Stef,
It sounds like you are an antagonist according to Kent's
definition. So I guess we did provide some support for an
antagonist, even one who is antagonistic to NSI. :)
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Einar Stefferud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 1:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST
Solicitation
No. 52SBNT9C1020
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
