[IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] RE: ICANN received 44 applications for new TLDs
Anupam Chander writes: First, Mr. Sondow's uneducated claim that I have "only recently become aware of ICANN's activities" is utterly false. I used the word "uneducated" in reference to the ICANN Board, not Mr. Chander. As to Mr. Chander being only recently involved in this affair, I don't recall seeing any posts from him on the related mailing lists (IFWP, Domain-policy, ICANN M.A.C., etc.) during the period 1998-99 (I have been an active subscriber to them), nor do I remember ever having heard him speak at an ICANN meeting during its formation. Where was Mr. Chander when the White Paper was issued? Where was he during the IFWP? Where was he during the debates surrounding the proposals for the NewCo? Where was he during the struggle between the Paris group and the CORE/Trademark group for acceptance by the ICANN Board of bylaws for the DNSO, or the war for control of the NCDNHC? Was he present, but silent? Did he use another name? If he had forwarded my original email in its entirety, others would have understood that the primary thrust of that email was criticism of ICANN's $50k entrance fee. Your so-called "criticism" is typical of the loyal opposition. You, like so many others who have found an unwarranted place in ICANN, operate so as to preserve your new-found and undeserved position by criticizing ICANN "from within", careful always to suggest, in every thing you say, that ICANN is not actually a bad organization, that it has simply made some minor errors, and that it is reformable. These are lies. ICANN was illegitimately created, has proceeded illegitimately in everything it has undertaken including its manipulation of its own bylaws to obviate the most fundamental rules which allowed it to be recognized by the DOC (membership, transparency, and accountability), and is in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws regarding the administration of government agencies and antitrust. Yet you pretend that ICANN need only modify its greed, by changing its TLD application process, to become acceptable. Like a host of other appeasers and collaborators, your criticisms are a cover-up for the irreconcilable breaches of justice, fairness, and legality committed by ICANN and which make it an unreformable and illicit organization. By forwarding my email to multiple lists, he denies me the opportunity to respond to his ridicule because I am not a subscriber to those lists, and my response is thereby automatically rejected by those lists that prohibit non-member postings. The fact that you are not a subscriber to the IFWP and Domain-Policy lists proves my original contention that you are a jonny-come-lately who has only recently become aware of ICANN's activities. Michael Sondow = INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927 =
Re: [IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] RE: ICANN received 44 applications for new TLDs
Kent Crispin wrote: On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:13:25AM -0700, Anupam Chander wrote: [...] Mr. Sondow's future postings will go unanswered by me. That is because he has no answer to them. Generally, that is the best policy. Same for Crispin, whose credibility (never very great, since he is a government employee) reached zero when he went behind the back of the membership of the DNSO-in-formation, re-writing the proposal agreed to in Monterrey in order to incorporate the demands of the trademark lobby without anyone's approval. Michael Sondow = INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927 =
[IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] RE: ICANN received 44 applications for new TLDs
Anupam Chander writes: While I appreciate Mr. Sondow's concern, this seems to me a premature assessment. It seems to premature to Mr. Chander because you he has only recently become aware of ICANN's activities. If he had been following its development for the past two years, as I have, he would admit that the assessment is accurate. At least, he would admit it if he were truthful. I am grateful that Mr. Sondow and others will work to make sure that this view of a greedy ICANN will not come to pass. This is absurd. It has come to pass, despite the efforts of myself and others (not including, however, Mr. Chander). Where has Mr. Chander been all this time, and how does he pretend to come into the fray now, out of nowhere, to give his pedantic and mistaken opinions on ICANN? As an aside, Mr. Sondow quoted one sentence from a long email and cross-posted that sentence to numerous other lists, out of context from both my original email and the long discussion that preceded it on the list to which it was posted (namely, ncdnhc). I am not a subscriber to the ncdnhc list; I received that post because Mr. Chander himself cross-posted it to other lists to which I do subscribe. It was therefore very far from being a personal or restricted message, and I have certainly not broken any rules of netiquet in replying to it and posting my response to other lists concerned with these matters. As to its being out of context, that is simply untrue. There was no context, other than what was contained in the sentence quoted. I think this practice should be discouraged. The practice that needs to be discouraged is that of outsiders like Chander injecting themselves into an ongoing history and attempting to convince list members that their opinion - that ICANN is a legitimate organization - is valid. Michael Sondow = INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927 =
[IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] RE: ICANN received 44 applications for new TLDs
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:13:25AM -0700, Anupam Chander wrote: [...] Mr. Sondow's future postings will go unanswered by me. Generally, that is the best policy. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
[IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] RE: ICANN received 44 applications for new TLDs
Anupam Chander wrote: ICANN can still serve the interests of humankind by not privileging the entities that proposed the TLDs when it decides who will administer the TLDs it awards. If this is a joke, it isn't very funny. ICANN is selling TLDs. The $50K application fee makes that crystal clear. ICANN will now sell registry rights, no doubt for far more than $50K, and will approve those TLDs that are backed by corporations able to pay it huge registry fees. ICANN is a business, albeit one that expects not to pay taxes by pretending to be a "public benefit non-profit corporation" (and it may succeed in avoiding taxes thanks to the dupes who have registered to be "at-large members"). ICANN's board are business people; its DNSO are all business people; and its attorneys are corporate lawyers. ICANN is motivated by one thing and one thing only: greed, the lowest common denominator of the low class of people who created it. Uneducated, selfish, and craven, ICANN will use new TLDs to make as much money as it can. Michael Sondow "We need to be able to judge which is more important - the images on the screen, the mechanisms that produce them, or the world that they are striving to represent." --Oscar Kenshur, in 'The Allure of the Hybrid' INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927
