Re: Implications of NSI *Skunkworks* Ruling

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Nov 30, 1997 at 01:31:19PM -0800, Duane Little wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
[...]
> > > 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!

I chose the word "bray" very carefully :-)

> 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.

Your "vast field" of opponents is a figment of your imagination, as
indeed you indicate below, when you say (to paraphrase) that the real
consensus of the community is a "mixed bag of indifference, ignorance,
confusion and uncertainty" with a "FEW" [my emphasis; your word] spots
of direct opposition. 

> 
> 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.

Note that I said "closest thing to consensus".  Indeed, what you just 
said supports that, in fact.

> 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,

I do hope to gain some reputation capital out of the whole thing (and
your despising me is certainly a plus) but I have no direct financial
incentive.  Quite the reverse -- I spend my own money and lots of time
because, despite the flaws I see, I think the MoU is the best game in
town. 

> and you make a practice of suppressing the
> potential for a more representative plan.

Duane, this is pure nonsense.  I am totally powerless to suppress
anything.  I'm just a wage slave who spends a lot of time on email.  
Even more so, *nobody* is suppressing anything.  The "hints" of 
organized alternatives you mention are completely free to propose any 
alternatives they want, and sell them to anyone.  

In fact, they have done exactly this: Andy Whatshisname testified to
Congress, and there has been very active lobbying by Tony Rutkowski
and many others.  You and many others spend lots of time lobbying for
your point of view on this very list.  The fact that nobody is
spending any real money to buy what you say, whereas they are spending
real money on the MoU, is what justifies my "closest thing to
consensus" statement.  Talk is cheap.

-- 
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