RE: Is IANA fit to lead the Internet Community?

[Andy Sernovitz <andy@interactivehq.org>]

To all:

For the record, please note that Perry is still trying to discredit me
personally.  The status of my organization is irrelevant to the validity
of my questions.  

He has not respond to the legitimate questions I have posted regarding
the gTLD-MoU and IANA.  Those questions, posted in a reasonable and
non-hostile manner, still stand unanswered.

I will not respond to his personal comments, but I will continue to
point out behavior that is inappropriate in the leadership of an
international body such as the iPOC.  I will not be responsible for
turning this discussion into a battle over who has more credibility.  

We are here to discuss domain name policy. 

Andy

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Perry E. Metzger [SMTP:perry@piermont.com]
>Sent:	Sunday, July 27, 1997 12:26 PM
>To:	Andy Sernovitz
>Cc:	gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org; newdom@ar.com
>Subject:	Re: Is IANA fit to lead the Internet Community? 
>
>
>Andy Sernovitz writes:
>> We are not a puppet of NSI.
>
>Of course, were you a puppet of NSI, would you come out and say so in public?
>
>I have no proof that you are a puppet, but I think that the public
>information on the subject indicates that at the very least your
>position is "interesting". Lets examine facts for a moment, shall we?
>
>> I am a full-time employee of a 350+ member trade association.
>
>Why haven't you listened to many of the members of your organization
>that have formally complained about the position you took without
>consulting them? I understand some are moving to leave your
>association as a result of your making decisions like this
>unilaterally without consulting your membership. Do you deny that you
>did not poll your membership before taking this position? Do you deny
>that many of your members are highly upset with your position? Do you
>feel it is ethical to portray your position as that of your members
>when you took it without consulting them?
>
>And why do NSI employees draft most of your position papers? Do you
>feel that your intimate relationship with NSI on this matter is in the
>interest of your membership?
>
>> 1)  I will no longer respond to your silly attempts to turn the argument
>> away from the real issues.	
>
>Why do you keep playing personalities, then, and ignoring the question
>of, for example, NSI's continuing monopoly, which you support?
>
>Most people HATE NSI's monopoly. They charge too much, they constantly
>play judge jury & executioner, and they have demonstrated technical
>incompetance at running the three TLDs they have, over and over. Yet,
>however, you constantly write messages sniping at Dave Crocker and me,
>as though *we* were the issue, and do your best to distract from any
>discussion of why it is that we have to end the NSI monopoly and move
>on to a competitive registration regime. For some reason, you, the
>"defender of the community", spend all your time supporting the
>continuation of that monopoly -- a monopoly the vast bulk of concerned
>individuals and organizations oppose. One wonders why it is that you
>spend so much time and effort on defending that monopoly.
>
>You claim that we are turning the argument away from the "real
>issues", but the fact is that the first person to bring up
>personalities is *you*.
>
>If you want to talk about the "real issue", why do you and all the
>rest try to distract people from the key question, which is "is the
>MoU in the interest of the community", and spend all your time
>diverting people's attention to side issues?
>
>
>Perry
>Speaking personally, and not in any official capacity