Re: IANA: Why Trademarks? (was Re: Emergent Press Conference)

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Nov 09, 1997 at 04:29:16PM +0000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Kent and all,
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:
[...]
> > Nope.  Just relating a little history.  The confrontational character of
> > the debate was established long before the IAHC was formed.  That's a
> > simple fact.
> 
>   Yes it is a simple fact that some confrontational characters did
> participate in the debate befor the IAHC perposal was offered.  However,
> the IAHC perposal only served to make the confrontation worse due to
> its lack of openess, which was revieled by many early on. (See
> IAHC-Discuss
> Archivves).

I said "long before the IAHC was FORMED".  You would have to look at
the various newdom list archives to get the true flavor.  There is a
possibility that things would have gone smoother had the IAHC
proceeded in a different manner; it is equally possible that the
effort would have collapsed entirely.  I wish things had been more
congenial, but there is simply no way to know, and it's a waste of
time to worry about it.  Hindsight is wonderful.

[...]
>   Not entirely Kent, and you know it.  The antagonist remarks that Perry
> and Dace Crocker made are a matter of IAHC-Discuss historic fact.  (See
> Archives to refresh your selective memory).

And your point is? If you go back in those lists you will find
arguments involving almost anyone you care to name.  I remember
arguments back from long before you were ever on the scene -- I had
arguments with Perry and Dave, too.  I had a lengthy, hot argument 
with Carl Opedahl, with whom I almost always usually agreed, about 
the 60 day waiting period.  The discussion was contentious, period.  
If you can't stand the heat etc etc.  The IAHC, remember, was in a 
position where they *had* to take the heat.

> > > You claim to've won already. If so there's nothing
> > > to lose, so why not just relax and admit it turned out to be a massive,
> > > special-interest-driven con and/or power play, in effect if not intent?
> > 
> > Why not?  Because it isn't true.
> 
>   Well than whay not comply Kent?

It's not my habit to endorse falsehood.  I can understand why you 
might approach things differently, though.

> > > P.S.  -  Kent's mail server reliably bounces all my mail.  I've asked
> > > why but he doesn't say.  I presume he won't see this or respond, and if
> > > he does, it'll be to an edited version in someone else's response.
> > 
> > Duane, if my mail server is bouncing your mail, then it is showing
> > remarkable intelligence, and I am grateful.  But I haven't done
> > anything to make it look for you.  Mostly I manually delete your
> > messages unread.
> 
>   ANd you have just for the record, confirmed the fact that the
> IAHC supporters are by design not listening in an open approach,
> by ignoring someone's comments that may not be supportive.

Jeff, I am an MOU supporter, not their PR man.  I don't speak for
them; I don't work for them; I don't represent them; I don't owe them
anything; I don't get any money from any of this.  I am expressing my
opinion, not theirs.  I don't represent POC, PAB, or CORE -- if I did 
I would be more diplomatic.

> > Let me explain: as in every arena, there are many opponents of the
> > IAHC I respect and like -- people with some combination of
> > intelligence, experience, wit, charm, scruples, integrity,
> > self-awareness, or honesty that I value as a window into a different
> > point of view.  I read these people's posts.
> 
>   I read everyones posts.  So I suppose that makes you a bit too
> closed minded for a truely open viewpoint.

You like potatoes.  That doesn't mean you need to eat shovels full of 
dirt. 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html