PASS THE BARF BAG INDEED
I must agree with Jay here. To denigrate anyone for their
association
with NSI is disgusting and unnecessary as well. The "Get NSI"
attitude
is by in large, is not called for or productive. This is where
I have the
strongest degree of disagreement with the ICANN (initial?) Interim
Board. Their tactics in this vain are way out of line!
Jay Fenello wrote:
Hi Antony,Regards,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.comP.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
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
