that indeed does not, and should not
> }exist.
> }
> }Why should they be entitled to any standing?
> }
> }They should have to go through the identical proceedings of ANY organization
> }when ICANN begins the selection of gTLD operators, at square one just like any
> }other at the point.
> }
> }Giving them advance hearings serves no purpose but to sanction their alleged
> }claims to these TLDs which have no basis in fairness at all.
> }
> }
> }-----------------------------------------------------------------
> }William X. Walsh (WXW7/WW1506)| TJ Network Services - The .TJ NIC
> }Network Operations            | http://tjns.tj / http://nic.tj
> }william@tjns.tj/william@nic.tj| Domain Names, DNS, Email,
> }+1-(209)-493-6144             | DynamicDNS & Web Hosting Services
> }-----------------------------------------------------------------
> }Date: 02-Dec-98 / Time: 21:33:41
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

Kindest Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208