Jim,
No doubt, folks are getting as tired of this exchange as you and I are, so
this will thankfully be my last posting on the thread, as apparently the
last was yours. I bother making it primarily to document some interesting
disparities.
At 12:14 AM 3/1/99 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
>Your original claim was that I never contributed anything, that I
>just complained.
1. That wasn't what was said. The exact text was:
>>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.
To say that you always complain about a proposal is not to say that you do
nothing but complain. The fact that attending to the difference between
these two statements is proving difficult for you is unfortunate, since the
distinction isn't even all that subtle.
2. My statement was made in the context of the gTLD/IANA discussions. To
the extent that my wording was not clear enough for you, I offered more
precise language as soon as the nature of the misunderstanding was
evident. You have chosen to ignore that, continuing to respond only with
your original (mis)understanding of the original text. Why is that?
>If I search through the last couple of weeks of contributions to this
>list from yourself, what I find is this:
Well, it is certainly fascinating to see how much time you are willing to
put into compiling such a compendium, but not put into more careful reading
(and responding). Had you done the latter, one suspects this thread would
have ended long ago.
And, of course, it's worth nothing that while you put so much effort into
pushing back on me, you have not yet responded to the query about your
support of any developed, pursued proposal in the gTLD/IANA context.
>This is every message you have posted to this list in this period. By and
>large, what I have extracted is your first few words. There is a
>remarkable consistency to these messages.
Indeed there is. I've made a point of focusing on matters of process,
particular on the efforts by some major activists to frustrate and delay
the process. That is why a contributor's history of always being against
whatever proposal was the primary focus is significant, Jim.
For any interesting activity, there is always plenty to
criticize. Seriously constructive contribution requires a willingness for
serious compromise. It means agreeing to things you don't like, rather
than constantly attacking them. When a participant shows a pattern of
being UNwilling to compromise, and even a pattern of constantly insisting
on delay, that becomes a relevant aspect to their role in the process.
>This particular sub-thread began when I proposed that the ICANN process be
>delayed, arguing that recent developments have betrayed an imperial
>tendency that would cost more than any damage resulting from delay. The
>response from Dave Crocker was simply a personal attack: I always
It was a claim about the pattern of your positions with respect to primary
efforts. If progress is to be made, then constant demands for delays must
be ignored. The source of such demands becomes highly relevant, when the
source is, itself, constant in seeking delay.
If the proffered summary of your positions is incorrect -- as you have
claimed -- all you have to do is cite a gTLD- or IANA-related proposal that
has had serious effort behind it and that you have supported.
There is nothing complicated, emotional or subjective about this, Jim,
except to the extent you make it so.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
