At 09:12 PM 2/22/99 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
>> Jim, had the original "compromise" effort been allowed to proceed, we would
>
>What "compromise" effort?
The IAHC.
It's been convenient for the constant complainers to attack it, as they
attack everything else, but it was created after two years of efforts to
resolve matters through general public discussion and comprised a broad
range of people and points of view, and its proposal represented very
considerable compromise among a collection of concerns.
Its focus was solely upon gTLD adiministration, but that is, in fact, the
only serious topic causing difficulty for ICANN.
You who were one of the most active and constant complainers against
>the IFWP, which was a real effort to progress, should consider these
Nicely selective memory, Jim, failing to distinguish early objections from
later support.
I noted that the IFWP's origins were seriously suspect and that its initial
processes and participation were highly closed. I was hardly the only one
to be concerned.
The nature and operation of the IFWP was then quickly and massively changed
and so did my concerns.
On the other hand, some folks tried to pretend that the IFWP had a larger
mandate than it did, and they tried to use its discussions to claim the
existence of consensus opinions for which there was no basis. I certainly
did not support such coercive and out-of-bound efforts.
>monopoly. You and your allies have succeeded in creating something
>that has persuaded me that there are things much worse than NSI's
>monopoly in .COM/NET/ORG.
Jim, you have pretty much always challenged and complained about whatever
current proposal was on the table.
>I see no risk or loss in delaying ICANN. As time passes, the ICANN
It's clear that some people see no risk. That is good indication of just
how disconnected they are from the real issues. THEY do not have the
continuing problems dealing with an unregulated monopoly that has seriously
flawed policies, developed in a closed manner, and an operations record
that is mediocre, at best.
So as the critics love to argue about openness in the abstract, their
efforts result in the continuing of an entirely closed, profit-based
decision process controlling the most popular portion of the Internet's
name space.
The disconnection also is an indication of failure to appreciate long-term
benefits of cornering a market, a benefit which has NOT escaped notice of
Wall Street analysts.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com> Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464 675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
