Re: Draft New Draft

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> John Charles,
> I've pared down the cc list to those who might actually enjoy this nonsense.
> For the record, I have no personal economic stake in the management (or
> mismanagement) of any ccTLD, or gTLD, for that matter.

Glad to hear that. What I'm confused is why you want to push for a solution
where private companies get to own TLDs... Yes, I know that <Concerns about
"rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate.  It is appropriate
to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community.>
but that's very convenient to say when you are the de-facto owner of a (cc)TLD.
(NSI with com/net/org as it currently stands).
For example, If we discuss who has the right to control COM/NET/ORG, NSI can
very easily say "shut-up" and quote the previous text. :-(
Same thing for any number of ccTLDs. RFC-1591 is a text written from a
high-moral stand-point, and with the idea/hope/expectancy that people in
charge of registries would "go out and do good".
It might sound very "communist" (and believe me, I'm strong for capitalism),
but I feel that the only way that people would not be concerned about
"rights" and "ownership" of TLDs is if they are not owned by the registries,
but somehow held in the public interest. In general, relationships in the
world between countries are based on the belief that local governments are
the guardians oflocal public interest.

> I'm happy to see that you're not interested in spreading FUD, since in
> recent days you've accused the IATLD of being a fake, me of having some
> economic incentive in promoting and defending the IATLD (why else would the
> IATLD stand up for ccTLDs in developing regions?), and me of always getting
> my facts wrong.
> 
> It's easy (and a favorite game in these lists) to take a remark out of
> context and twist it.  Congrats, you can do it too.
> Antony

In the past few days I have battled with you on three blanket subjects
which you launched as a given, and I threw a few questions about them
which at least prove that it's not as clear cut as you said.

-You said that only 2 out of the top 20 ccTLDs had any relationship with
their governments, meaning that government involvement in ccTLDs is very minor.
I looked up a bunch of "major" ccTLDs and I think it was only Mexico that
had NO relationship with the government.

-You came out in defence of the iaTLD and of its backing by 73 ccTLDs. I
pointed out that this backing was not as clear as it may seem.

-You gave a listing of 5 ccTLDs in a way that seemed to imply that they were
private for-profit systems, and that you had another sixty-something like
them. It was clear that those listed were not as clear-cut for-profit
companies as you made out.

When you try to back your arguments of government exclusion based on the
"fact" that they are not in general aware/involved anyway, that your system
is backed by a lot of ccTLDs and you argue about how good it is for
registries to be for profit because so many of them are

When you try to back your arguments of government exclusion (based on the
"fact" that they are not in general aware/involved anyway), about how good it
is for registries to be for profit (because so many of them are), and that
there is wide support by many ccTLDs of these proposals (because of the
iaTLD), then it stats to look to me as if there are unpleasant things
happening. If your arguments can't stand up on their own merits and need to
be backed by not-quite-as-they-seem "facts", then maybe it's because they
CAN'T stand up on their own merit. Dunno.

Yours, John Broomfield.