On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > 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?
Because this isn't a non-profit organization, nor is it a public company.
It appears from your messages that you are a very strong proponent of a
centralized organization controlling every aspect of the namespace, which
isn't something that I think we'll find much agreement on.
> 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.
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> >> 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. I don't think your model is the
> direction to go in.
Sorry about that. It should have read "Even if we were to say that they
were, public benefit does not equate to the names being in the public
domain.
> >> 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.
Then it seems we have nothing further to discuss.
> >> 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.
On that we agree, but it is a pretty common method of pointing out that a
question someone is asking is impossible to give a "right" answer to. I
apologize if you found it offensive.
You demand answers to questions that really have no bearing on rather or
not we are offering a reasonable service, and then claim if I don't answer all
of them that somehow we're not acting seriously. That's not a game I'm
willing to play, sorry.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
