At 03:02 AM 2/24/99 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
>> ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
>> the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD
>> turmoil has been built up nicely to create confusion and concern in the
>> other areas, though none existed before.
>
>The mother of all conspiracy theories. What is as obvious as the nose
I hope that your bit of hyperbole, is meant as humor, Jim. In any event, I
didn't claim a conspiracy. In fact I wish that things were that simple and
that it really was a case of one or another organization having a grand
plan and manipulating things accordingly. Although it is pretty well
documented that NSI has selectively funded a number of antagonists to the
processes that have been underway, there are plenty of other factors
contributing to the turmoil.
>I am a director of ISPA, the UK's Internet trade association. I
Ahh, now I see why you thought it was a personal attack. You thought I was
making some sort of claim about your entire professional career. I wasn't.
I was offering my perception of your positions with respect to the gTLD-
and IANA-related efforts. To be even more clear, I constrained the
assessment to proposals that were detailed and for which there was and
effort underway to implement.
Talk is always cheap and hand waves are even cheaper. The fact that
someone, somewhere chooses to claim that one or another thing is possible
does not count as a proposal. What counts is doing the real work and
recruiting real support and pursuing real implementation.
I am constraining my summary statement to the rather limited set of those
efforts. My perception is that you have been against every one of
them. As I say, if that perception is incorrect, please indicate which
such proposal you supported.
>I didn't equate NSI and ICANN. I said that NSI seemed likely to be
>the lesser of two evils. It's somewhere between fantastically bizarre
>and unprofessionally misleading to claim that I equated the two.
Perhaps the confusion comes from your creative use of the word
"monopoly" In any event, it is helpful to see you state that you wish to
keep NSI in its monopolistic position, since your efforts match that goal
quite well.
>The fact that the US government hasn't chosen to follow your preferred
>policy regarding NSI does not mean that the US has no legal mechanisms
>for dealing with monopolies.
MY preferred? Now who is doing the ad hominem, Jim? Criticisms of NSI's
policies are rather broader than just me. For that matter, the remarkably
consistent pattern of poor control of NSI by the US government makes clear
that theory doesn't matter much, when compared with practise. In practise,
NSI has come out on top on every government action, to the detriment of
potential competitors, individual domain name holders, and customers. The
only constituency doing well under NSI's winning streak are the major
trademark holders, since NSI's policies favor them.
>If it's demonstrably false, demonstrate it. Prove that the US government
>lacks the legal tools necessary to deal with monopolies. In other words,
I cited the track record and gave an example. The example was
explicit. Is there something about it that you did not understand, Jim?
>No one has spoken of demonic predilections here. I have, however, said
Well, actually, they HAVE, Jim. Take a look back and see the recent effort
to interpret things as being willing to make a pact with the devil. (That
language was used explicitly.)
>Sometimes, Dave, you just ask for it. I wrote a reply to the Green
>Paper that proposed the creation of an "IANA lite". Did I support my
>own proposal? Yes, of course I did.
A proposal is rather more than a basic idea that is written down. It has
significant detail and is pursued and developed further. Better still is
that it obtains a base of support.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
