[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [ga] Comments from JPNIC and JPRS

[Marc Schneiders]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, at 23:15 [=GMT-0700], Dave Crocker wrote:

> It really is painful to be forced to acknowledge actual facts. 

Not at all, when facts are presented. A discussion consisting of
"yes" and "no" is indeed painful.

> Nonetheless 
> I comment the effort to all of us:

I join you in this.
  
> At 08:50 PM 10/9/2001, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, at 19:28 [=GMT-0700], Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that an independent registry started "before ICANN" is not an
> > > indication of good intention.
> >
> >Nor is it an indication of bad intent, is it?
> 
> Not surprisingly, you read my note very selectively.  Your homework 
> assignment is to re-read it more carefully and more completely.

Ad hominem.

> >In any case, it does seem a matter of 'decency' to accomodate those that 
> >existed before you.
> 
> Independent work deserves to be treated as independent.

False premises.

> Folks who create DNS top-level domains away from IANA/ICANN root 
> administrative processes deserve to be literally ignored by those processes.

Some of these domains existed before ICANN started, remember? Of
course these pre-ICANN processes 'lost' because of the ICANN
coup. Still, it would be decent to accomodate them, as I said
before. In the early Middle Ages they killed all opponents, even
kin. We are slightly more civilised, aren't we?

> > They have no relevance to the IANA/ICANN root at all.  None. > 

Thanks for the elaborate explanation as to why.

> >Vint Cerf knew that, which is why we have now .info and not .web under 
> >Afilias.
> 
> Inventing convenient interpretations of someone's behavior is, well, 
> convenient, and usually incorrect.  Invention is all that you have done.

I will look again at this great real player video. I suggest you do
to, and tell me what other interpretation is possible/reasonable, as
to why .web was not selected for Afilias. 

> Vint did not do what you have stated, nor did his position stem from the 
> reason you assert.

Does this mean he has explained his ways to you?

> > > Such activities were just as inappropriate then, as they are now.
> >
> >Why? Some of these activities were actively encouraged by IANA.
> 
> To put it politely, you are wrong.  Very wrong.  In fact, completely wrong.

Postel ideas of Nov. '95. IAHC.

> > > The DNS root has always been subject to central administration.
> >
> >Losely.
> 
> It is always frustrating to have people make such an assertion about IANA, 
> given how entirely incorrect they are.
> 
> Do not mistake friendly, personal processes, with processes that are "loose".
> 
> In other words, Marc, as with all of the other assertions in your note, you 
> are entirely wrong.

Right.

> > > ICANN is > merely the most recent group providing oversight.
> >
> >You mean, we can change this? Give it to others?
> 
> Sure.  In fact I encourage you to devote all your efforts to such an activity.

I am not paid for this.

> > > Those attempting to gain market share, independent of the IANA/ICANN root,
> > > have always been creating a problem, especially for anyone who uses them.
> >
> >If you are referring to new.net, you may have a point, if for slightly
> >different reasons than the one you seem to hint at. Could it be
> >possible that others than new.net, both in the past as well as today,
> >are not so much "attempting to gain market share" as providing a
> >service to the public?
> 
> People who seek to break a working system, through a path that cannot 
> *ever* be reconciled, are not providing "a service to the public".
> 
> They are providing a service to themselves, feeding their egos or their 
> pocket books or the like, but they are doing nothing that benefits the rest 
> of the world.

I am sure it is impossible for you to see the true motives of others
who do not share your believe in the one and only true root which is
ICANN.

-- 
marc at pan.bijt.net