Stef and all,
Very good points here stef! I hope others are paying atention.
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> Hi Antony -- Actually, some people see me as being quite dpiplomatic
> much of the time;-)... Some other people find this idea to be quite
> surprising;-)...
>
> I found some additional context on the IFWP list, and have just
> replied there, with a clear statement that the real problem is,
> following up on Jay's comments, that the US Govt and ICANN, apparently
> conspiring to maintain the current market structure failure in their
> interests of justifying the need for World Wide DNS Services
> Regulation.
>
> In that sense, this entire thing is going in the wrong direction, nad
> beating on NSI is not helpful. NSI is actually a very happy victim
> (in terms of prospective sort term profits) but on the other hand, a
> very unhappy victim (in terms of long terms prospects of incresing
> levels of regulatory confinement).
>
> NSI (in my personal, unveridied opinion) wants InterRegistry
> Competition, as do most of the rest of us, in place of Industrial
> Stength Global Regulation of the Use of Names in the Internet
> Communications System.
>
> So, until I learn more about what has happened with the Internic, my
> opinion is that what you are complaining about is simply another
> unexpected disfunctional result of DNS regulation!
>
> What we need is action to rsolve the primary problem and stop spending
> all our efforts trying to corral the unintended consequences of
> inappropriate regulatory actions intended to solve the problems by
> treating the symptoms of previous bad regulatory actions!
>
> Thi whosle DNS MESS can only spiral down into a terrible abyss is w
> continue on the current path, which his in fact, not caused by NSI's
> actions. NSI is not the regulator here!
>
> You are blaming the wrong party.
>
> You should be targetting the regulators!
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
> >From your message Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:26:25 -0500:
> }
> }Stef,
> }
> }You are -- can I say it? -- uncharacteristically diplomatic. My basic
> }feeling is that the InterNIC qua InterNIC, that is, the repository of public
> }Internet information (whois, rfcs, etc etc) has been rerouted to a
> }commercial site, and it's fairly obvious to me at least that this is done to
> }the detriment of all Internet users with the exception of Network Solutions.
> }
> }You have been very vocal in the past about openness of process. This is the
> }biggest practical change in the domain name arena in quite some time, and it
> }was done over a weekend without the slightest warning.
> }
> }What context exactly are you looking for?
> }
> }Antony
> }
> }>-----Original Message-----
> }>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Einar Stefferud
> }>Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 12:51 PM
> }>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>Subject: Re: NSI's actions
> }>
> }>
> }>Hi Antony --
> }>
> }>Of course, NSI is not able to respond as a company like you and I and
> }>many others can over a weekend;-)...
> }>
> }>I am certainly concerned and want to understand more about it, but so
> }>far niether you nor any0one else has preovided me with pointers to the
> }>more complete explanation of what you are talking about.
> }>
> }>So, I await further information before joining you in your
> }>condemnation. I generally try to avoid context free arguments;-)...
> }>Nothing personal. I just don't yet understand the issues at hand.
> }>
> }>Cheers...\Stef
> }>
> }>>From your message Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:55:44 -0500:
> }>}
> }>}Einar,
> }>}
> }>}He said thank you, he'd pass it on to management. As someone
> }>said, there's
> }>}a common translation for that.
> }>}
> }>}Antony
> }>}
> }>}>-----Original Message-----
> }>}>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Einar Stefferud
> }>}>Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 2:09 AM
> }>}>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>Subject: Re: NSI's actions
> }>}>
> }>}>
> }>}>Hello Antony -
> }>}>
> }>}>At this point, it seems fair to me to await an NSI reponse to your
> }>}>message to Chuck Gomes.
> }>}>
> }>}>In the meantime, can you point us at some more information, such as
> }>}>the announcements or event reports that you seem to be responding to?
> }>}>
> }>}>Thanks...\Stef
> }>}>
> }>}>>From your message Sun, 21 Mar 1999 18:52:57 -0500:
> }>}>}
> }>}>}Dan,
> }>}>}
> }>}>}I replied to Chuck Gomes with my thoughts on why this was monopolistic
> }>}>}behavior, and I copied it to this list.
> }>}>}
> }>}>}I wonder if you disagree.
> }>}>}
> }>}>}Antony
> }>}>}
> }>}>}>-----Original Message-----
> }>}>}>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>}>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan Steinberg
> }>}>}>Sent: Sunday, March 21, 1999 9:01 AM
> }>}>}>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>}>Subject: Re: NSI's actions
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>I have followed this thread with some (but not a lot of) interest.
> }>}>}>You will notice that I have not commented, and that I have not
> }>}>}>hesitated to criticize NSI in the past. Here is why. I comment when
> }>}>}>I find major harm is being done. To me major harm can be actions
> }>}>}>against a single entity or a series of actions against smaller
> }>}>}>entities (the classic class-action situation).
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>Applying that test, I have criticized NSI frequently for:
> }>}>}>* their (insert adjective) flawed dispute policy
> }>}>}>* their silence on the lists and other public fora (since corrected)
> }>}>}>* their tendency to private solutions not open source internet-type
> }>}>}>thingies
> }>}>}>* lack of public input into their policies
> }>}>}>* poor (or nonexistent) communication of changes and/or system
> }>}>}>problems
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>Of the above, the current action appears to closely fit the last one.
> }>}>}>But so many people have already commented that I will not bother. I
> }>}>}>make it a point of avoiding the 'me too', 'me three' syndrome. I have
> }>}>}>to have something new to say. And, I also have to feel that the
> }>}>}>subject is important.
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>As for "Macchiavellian monopolist", I am afraid I don't have a warm
> }>}>}>fuzzy feeling of exactly what wrong is being done by NSI, such that I
> }>}>}>should comment. That phrase is pretty much content-free. So you had
> }>}>}>better explain your position some more before you can expect me to
> }>}>}>make any comments. And in the end, I may choose not to. Not because
> }>}>}>of any (perceived) lack of independence. Simply because what you feel
> }>}>}>is important may not be what I feel is important.
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> }>}>}>>
> }>}>}>> OK, you guys on this list who have been funded to some extent by
> }>}>}>NSI, now's
> }>}>}>> the time to show you're independent, and that the funding
> }>didn't really
> }>}>}>> affect your judgment or independence or censor your speech.
> }>}>}>>
> }>}>}>> What they've done today, in pointing the InterNIC traffic to
> }>}>}>> networksolutions.com, is the work of a Macchiavellian
> }>}>}>monopolist. There's
> }>}>}>> just nothing else to be said about it. It's a kick in the teeth
> }>}>}>to anyone
> }>}>}>> who is looking for competition in .com, .net, and .org.
> }>}>}>>
> }>}>}>> Speak up now, or say why you won't.
> }>}>}>>
> }>}>}>> Antony
> }>}>}>>
> }>}>}>> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> }>}>}>> Boundary, n. In political geography, an
> }>}>}>> imaginary line between two nations, separating
> }>}>}>> the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary
> }>}>}>> rights of another. -- Ambrose Bierce, The
> }>}>}>> Devil's Dictionary
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>--
> }>}>}>Dan Steinberg
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> }>}>}>35, du Ravin
> }>}>}>Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
> }>}>}>Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> }>}>}>J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}
> }>}>
> }>}
> }>
> }
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
