(message sent again to the list, clock off and wrong account.)
snip
>
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>> The last time there was discussion about your private root servers, there
>> were a number of questions and comments you or new.net did not respond to.
>> That in itself makes me seriously question what your company is doing, as
>> well as a number of other very significant issues. Other questions you
>> refused to answer included who are your shareholders and what is the
>> financial and power structure of your company. You seemed to think it was
>> none of my business to ask. Well, that lack of transparency sent a warning
>> flag up to me.
>
> If I recollect properly, you asked for detailed business plan
> information as well as the identities of our shareholders. Those things
> aren't any of your business, and I won't answer those questions simply to
> satisfy your curiosity.
This isn't a matter of curiosity. It is much more serious than that. As i
said before, this lack of disclosure is one of a number of reasons why i am
opposed to what you are doing. Why is it you won't inform the internet
community about who is behind your company and what it's structure is?
By the way, in most situations, it's not something that i usually ask of
people i don't know. In this case, imo, there is a huge responsibility that
is connected to your companys' vision. As someone who cares deeply about
the Net, i think it is very reasonable for me to ask.
>
>>
>> You recently wrote.
>> snip.
>>> disclosure" we are very comfortable that people who register names at
>>> New.net
>>> know what they are getting.
>> I am opposed to your private company controlling and selling domain names
>> for words that are in the public domain. I simply don't trust that a
>> private company will manage this resource properly.
>
> *shrug* That's certainly your perogative.
Absolutely.
>
>> Certain aspects of the Net MUST remain in the public domain. One of those
>> is domain names.
>
> They never were. You are welcome to prove me wrong.
>
> ICANN rather one likes the organization or not, is not operating in the
> "public domain." It is a private corporation.
> discussion, but even if we were to say they were, public benefit does not
you got cut off here. You may be correct here, on a legal and on a power
level. Icann needs to be revamped or replaced. I don't think your model is
the direction to go in.
>
>> With that said, i am no fan of Icann, but i am less of a fan of what you
>> are attempting to do.
>>
>> No private company should be able to control something as significant as
>> TLD's. For 2 reasons. (likely others as well, but it's time to sleep.)
>>
>> 1. Language or communication must default to being available to all.
>> It is our collective public domain. Imo, you have no right to attempt
>> to control or monopolize or politicize .kids .xxx or . whatever common
>> word we all share/use collectively. It is potentially dangerous and
>> hazardous.
>
> That is certainly one view. It's unfortunate your world isn't big enough
> to allow for a variety of differing models of operation.
With respect to TLD's, i believe it is vital that there is one strong system
in place for many reasons. With respect to many other things in my big
world, i welcome differing models of operation.
>
>> 2. If you go out of business in the next 48 hours, then there is a
>> possibility all those websites will go dead. This could do serious
>> economic, political and cultural damage to website owners and internet users
>> who use new.net's roots.
>
> Well except for death and taxes nothing in life is guaranteed. :-)
>
>> If you are serious about discussing or dealing with new.net in a public
>> forum, i suggest you attempt to answer all questions and concerns.
>
> Have you stopped beating your wife yet? :-)
Interesting attempt at humor/dissing. It's clear we have a different sense
of humour. It doesn't work for me, Patrick. Spousal abuse is a pathetic
and tragic crime. If new.net and it's representatives need to end their
emails with this kind of approach, i have even less faith in what you are
doing.
If you want to continue this public dialogue or go privately, i would prefer
to stick to the technical, economic, and political implications of the
issue.
Swerve
********
Earth is
*********
>
>
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Patrick Greenwell
> Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
