[wg-c] Why not seek peace? Why the ruckus?

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

That is not at all what I meant. MHSC.NET refers to IOD's WEB for the
TLD and I am assembling a GRS page that includes it. One of the things
DNSO.NET is intended to do is to provide a distro mechanism for these
sorts of things. Karl and I have discussed many of these items over the
years.

What I meant, about Chris, is that IOD made a seriously good faith
effort to be pro forma compliant with the IANA. Personally, I wouldn't
have gone as far. Chris has more patience than I. The bottom-line is
that IANA was never even a legal entity and never did have any sort of
legal backing in meat-space. Its only authority came from the
co-operation of the internet community. IANA could never coerce
anything, directly. It may sound sacrilegious to say this, but it is
true. The IANA is somewhat better off, now that it is part of the ICANN,
but even the ICANN is ONLY a California non-profit corp. It has no more
legal/governance authority than MHSC. ICANN can not send the police in
to shut down MHSC name servers, for example. For ICANN to try it, would
open them up to some serious anti-trust charges.

What this WG is working  on, and the reason I am here, is to seek some
sort of compromise position that would let us co-exist and to continue
the co-operation. This is my personal good-faith effort, as with Chris
and the IANA. I am all for mutual existance and harmony. However, there
are some some serious "I and ONLY I" folks in this forum. I obliquely
refered to this earlier when I pointed out that one side of this debate
is perfectly willing to acknowlege the existance of the other side. But,
that other side only seeks the total extinction of the former. As long
as that sort of attitude exists then we will never reach consensus.

I am perfectly willing to argue points and seek ways and means towards a
compromise position. Chris is here for the same reason, I presume. But,
the reality is that neither of us will co-operate with our own
extinction. We don't have to. As Karl just pointed out, we have other
alternatives. We have technology on our side, not theology. Our
solutions only take a little time and money to perfect. MHSC is a
software development house, after all, with additional ties to the
open-source community. The same community that built Linux.

At least two compromise proposals have been floated on this list and
instead of discussing the proposals, y'all have let the likes of D'Crock
and K'Crisp rat-hole this into a theological debate and a veritable
flood of FUD. There have been many references to "hidden agendii" but I
have never tried to hide mine, neither has Chris. However, our
opposition certainly has.

We have finally come to a point where we either sit down and negotiate
or declare open hostilities. I'm in favor of open negotiation. War is
bad for buisiness. However, without a compromise position the NC can
never legitimately claim consensus.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 3:17 AM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call
> for votes
> on remaining questions
>
>
> At 22:48 30-08-1999 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >In fact, he took great pains to stay
> >within the IANA frame-work.
>
> Does that mean that no .web domains have been made partially
> accessible by
> being in some alternate server such as "Grass Roots Domain
> Servers"?  If
> such is not true, then I have been misinformed.
>
> BobC
>
>