Re: Implications of NSI *Skunkworks* Ruling

[Duane Little <aadn1@nwi.net>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
Your deliberate alteration of my statement "people who have expressed no
confidence" to yours, "opponents"  -  is a disingenuous, underhanded
lying tactic, Kent.  You discredit a statement I didn't make.


> >
> > 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.
> 
It bears no resemblance to the meaning of the word "consensus," even if
you add words like "close" and "rough."  I repeat, this whole
"consensus" canard is a PR lie.

> > 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

"Reputation capital"?  Your insinuations about me are uniformly baseless
and noisome, Kent.  Why do you resort to such viciousness?  All I did
was call you a despicable propagandizing liar.

> 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.
> 
Perhaps time will tell.  Maybe you're just a sort of wild-eyed DNS
ideologue.

> > 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. 

Not so, if for example your lies about "consensus" (or should I call it
the party line?) have effect.  The whole point is to halt further _real_
consensus-gathering activity.

When I say "you", I mean the gTLD gang in general.  You're clearly in
that camp, small though it is, and a vocal promoter of its standard
patter.

> 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.
> 
That's not entirely true.  The whole thing is a top-down move, using a
lot of insider influence, lawyers, big-money interests, etc., which
others -- excepting only NSI -- do not have.  In such a scenario,
grass-roots movements are at an overwhelming disadvantage, their
information is swamped by the PR campaigns and slogans ("we have
consensus") of the cartel.

And consensus, real consensus, is at risk of being rendered irrelevant.


> 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.
> 
Big money is spent by big players who stand to gain by it.  Are you
saying monetary support from deep-pocketed vested interests and
avaricious entrepreneurs is the only criterion for the validity of a
proposal?

It's a pity you think that way.  It _makes_ your talk cheap.

What's needed is a real forum with ultimate real influence and a strong
long-term organized voice in the future of DNS and governance.  I hope
to see such a thing created.  I consider it unfortunate that only the
rather capricious and unreliable US Government is in a position to make
such a thing happen.

What we're being offered is a choice between two unsavory, dishonest and
self-interested monopolies, neither of which finds its origins in
broad-based participatory processes, and neither of which stands to gain
by any future developments of the kind.

The real choices are in fact far broader.  Monopoly One is in fact
doomed as a monopoly, given only that its TLDs are rendered into shared
ones.  The Government, again a necessary player though hardly ideal, can
easily enforce that circumstance, _and no one else can_.

Monopoly Two is by comparison far more threatening, should it be handed
the reins.  It lies about the facts and its motives and intent, in your
person and others'.  It would appear to aspire to exclusive control of
all DNS excepting only nTLDs.  It would be well-nigh impossible to
dethrone.  It has set itself up out of reach of any national government,
indeed presumably even the UN.  It has the potential to impose the will
of its entrenched insiders' IP interests in an extra-legal and
unbalanced manner upon virtually the whole of the global Net.

And then there's sanity.  A whole big broad field of possibilities that
can render both monopolies irrelevant, make DNS work for everyone
concerned, keep commercial trademark interests in rational and legal
perspective, and set a pattern for Net governance that is fair, stable,
participatory and has real checks and balances.


Duane