Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] Re: Modifications to ICIIU Guidelines a nd NCDNHC definition

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

John and all,

  Coming from someone that was and likely still is a strong IAHC and
gTLD-MoU supporter, I find your musings here in response to Michael
Sondow hysterically laughable to say the least.

  It is also not surprising coming from you John, that you would make such
half true statements as you seem the have an aversion of any entity
of constituency that would be a potential threat to the ICANN's grand
"New World Order" design that is in and of itself, seemingly yet another
attempt to "Capture" the very basic mechanisms and central resources
of the internet, and has on several occasions with the help of the ISOC
as we have all been witness to, time and again to limit or eliminate
any individual or independent representation in the DNSO of any kind.
This was evident in both the Singapore and Berlin meetings and is
blatantly evident in the minuets in which I and a few others have already
pointed out on several occasions over the past two days.
See:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/open.html
and, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/open2.html
as just two small pieces of evidence already in the public domain
and a matter of public record.


John Charles Broomfield wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>         The point is very clear. The clearest of them is actually COMTELCA
> as it draws very close similarities to what you claim discredits ISOC.
> COMTELCA is an association where ALL its members are commercial TELCOs. They
> setup COMTELCA so that they would be able to have a neutral platform to talk
> among themselves (so as to forward their private commercial interests).
> ISOC also has commercial members, but the similarity ends there. ISOC
> actually has a large amount of private individuals as members. COMTELCA
> doesn't.
>         Iperdome has it's own private "non-commercial" front in there.
> Another one of your 100% non-commercial organizations sells books over the
> net (seems commercial to me). Another one wants hits on its electronic mag
> because each hit generates some cash through the banners, etc...
>
> I am NOT saying that the organizations you list are non-commercial, but
> rather that the way you try to define non-commercial is unsustainable.
> You state that ISOC is NOT non-commercial, but then you accept COMELCA as
> being non-commercial (check out the members and activities of COMELCA).
>
> non-commercial is a very subjective definition when applied to any
> organization, as you have already seen before. First you tried to throw out
> ".com" registrations, then you tried to impose presentation of a paid
> domain name slip before accepting entry to a conference you unsuccessfully
> tried to hijack.
>
> For any constituency to have a defined membership, if you want to *impose*
> restrictions on it, then there have to be a series of OBJECTIVE and
> verifiable criteria that can be applied on those members. I have the feeling
> that "non-commercial domain holders constituency" is something very fuzzy
> and un-enforceable. If you can't enforce it, don't try. Instead list
> guidelines and recomendations which are up to each individual
> company/person/organization to decide whether it adheres to them or not.
> It's too big a can of worms otherwise (as you continue to prove).
>
> Yours, John Broomfield.
>
> > I don't know what your point is. All the organizations listed as
> > supporters of the ICIIU are legitimate non-commercial organizations
> > using the Internet for non-commercial reasons, as is the ICIIU
> > itself.
> >
> > On the other hand, below is a partial list of the organizational
> > members of ISOC, taken from their website. "*" = founding member.
> >
> > 3Com*
> > America Online, Inc.*
> > Ameritech*
> > Compaq*
> > AT&T  Labs*
> > Cisco Systems, Inc.*
> > France Telecom*
> > GTE Corporation*
> > IBM*
> > Intel Corporation*
> > J.P. Morgan*
> > MCI Communications Corporation*
> > Microsoft*
> > Network Associates*
> > Novell, Inc.*
> > Oracle Corporation*
> > PSINet, Inc.*
> > RAND*
> > Siemens AG*
> > Sprint*
> > Sun Microsystems, Inc.*
> > Telstra*
> > Alis Technologies, Inc.
> > ARTEL, Inc.
> > Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
> > Adobe Systems
> > Crawford Communications, Inc.
> > CyberCash, Inc.
> > Deutsche Telekom AG
> > Dun & Bradstreet
> > Ericsson
> > Federal Express
> > Fujitsu Limited
> > Tektronix, Inc.
> > Teledesic Corporation
> > Teleglobe International Corporation
> > Time Warner Telecom, Inc.
> > Geneva Financial Center
> > Hitachi, Ltd.
> > Rabobank
> > John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
> > O'Reilly and Associates
> > Korea Telecom Corp.
> > Lucent Technologies
> > NEC Corporation
> > Merita Bank Ltd.
> > Macmillan Computer Publishing
> > Hongkong Telecom
> > Infonet Services Corporation
> >
>
> ---
> You are subscribed to dnso.discuss as: [jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives go to:
> http://lists.association.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=dnso.discuss
> This list system donated by Lyris Technologies (http://www.lyris.com/).

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