Re: [wg-c] Trying to close on Question 1

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 12:01:56PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Most of the people in this group seem to be interested in
> working toward some agreeable or acceptable position.
> I think you're the odd man out here, Kent.
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > Of course there is indeed a significant difference -- Javier's
> > proposition is that we simply admit there is no consensus, and
> > report the level of support for the different options.  Option 1
> > didn't say that at all.
> >
> > There is wide support for a limited rollout, followed by an evaluation.
> 
> Half of the group expressed support foroption 1, and half didn't.

Totally irrelevant.  The statement I made above, I am assured by
William Walsh, was a component of *both* option 1 and option 2.  Do
you disagree with that?  Could you take your eyes off your script 
for just long enough to read what I actually wrote?  Do you think 
that would destroy your credibility?

> It is
> clear to the more cooperative members
> of the WG that we can do much better than a 50-50 split if we
> make some minor adjustments in how we approach and specify
> the initial rollout.

Why don't you stop making silly strawmen, and address the language I
wrote, instead of some imaginary point more in keeping with your
pathological need to make biting comments?

> > > Look at what Kevin has proposed.
> >
> > A obvious non-starter -- it specifies particular registry operators,
> > which obviously cannot be done -- any tender for registry operator
> > not done through an open application and selection process is simply
> > not going to fly.
> 
> It does not specify particular registry operators.Those were used as an
> example or illustration.

Oh, OK.  It sure looked to me like they were part of the proposal... 

> Specific gTLD *names* were used (per, nom), and there was
> a statement that there would be three new registries
> as opposed to just one. 

There is another problem with .per, of course, in that it is claimed 
by Iperdome as a private property.  That won't fly, either.

> That's important, and that
> position commands far more support than your
> transparent attempt to create a registry monopoly.

Why don't you just put your hands in your lap and think for thirty 
seconds before you go off creating yet another strawman?  Would it 
be too painful for you to actually address what people write instead 
of what you are fantasizing about?  Are you that afraid of the 
weakness of your own arguments?

Seriously.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain