Re[3]: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Answer the question, Mr Connelly.

How provided you with information that is on your website, and when
was it provided.

That page was recently edited to include that information, so don't
try and make it sound like it was something that has been there for
sometime.


Thursday, August 12, 1999, 12:17:04 AM, Robert F. Connelly <rconnell@psi-japan.com> wrote:

> At 22:41 11-08-99 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

>>assurances given, until this workgroup has finished its work.
>>
>>Is this proof that this workgroup is for naught and the real decisions
>>have already been made, as happened with both ICANN and the DNSO?
>>
>>Is this another betrayal in the making by the CORE/ISOC special
>>interests?

> Do you think these things happen in a vacuum?  Innocent CORE members were 
> led into this thing in 1997 by what appeared to be the "people in charge".

I agree totally. I am sorry you were mislead into believing that those
people had authority they did not have.  The bigger mistake would be
to let them subvert this process now.

> We were permitted to take advance applications with or without a small
> application fee.

> We must constantly try to bring our applicants up to speed.  What I have
> been told, and therefore what we have posted to our applicants, is that the 
> TM interests are concerned that any new gTLDs be rolled out slowly, a bit 
> at a time.  Further, that personal gTLDs like .nom and .per are less 
> controversial, therefore more likely to be delegated to *someone* before 
> gTLDs for commercial uses.

> The text which you see so alarming has been written and rewritten 
> intermittently since shortly after the White Paper was issued.  That was 
> long before there was an ICANN, or a DNSO, or a Registrars Constituency or 
> a Names Council or any of the Working Groups.  Have you ever tried to give 
> an *accurate_description* of a moving train?  Tain't easy;-{

> I think most of those applicants would be happy with other iterations of 
> the IAHC set, nothing sacred about .firm or .shop.  We all know the 
> problems with .web.

> Now that we are a post testbed registrar, we have some solace we can give 
> our applicants.

> So please don't throw around words like "betrayed".  I have good and 
> sufficient reason to feel betrayed, and I'll bet those who applied to CORE 
> members for .firm, .shop, .etcetera feel betrayed.  Who's really at fault?

That doesn't change the fact that the people who are pushing the CORE
agenda in this process have betrayed the open process at every
juncture so far, and what I am seeing is evidence that they are doing
that again.

Your comments don't alleviate that concern, just intensifies it.

Most certainly I believe you were betrayed.  But that doesn't change
the fact, or make it acceptable, that we are being betrayed right now.

--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934


(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org