Re: Re[6]: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>]

If you read the quote again, you will notice that the wording was
"anticipates" - in my mind, this is an equal substitute for "guesses"...

Me: I anticipate that I will enjoy my lunch.
CNET: A CORE member anticipates that lunch will be enjoyable.

Your dwelling on semantics anticipating the existence of some global
conspiracy. As a member of this "inner circle" I can unequivocally state
that I have never seen it. Unless of course I'm part of the conspiracy and
I'm purely here to misinform you...

-RWR

----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
To: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com>
Cc: Robert F. Connelly <rconnell@psi-japan.com>; <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 8:11 AM
Subject: Re[6]: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal


> Thursday, August 12, 1999, 5:08:52 AM, Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com>
wrote:
>
> >>
> >>The question deserves an answer.  Who provided information to this
> >>effect, and when did they do so?
> >>
>
>
> > As a CORE member who also "anticipates" that .nom will likely be
"first", I
> > can give you my answers...
>
> > It's called an educated guess.
>
> > No one in CORE has ever told me that .nom will be first.
> > No one in ICANN has ever told me that .nom will be first.
> > As a matter of fact, I think that this is the first time that I have
> > discussed this with anyone...
>
> > .nom (or .per, or .name etc.) are *safe* TLDs. The stakes are very low
with
> > them and it has always been my gut feeling that this will proceed along
a
> > path of least resistance - at least at first to ensure proof of concept.
> > What better way to do it than launch a gTLD that will likely only be
used
> > by people like my Dad who would love to be Bob@Rader.per?
>
> Then were does the date come in for adding the new TLD?
>
> Sorry, this really sounds like there is more firm information going on
> then what is being revealed here. The notice specifically says that
> this "CORE believes" implying that someone representing CORE said
> these things.
>
> If not, then this is a case of a CORE member lying to their customers,
> and I really don't picture Robert doing that.
>
> I'd like to know WHO said this, and when, and on what basis they said
> it.  How dare they say it, when this workgroup has not even had a
> chance to decide on even the most basic issues, much less even come to
> an agreement that CORE will be a part of the initially added TLDs.
> These issues are FAR from a given, if this workgroup is REALLY going
> to come up with valid recommendations, rather than just be a vehicle
> for certain special interests to point to and say "look we ran an open
> process" despite the fact they ignored what the "open process" was
> doing.
>
> I still await an answer.
>
> Where did this information about CORE getting a TLD added in Oct/Nov?
> Who said this and led this CORE member into believing it and telling
> their customers this?
>
> Is this the type of ethical behavior one can expect from the CORE
> group?
>
> Yes, I'm angry.  No group in this process has ANY right to declare
> what the outcome is likely to be when the work has only just begun,
> and the implication in doing so is that the work will have no impact
> on what is really done.  I'm concerned because this is EXACTLY what
> happened with both ICANN and the DNSO.
>
> --
> William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
> Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
> Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
>
> (IDNO MEMBER)
> Support the Cyberspace Association, the
> constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org
>