Re: understanding consensus

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

Since your email address is non-existent, and since I just CAN'T sit
here without replying, I am doing so through the list.  They just may
find your TRUE feelings enlightening.

John Palmer wrote:
> 
> Vince Wolodkin wrote:
> >
> > Could be that only those with money on the line contributed to the mass
> > posting over Christmas yet.  I couldn't believe the volume.  I think
> > many are interested, just not enough to argue with people whose cheif
> > concern over the proposal is how it affects THEM.
> 
> Of course we are. What the FUCK is wrong with that???
> 

Nothing, but I feel that the end-users are the people to protect here. 
Absent any meaningful regulation of this process, we need to institute a
system where the user is protected.

> >
> > The proposal should be viewed for its merits to the public at large.
> > Chris, your particular statements are ridiculous.  Things like
> > (paraphrasing) "If you don't change this, we won't be involved and will
> > seek other avenues."  Fine, do it.  Who cares.  I think your attitude
> > has shown that you aren't a particularly good candidate to run a
> > registry.  Of course, that's just my opinion, and its worth about as
> > much as yours.
> 
> We will do it. I have about $9mil to spend on discrediting the
> IAHC and IANA and will be able to convince people - why - because
> this sickening SOCIALIST pile of shit that this UN-Style new
> world order crowd has concocted is bad for the internet.
> 

Great, spend away.  It's good for the internet, it's bad for you.  News
Flash, you are not the internet.

> >
> > I've become a little disillusioned with this process, I mean, there are
> > 3 or 4 people involved in this process who don't give a damn about
> > anything but their pocketbook.  This isn't a moral judgement, but the
> > opinions of those whose sole ambition is their own prosperity shouldn't
> > even be counted toward consensus.  I guess you could call it a conflict
> > of interest.
> >
> 
> Listen, you little FUCK - it is our money and effort that sustain the
> internet. Without US, (and now without federal funds), this little
> "experiment" would disappear over night.
> 

I seriously doubt that without you the internet would disappear
overnight.  I think you overrate yourself.  Plenty of companies will be
willing to provide internet connectivity WITHOUT raping the public for a
domain name.

> > I think the draft has done rather well at representing consensus.  Many
> > people on this list posted just once or twice,(prior to the draft) I
> > recall their messages as generally agreeing in spirit with the draft.
> > The large bulk of the small posters seemed to prefer treating the
> > namespace as a public trust, having shared registries, and generally
> > wanting things to handled without making anyone else rich.
> >
> 
> Whats wrong with people getting rich? Whats wrong with people making
> money and using it to develope and deploy multi-gigabit switching nodes
> for internet backbone traffic - what the fuck do you think - that
> this hardware grows on trees. It costs $30k for a lousy little Cisco
> 4000 with one DS-3 connection and a few T-1's. How much do you think
> a whole switchroom of fiber optics and Cisco 7500 Packet switches
> would cost. (I'll give you a hint - we are involved in the design of
> one now: Try about $23 million dollars).
> 
> Who pays for all of this??
> 

Well, lots of companies manage to make money AND provide large
backbones.  I think I call them MCI, UUnet, PSI, and Sprint.  They seem
to be able to afford all of this without robbing the public.  I don't
see how your business expenses lead to the justification that you should
be allowed to monopolize a public trust.

> > cheeseball contract before any of these people who want to run a
> > registry ever heard of the internet.  You can call this business savvy
> > or dumb luck, they play about the same in my book.  In any case, they
> > were there and they picked up what turned into a lucrative government
> > contract.
> >
> > I think the bulk of the people just don't have the energy to argue with
> > the four horsemen(you can figure who they are;-)
> >
> > Vince Wolodkin
> >
> 
> The "four horsemen" are the money men who try to figure out a way to
> sustain what used to be a government project. In return, they want to
> make a profit. Thats the only viable economic model that has ever worked
> in this world while letting more people live in the middle class
> than any time in history.
> 
> GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD. WE DONT NEED A 'NEW WORLD SOCIALIST
> ORDER' YOUR FLAMING LIBERAL POLICIES OF BASHING CAPITAL MAKERS WONT
> WORK. WE CONTROL THE NETWORK BECAUSE WE HAVE THE MONEY. IF YOU GET
> THE FUCK OUT OF OUR WAY, WE WILL DEPLOY 2GB BACKBONE LINKS WITH
> VIDEO/DATA INTEGRATION AND ALL OF THOSE COOL THINGS.
> 
> I (and others) will not let little socialist shits like you, who come
> from the old days of government subsidies, stand in our way. We will
> take our infrastructure away from your control (ie: the entire internet)
> and make our own policy and will defend our intellectual properties
> in court if neccessary.
> 
> Get a fucking life. IAHC is dead. They killed themselves with their
> socialism.
> 
> Palmer


Happy New Year Mr. Palmer.  You are, for lack of a better word, an
asshole.

Vince Wolodkin
Speaking for myself, and not the IAHC:-)