Re[2]: [wg-c] Trying to close on Question 1

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

Sunday, August 22, 1999, 10:39:00 AM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:

> 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

Why don't you stop misrepresenting what I say, Kent?

I have been of the STRONG and vocal position that options 1 and 2 are
mutually exclusive, and have absolutely separate issues of burdens
that make them diametrically opposite.

What is being proposed by you and Javier, is that those who voted for
option 2 consent to option 1 as a "compromise."  That is no
compromise, it is a capitulation.

> 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?

I did read what you wrote.  And I will say absolutely that you are
wrong.

>> 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?

Kent, you have always been one to stand in the way of independent
attempts to find compromise in contentious areas where you believe one
option is the only way things "should" be done.  You then attack those
who do saying that they are "making strawmen" or otherwise being
unproductive.

I say that this workgroup as an OBLIGATION to work to adjust the 2
mutually exclusive positions to come to some point that a majority of
this workgroup can agree on, even if it is with some reservations.

Why does this concept bother you so much?

>> > > 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.

By YOU.  That doesn't mean it won't "fly," it means that you will
oppose it.  Let the members of the workgroup decide for themselves,
rather than do what you did in the DNSO and decide for them.

>> 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?

Would it be too painful for you to let those who want to do productive
work do so without your attacks?

I say it is you who are afraid of the weakness of your arguments that
they will not stand up to a compromise consensus review.

Time and again you oppose such efforts.  I'm sick of it, and I'm sick
of you mischaracterizing the efforts of others.

--
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