RE: Re[2]: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Hello BobC,

That doesn't change the fact that THIS WG is supposed to make such
recommendation. If this hasn't been discussed here yet, and there has
already been a decision made, then we are all wasting our time here. In
that case, I have some code to write, life to live, and an axe to
sharpen, with an eye on the pencil-neck that is running this railroad
like a circus.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 12:17 AM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re[2]: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal
>
>
> 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".
>
> 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?
>
> BobC
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> A snail was run over by a turtle.
> When asked, "What happened?", he said,
> "It happened so fast, I can't remember".
>