John Charles,
Your accusations are the worst sort of unsupported mudslinging. Ordinarily
I would ignore it, but this is one of those cases where silence could be
dangerous. You seem to doubt the veracity of the IATLD support, presumably
because you and your purported not-for-profit (should I ask you to send me
the incorporation papers or accuse you of being fraudulent?) can't seem to
communicate with each other.
Is it so terribly improbable to you that vast numbers of TLD administrators
disagree with you?
Let me state unequivocally: every one of the TLDs we list as supporting our
call to have ICANN recognize the authority of RFC 1591 affirmatively gave
their support. Who is the TLD? The admin contact, not the "CTO". Every
one of the TLDs who answered our call to support the Paris draft, did so
affirmatively. Affirmatively means: sent an email and unambiguously
supported.
Got it?
Antony
P.S. If you there is a new domain authority, why don't you change the admin
contact? The IATLD listens to the *admin contact* as the authoritative
voice for that domain (as per RFC 1591). If the admin contact is browbeaten
by you into withdrawing that support, have *him* send me a note, and I'll
remove .GP from our lists. Or get yourself listed as the admin contact.
Until then, stop this libellous tripe. You don't know what you're talking
about.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Charles
> Broomfield
> Sent: Saturday, February 06, 1999 9:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Paris Draft Site Up with Full Draft Text
>
>
>
> Hi William,
> There's no doubt at all about where my support is, but it's not that
> which I'm calling in doubt. The company I work for as CTO was one of the
> original signatories of the gTLD-MoU. I do wear two hats, one that of ISP,
> and the other that of tech-contact for ".gp" & ".mq", though the
> GP & Mq NIC
> has recently been incorporated as a non-profit membership organisation, so
> any support or not for movements is not just the decision of a
> single person
> (not mine not Patrick, nor Claude for Martinique).
> From the beginning I did think that the POC/PAB/CORE attempt was
> less than perfect but a good way to go.
>
> Having said that, put up or shut up. Can we see your 73 endorsements from
> your 73 ccTLDs? Or is the iaTLD to be grouped together with INEGroup?
> More specifically, can we see (for example put them on the web) those
> endorsements to the Paris draft? Or are you lot just enjoying yourselves
> adding names of unsuspecting corporations/ccTLDs who know nothing
> about what
> the hell is going on.
>
> Seeing that instead of proving me wrong you prefer to cast doubts on my
> character (ie, attack the person instead of the questions posed), it would
> seem very similar to the denials of a certain 85,000 member group CEO...
> (you know, ask him a question he can't wriggle out of and he'll attack you
> back).
>
> Yours, John Broomfield.
>
> > It should be pointed out that Mr Broomfield has from day one
> tried to cast
> > aspersions on the character of the iaTLD and that he is indeed
> a long time CORE
> > supporter, and his comments should be taken in that light. As
> someone who
> > participated in the original posts on wwTLD and apTLD lists
> regarding the IATLD
> > and RFC1591 discussions I can say that it was made ABUNDANTLY
> clear and I have
> > the archives I can place on the web to prove it, and to show
> the bias of Mr
> > Bloomfield from the beginning.
> >
> > On 06-Feb-99 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Everyone,
> > > Ok, I've said this privately a few times and now I've had
> enough. I haven't
> > > read (yet) either the Paris draft or the BMW draft. However
> there is one
> > > thing that seems screwed about the process involved in the
> Paris draft
> > > (note: something screwed about the PROCESS).
> > > I've just been to http://dnso.association.org to see who
> endorses it, and I
> > > find under the list of endorsing registries "Guadeloupe"
> (strange that
> > > Martinique isn't there seeing that they are both managed by the same
> > > non-profit organisation...).
> > > Why is Guadeloupe there? I presume it stems because the
> admin contact for
> > > Guadeloupe a while back replied to a message with the words
> "I support
> > > RFC-1591".
> > > I actually doubt that the IATLD is more than a front for a
> bunch (5?) of
> > > unscrupulous people. I question very strongly (until I see
> evidence of it)
> > > their so called involvement and support from all those
> ccTLDs (73 of them
> > > according to them).
> > > Patrick Raimond (the admin contact for ".gp") speaks reasonably good
> > > English. I saw the message he had received and it was asking
> for support of
> > > RFC-1591 in the ICANN bylaws (or something along those
> lines, in any case it
> > > wasn't clear). He said that he had understood the question
> to be if he
> > > supported RFC-1591. Obviously he DOES support RFC-1591, as I
> expect just
> > > about everyone else who runs any registry. In any case, it
> was not at all
> > > clear that it was an endorsement on behalf of the GP & MQ
> NIC. In other
> > > words, it was a personal question.
> > > I would imagine that the fluency in English of many contacts
> for other
> > > registries is less than that of Patrick, so it would seem
> that the so called
> > > support is actually quite fraudulent. IATLD is a fake.
> > >
> > > I request: get GP off your lists and your webpage. (I have
> no idea whether
> > > we will support the Paris draft or not, but that support is
> premature to see
> > > the least).
> > >
> > > Yours, John Broomfield.
> > > GP & MQ NIC.
> > >
> > > > Hello everyone. After catching up on some sleep, I have now
> made sure that
> > > > the http://dnso.association.org/ web site is now up to date with the
> > > > complete draft of the Paris Draft Proposal, the cover letter and the
> > > > supporting letter from AIP, with the appendix of proposed edits that
> > > > couldn't make it in on time from AIP and NSI.
> > > >
> > > > The supporting organization list is up, as well, along with
> the contact
> > > > email for suggestions to the draft (which we are archiving) -
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the official list for the
> Paris Draft -
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > If you are a supporting organization, or think you may want
> to be one,
> > > > please review the supporting organizations page to make
> sure we have your
> > > > information correctly. Please make sure we have the URL,
> and, if it says
> > > > "<Description Forthcoming>", we need your brief one-paragraph
> > > > organizational
> > > > description. Please send these to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > I want to say thank you to everyone involved in this
> process, and I look
> > > > forward to moving forward in this open forum in bringing
> together the
> > > > various drafts that were submitted. It is my hope that we
> can come closer
> > > > and ideally merge multiple drafts out there before the
> Singapore meeting.
> > > >
> > > > And now, on that note, I'm going to go catch up on some
> sleep. Have a great
> > > > weekend, everyone!
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Andrew Kraft
> > > > --
> > > > Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP
> > > > Executive Director, Association of Internet Professionals (AIP)
> > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Phone: 310-724-6589
> > > > More Info: http://www.association.org/
> > > >
> >
> > ----------------------------------
> > E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 06-Feb-99
> > Time: 12:32:12
> > ----------------------------------
> > "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
> >
>
>
