Re: Judge Defers AlterNIC Action

[Jay@Iperdome.com]

At 11:17 AM 7/24/97 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>	For complex topic, especially those ladened with considerable and
>emotional history, accurate representation of the facts is difficult.
>
>At 11:28 AM 7/24/97 -0400, Marc Hurst wrote:
>>The IANA model is broken. The US guv isn't supporting it, the Canadian 
>
>	Repeating such statements does not make them true.
>
>	As has been stated many, many time, the US government has not taken a
>position on the matter.  It's one "official" pronouncement on the matter
>was to say that it had no official position.

Does *this* sound like support to you?

Repeating such statements does not make them true, and 
frankly, the arguement is getting quite boring.

Why don't you try addressing some questions that *everyone* 
keeps asking:

At 12:34 PM 7/24/97 -0400, Stephen Pastorkovich wrote:
>I've asked several times where the iHAC/iPOC got its authority; 
>MoU's foes say they have none, defenders don't answer.  Maybe that's 
>because I'm a "nobody," and that's their prerogative.  But silence 
>doesn't convince me that the MoU's the right way to go.

Answer is:

>I've learned that if you have enough concerns or disagreements with 
>the MoU that you don't feel you can sign it, you are therefore shut 
>out of the process.  Only those who agree with the current structure 
>will be able to have any influence over it.  Again, the MoU's foes 
>make this point very clear; MoU's defenders don't respond, except to 
>refute the argument that the MoU excludes many interested parties.  
>But including only those who agree with you doesn't strike me as 
>very inclusive. 

Answer is:

>My understanding is that even some directors of MoU's signatories 
>are against the MoU.  Even among signatories, the consensus appears 
>to be very "rough" indeed.  Once you include stakeholders who feel 
>they cannot sign the MoU, the consensus appears to break down altogether.

Answer is:

>Finally, as a former Registrar for the ISO, I've had a bit of 
>experience with registration issues, and dealings with the ITU.  
>I was once advised by a lawyer that agreements governed under Swiss 
>law were not held to the same standards as agreements governed under 
>US law.  For that, and other reasons, my employer could not reach an 
>agreement with ITU.  Will this influence the operation of the MoU 
>and the organizations it forms?  I don't know, and again, 
>MoU's supporters decline to answer.  

Answer is:

>I'm starting to think that perhaps their silence speaks volumes.  
>While I thought the gTLD-MoU was a fine move when I first heard of 
>it, the anti-MoU faction is winning the debate, IMHO.

Silence, stonewalling, brow-beating, etc. are not helping your
efforts.  Here's an opportunity to seriously discuss the implications
of the plan that you are trying so hard to force down our collective
Internet throat.


Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com


P.S.  While you're at it, why don't you address my favorite question:
        "Why can't shared registries and private registries
        coexist at the same time, and let Internet users
        decide where they prefer to register?????????"

Answer is: