On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
> >> the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD
******
> >> turmoil has been built up nicely to create confusion and concern in the
****************************************************************
> >> other areas, though none existed before.
> >
> >The mother of all conspiracy theories. What is as obvious as the nose
>
> I hope that your bit of hyperbole, is meant as humor, Jim. In any event, I
> didn't claim a conspiracy.
You claim that the "gTLD turmoil has been built up nicely" by some
unnamed party "to create confusion and concern". This reads remarkably
like a claim that a conspiracy exists.
> >I am a director of ISPA, the UK's Internet trade association. I
>
> Ahh, now I see why you thought it was a personal attack. You thought I was
> making some sort of claim about your entire professional career. I wasn't.
>
> I was offering my perception of your positions with respect to the gTLD-
> and IANA-related efforts. To be even more clear, I constrained the
> assessment to proposals that were detailed and for which there was and
> effort underway to implement.
You made a flat assertion without any limitation on it. Your assertion
was demonstrably false. What you said was:
> >> Jim, you have pretty much always challenged and complained about whatever
> >> current proposal was on the table.
and
> Attack? I thought it was an objective tally. Perhaps you actually HAVE
> supported a proposal that was on the table and I missed it. If my memory
> is faulty, what real project/effort/proposal -- that is, something detailed
> and having an organized effort to implement it -- have you supported?
I then listed real, functioning Internet organizations (ISPA UK, EuroISPA,
the LINX, the Internet Watch Foundation, MaNAP) where I have made the
contributions you claim I haven't. I am still a director of three of
these. In other words, Dave, you are wrong. Have the grace to admit it.
> Talk is always cheap and hand waves are even cheaper. The fact that
As you so admirably demonstrate in these paragraphs.
> >I didn't equate NSI and ICANN. I said that NSI seemed likely to be
> >the lesser of two evils. It's somewhere between fantastically bizarre
> >and unprofessionally misleading to claim that I equated the two.
>
> Perhaps the confusion comes from your creative use of the word
> "monopoly" In any event, it is helpful to see you state that you wish to
> keep NSI in its monopolistic position, since your efforts match that goal
> quite well.
This is as logical as your claim that I "equated" NSI and ICANN. I
didn't state that I wish to keep NSI in its monopolistic position; I
said that if the choice was between ICANN building a global bureaucracy
to seize control of the Internet and leaving things as they are, it would
be cheaper to leave things as they are.
I have referred to this a choice between two evils. This is the sort
of language one uses when one regards both choices as undesirable.
It's English, Dave.
> >The fact that the US government hasn't chosen to follow your preferred
> >policy regarding NSI does not mean that the US has no legal mechanisms
> >for dealing with monopolies.
>
> MY preferred? Now who is doing the ad hominem, Jim?
Try replying logically to a logical statement.
> >If it's demonstrably false, demonstrate it. Prove that the US government
> >lacks the legal tools necessary to deal with monopolies. In other words,
>
> I cited the track record and gave an example. The example was
> explicit. Is there something about it that you did not understand, Jim?
I understand that you seem to be incapable of arguing logically. You
said:
> The claim of US power is demonstrably false, by virtue of the continuing
> pattern of poor decision-making the USG has made with respect to NSI and
In clearer English: "The US government has repeatedly made poor decisions.
Therefore it has no power over NSI." This is a non-sequitur. You can
use these arguments to try to prove that various individuals are
incompetent, but you cannot use them to prove that the US government simply
lacks power over NSI.
In fact, the United States is a sovereign state. NSI is a corporation
subject to US law. The two are completely incommensurate and there is
no doubt that NSI is under the power of the US government.
[Dave omits a claim that I would not support a simplified version of
IANN. I replied:]
> >Sometimes, Dave, you just ask for it. I wrote a reply to the Green
> >Paper that proposed the creation of an "IANA lite". Did I support my
> >own proposal? Yes, of course I did.
>
> A proposal is rather more than a basic idea that is written down. It has
> significant detail and is pursued and developed further. Better still is
> that it obtains a base of support.
Oh yes, I know. ICANN, for example, is distinctly lack in support, because
its board has been unable to persuade the Internet community to trust it.
--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
