I thought it was a question of general interest, as (I hoped) were my own
financial interests when I posted them some time ago.
Esther
At 01:48 AM 14/06/99 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>Esther did you mean to send that out to a couple of public mailing
>lists or was that a late night slip of the finger that was supposed
>to go to Jay only ?
>
>At 10:08 PM 6/13/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
>>Jay -
>>
>>What made you stop consulting for NSI?
>>
>>Curiously,
>>Esther Dyson
>>
>>At 06:25 PM 13/06/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi Antony,
>>>
>>>For the most part, we agree.
>>>
>>>There are, however, a couple of points
>>>I would like to comment on.
>>>
>>>Since you have addressed this email to me,
>>>you seem to be implying that I am no longer
>>>an independent voice. Nothing could be further
>>>from the truth.
>>>
>>>Even when I was consulting for NSI (which ended
>>>with the Berlin meeting), I was not paid to be a
>>>"NSI Supporter." My role was to give NSI my views
>>>on this fiasco, not the other way around!
>>>
>>>And while we agree that NSI has done some things
>>>wrong, I don't persecute them for any original sin
>>>(i.e. wild success with a competitive .com registry).
>>>
>>>Where we strongly disagree, however, is with the
>>>cure. The real solution to this dilemma is a healthy
>>>dose of competition for NSI, not top-heavy regulation.
>>>For if you choose the latter, you subject everyone to
>>>those powerful forces who would love to control this
>>>wonderful thing we call the Internet.
>>>
>>>Respectfully,
>>>
>>>Jay Fenello
>>>President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
>>>
>>>P.S. Please forward this to the DNSO list. I
>>>believe that I have been involuntarily removed!
>>>
>>>
>>>At 04:16 PM 6/13/99 , Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>>>>Don, Jay,
>>>>
>>>>Given the breathtakingly brazen stunts that NSI has pulled at the expense of
>>>>the Internet community, I never thought it would be possible for ICANN to
>>>>make them look like the aggrieved party. But lo, it has come to pass.
>>>>
>>>>This is getting sickening. I've never seen so many people who were
>>>>completely right and never wrong as I've seen on these lists. Are there any
>>>>independent voices out there?
>>>>
>>>>Who can really feel sorry for NSI after all the crap they've pulled?
>>>>Practically no-one, I should think, except their employees. But who can
>>>>support ICANN when they start censoring people? Even fewer (since they have
>>>>fewer employees).
>>>>
>>>>Will the people from the IAHC/gTLD-MoU (and remember, I was founding Chair
>>>>of PAB and spent a lot of time and effort to make that effort succeed), who
>>>>now seem to all think that ICANN is a conclave of the purest wisest Solomons
>>>>ever assembled, presumably because they are at present bashing NSI, never
>>>>realize that:
>>>>
>>>>*The POC was a closed shop, a black box, unreadable and unknowable from the
>>>>outside, intransigent against efforts to open it up and see the
>>>>decision-making process
>>>>
>>>>*Making everyone sign the gTLD-MoU before they got to play was an horrific
>>>>miscue and an affront to Internet stakeholders (hence my attempt to
>>>>introduce a very watered-down "gTLD-MoU lite", consisting of a few
>>>>unobjectionable principles - alas, to no effect).
>>>>
>>>>*If the POC hadn't forced CORE to charge $10K to anyone who wanted to become
>>>>a registrar, which was done just to make sure that "unstable" people didn't
>>>>join, but instead had charged, say, $500, like Nominet does in the UK, we
>>>>wouldn't have had the Green Paper, the White Paper, or the ICANN, which is
>>>>starting to act just like POC, but with less excuse since they have already
>>>>seen that kind of thing fail.
>>>>
>>>>*Basically, NSI did try to torpedo the gTLD-MoU, but that's not why it
>>>>failed. It failed because it was so bloody-mindedly stupid, and so paranoid
>>>>about NSI that it started to act like NSI: paranoid, unaccountable,
>>>
>>>>mealy-mouthed.
>>>>
>>>>*That it's just possible that NSI doesn't realize how horribly they've
>>>>treated everyone, that they actually think they're the good guys, and that
>>>>therefore they should be encouraged to become part of the community and stop
>>>>playing the spoiler.
>>>>
>>>>*That the POC has mostly itself to blame for the Green Paper and the White
>>>>Paper and the plodding interference of the U.S. Government. Do you think
>>>>Magaziner *wanted* to step into this minefield? All you had to do was let a
>>>>few other people play with the ball, but you couldn't let yourself do it.
>>>>
>>>>AND ON THE OTHER SIDE
>>>>
>>>>Will the people who are NSI supporters - and most of them now admit they are
>>>>paid - stop acting the fool and admit that:
>>>>
>>>>*Of course NSI did all it could to torpedo the gTLD-MoU, just as it is now
>>>>dragging its heels to fullest possible extent with ICANN.
>>>>
>>>>*The only reason NSI plays at all in this sandbox is because the only
>>>>gorilla larger than it, the US Govt., is standing over it with a big stick.
>>>>
>>>>*That having secret lists of names they won't register, that not following
>>>>the RFCs, that greeting every domain-name dispute with an army of lawyers,
>>>>that charging the equivalent of a new registration to transfer a name to new
>>>>registrar, that attempting to claim the whois database as their property,
>>>>that replacing the InterNIC site without any warning, that crippling whois
>>>>listings without any warning, and so on ad nauseum until we're all so sick
>>>>of it we can hardly breathe, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR.
>>>>
>>>>*That NSI has mostly itself to blame for the Green Paper and the White Paper
>>>>and the plodding interference of the U.S. Govt. Again, do you think that
>>>>Magaziner wanted to get in the middle of this thing? I know, because I was
>>>>there, that almost any movement toward an accommodation with the gTLD-MoU
>>>>would have led to negotiations that might have got us somewhere. But no.
>>>>Given .com years ago, in a different universe far far away, NSI has latched
>>>>on to it as if they actually earned it, which is truly laughable.
>>>>
>>>>And so Adult Supervision was definitely indicated. Hence the involvement of
>>>>the U.S. Government. Unfortunately for all of us, the supervision, in the
>>>>form of ICANN, is proving to be as puerile and short-sighted as their
>>>>charges.
>>>>
>>>>This was the Internet, this beautiful gift to us all, and just look at the
>>>>preposterous games these fools are playing with it, all these fools who are
>>>>always right, all the time.
>>>>
>>>>PASS THE SICK BAG.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Respectfully,
>>>
>>>Jay Fenello
>>>President, Iperdome, Inc.� 404-943-0524
>>>-----------------------------------------------
>>>What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
>>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>>interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>1 (212) 924-8800
>>1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>>New York, NY 10011 USA
>>http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
>>
>>High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
>>PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>>Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
>>
>>
>>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
>
>
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
