Hello Chuck and all --
I have been no less harsh in criticism of NSI policies and operations
than of ICANN polices and operations, or of IAHC/CORE policies and
operations.
I have accepted travel exepense support from NSI ($800+) to attend the
ICANN Boston "open" Meeting, and also support from a member of CORE
EXECOM ($1000) to attend the DNSO.ORG Monterrey meeting. Both amounts
just covered my expenses for the combined trip to attend both meetings
on consecutive days last November.
I funded my own way to IFWP Singapore last August and to IFWP in
Reston last July. I am out about $5,000 in personal expense last year
in support of ORSC interests in DNS and ICANN.
I conditioned acceptance of all funding of this kind with a specific
statement that I would only represent myself and my ORSC interests,
and I would have refused the NSI or CORE based funding if there had
been any hint of resistance to my demand for total independence. My
positions on all this have been widely broadcast to many public fora.
In fact, NSI provided the funding after I personally beat on the NSI
delegation to the Singapore IFWP about how they run .com, .org, .net,
as I accepted a free taxi ride to the airport on our way home. I have
never hesitated to criticize NSI for stuff that I disagree about, and
I still think that their TM policy stinks!
But, I see ICANN as a much greater peril to the whole future of the
DNS, and I see that what ICANN is doing is more likely to perpetuate
the NSI monopoly than anything else, as ICANN appears to be planning
to impose the same NSI/NTIA invented business regulation model on all
DNS registries and registrars. It is totally clear that ICANN has
made no effort to disclaim this charge, and until ICANN does disclaim
it, I will claim that they do in fact have exactly this in mind.
The problem is in the Market Structure Failure which ICANN policy
promises to perpetuate by limiting new TLDs and imposing heacy
regularion on the entire DNS industry. ICANN policy appears to be
focused on forming a global DNS CARTEL, while NSI is welcoming
competition from other TLDS in an open market.
So, you all get to choose your poison.
So, for whatever it is worth, I intend to hold all ICANN supporters to
be contributors to this outcome if it ever comes to pass.
I find that for solid ethical and fairness reasons, I must oppose what
ICANN is trying to do, and what ICANN is actually doing. And I will
accept support from anyone who offers it in this crusade, provided
that they do not restrict me in any way.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:14:40 -0500:
}
}Kent,
}
}Is your definition of an antagonist one who does not support ICANN? Should
}we all just blindly accept everything that ICANN proposes, without careful
}analysis and evaluation? I really doubt that you feel that way.
}
}Chuck
}
}-----Original Message-----
}From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
}Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 12:05 PM
}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation
}No. 52SBNT9C1020
}
}
}On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:45:02AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}> Dave,
}>
}> Please name any antagonists that NSI funded to the process.
}> Is an antagonist someone who disagrees with you?
}
}Adam Todd and Richard Sexton have both publically stated that NSI
}funded their travel expenses. Both have expressed their, shall we
}say, lack of support for ICANN. They also disagree with Dave, of
}course.
}
}--
}Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
