Re: Applications and Public Trust (was Re: Expansion of theIAHC)

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 10:53 PM -0500 12/4/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Simon Higgs writes:
> > Perry,
> >
> > > Your mischaracterization of my remarks is astounding -- in fact,
> > > outrageous.
> >
> > Why thank you. Your editorial judgement is almost as prolific as Jim
> > Fleming's.
>
> You claimed, Mr. Higgs:
> >>> Just for the record, Perry has told me in private email, and in no
> >>> uncertain terms, that his mind is already made up based on his
> >>> "historical perspective of the net", and that he has already decided
> >>> how he is going to vote. Perry's message below also indicates that this
> >>> whole situation is very inflexible (an Ad Hoc Committee, huh?) and that
> >>> it cannot/will not flex to meet the real issues on behalf of the
> >>> internet community. This leads me to understand there will be little
> >>> deliberation. If you are agreeing with Perry, then can we all assume
> >>> that you too have already decided the fate of these issues?
>
> Your comments are an utterly outrageous distortion of what I said, and
> are completely without basis.
>

QUOTE: "I indicated that on one particular small issue that my mind was
made up"

Uh huh. It's just a primary issue that many other issues hinge upon.

Why do you continue to refuse to acknowlege the public trust issues
that make up this "one particular small issue"? You won't address
specific & relevent passages of RFC1591 because they show your decision
"on one particular small issue" to be completely misguided.

You say the committee wants input into this process. I'm giving this
forum my input and my reasoning behind it. What happens? Perry has
already decided one this "one particular small issue".

Oh yes, and in your replies you REMOVE my comments addressing the very
issues that the committee is soliciting input on, and instead drone on
about your pitiful hurt pride. Get over it. We're discussing more
important issues that your vanity.

> I have posted the text of the private messages you
> mischaracterized. The members of this list are free to read them and
> see if I was stating that I had a fixed and unchangeable position on
> the whole of the work of the IAHC, as you just claimed, or if I merely
> was stating that I felt that the question of whether ISO-3166 TLDs
> having historically been treated differently from other TLDs was a
> matter of well known historical fact.
>

The written guidelines within RFC1591 are very clear, and you won't
address that because you can't dispute it. "All" means "all" and "must"
means "must". Oh sorry, I forgot you're from New York - does "trust me"
still mean "f*ck you" there? Now I understand...

Process the existing TLD applications, like the RFC says to. It's
called consensus. These applications are part of the internet
community's consensus. Each application is a vote against you. There
are a lot of them. Including 150 of them in draft-postel.


Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.