Re: Implications of NSI *Skunkworks* Rul ing

[Duane Little <aadn1@nwi.net>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Nov 29, 1997 at 10:02:17AM -0800, Duane Little wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 28, 1997 at 06:57:44PM -0800, Duane Little wrote:
> > > > Andre Marcel wrote:
> > > > > -  evidence of widespread public recognition of the domain name
> > > > > holder's use of the domain name on the Internet;
> > > >
> > > > You're getting deeply into the creation of your own approximation of
> > > > trademark law right here.
> > > >
> > > > What gives you the right?
> > >
> > > The contract signed upon issuance of the domain name.
> > >
> > I can see this is going to be circular...
> >
> > What, then, confers the right to place such conditions upon the use of
> > the namespace you people hypocritically claim is a "global public
> > resource"?
> 
> Community consensus.  You will bray at that, 

I most certainly will!

The MoU may seem to have an impressive-seeming list of signatories,
until one views the vast filed of far more impressive people who have
expressed no confidence in it, or criticized it directly.

All your ridiculous claims of "consensus are so much smoke and PR.  It
is in essence a direct and easily refuted LIE.

> but in fact, in a very
> contentious but obscure arena, the MoU has the closest thing to
> consensus around.
> 
This is utter bullshit.  It is the most organized "alternative," yes. 
It has the most active PR machine, yes.  The other alternatives have
been poorly organized and promoted, yes.  But consensus?  That's just a
full-out lie, Kent, and I despise you for it, and every other mouthpiece
who spews it.

The real "consensus" of the "community" is a mixed bag of indifference,
ignorance, confusion and uncertainty, with a few bright spots of
well-informed direct opposition to your plan; and some hints of
organized alternatives which could, if permitted, find expression yet. 
There's you and your compatriots, most of whom are positioned to gain
directly from the gTLD setup, and you make a practice of suppressing the
potential for a more representative plan.  And of course then there's
the NSI contingent, which itself could justifiably claim as much
consensus as you do; and unfortunately has little to gain from anything
but the status quo.

Out of this mess the gTLD/POC/CORE crowd might well pull their rabbit,
but it _won't_ be by reason of "consensus."  It'll be because you
lobbied your asses off, had friends in the right places, and lied
successfully about your "community consensus."


> > P.S.  Why doesn't he answer it himself, I wonder?  Is it Kent's job to
> > field such questions?
> 
> Nope.  Just stating the obvious.
> 
Obvious?  State your numbers.  What's the percentage of this
consenssus?  Who do you qualify for consent?  How many of those who are
genuine stakeholders in the Net, who should have a voice, even recognize
what's going on, what's being proposed, and have given even tacit
consent?  Precious few, that's how many.

God, I'm getting impatient with this whole-cloth propaganda.


Duane