On 17-Mar-99 Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> Okay, since it seems that people have a burning desire to know:
>
> (1) I do not do business with ISOC.
>
> (2) I am proud and happy to be a member of ISOC. I am a member of the New
> York City Chapter. In fact, if you really need to know, I am the founder of
> the NYC chapter, and currently sit on its Board of Directors.
Then this goes direct to the credibility of your statement. Your close
affiliation (even so much as to say management affiliation) with ISOC makes it
understandable that you would back Mr Heath and the ISOC.
> (3) I became a member of ISOC long after I weighed in on the Domain Name
> Wars (fwiw, I was a participant on the IAHC-discuss list and I had more than
> a few pointed exchanges with Dave (whose respect I hope I earned and who
> certainly earned my respect) and Perry Metzger (same comments, though Perry
> and I will never be friends :-). I became a member of the PAB, wherein I
> was an outspoken critic of anything anticompetitive in the gTLD fertility
> dance. And now, I just sit on the sidelines and occasionally eng
> age in activities that I won't mention on this non-commercial list :-) But
> none of those activities have jack to do with ISOC.
>
> (4) I am also a customer of NSI. But I am neither proud nor happy of that
> fact. Were I to set up a website today, I'd almost certainly request a
> delegation within the nyc.ny.us domain. But, since my .com domain is paid
> for already, I'll continue (for now) to do business with NSI, even though .
> . . well, the less I say about NSI, the better it is for my blood pressure.
> I'd stillmuch rather have a .info domain :-)
As an NSI customer, I am pleased with their service. As a network operator, I
have a number of criticisms of them. But one cannot say that just because you
are a customers of a company you side with them. There is a difference when
you are involved in MANAGING an organization.
> Now, Mr. Walsh, are you satisfied? Now, have you ever heard the phrase "ad
> hominem?" Have you nothing of substance to add to the debate? Which
> wouldn't even exist but for Don Heath's initiative?? Hmm?? or should we
> instead infer from your inability to proffer a substantive comment that you
> are, in fact, stymied?
Actually, I didn't ask this question of you. I was merely responding to Mr
Crocker's message that the question was out of line. I felt Gordan's question
was of particular interest in light of your criticisms of me for my stance on
the ISOC and Mr Heath.
I don't agree with Mr Heath should have credit for this initiative. Not at
all. I think you are presenting a different history than what the facts seem
to represent.
I have offered a substantive comment. The ISOC is much to blame for the
lack of a truly open market competitive industry in the DNS. They, and Mr
Heath, have been active in blocking attempts for a truly open and competitive
environment, instead of the Duopoly the gTLD-MoU tried to create.
Anyway, Mr Connolly, thank you for answering the question, it should make it
clear to those that read your criticism of my comments on the ISOC why you take
the position with regard to ISOC that you have presented here.
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16-Mar-99
Time: 16:51:48
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
