North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Statements against new.net?
- From: Patrick Greenwell
- Date: Fri Mar 16 02:56:01 2001
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Ben Browning wrote:
> At 12:59 PM 3/15/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Ben Browning wrote:
> > > I dare say there is a good consumer demand for a flying car, or a cure for
> > > AIDS.
> >And people are working towards both. In fact, there are a couple of
> >"flying cars"(different companies implementations) out there. What's your
> My point is that the laws of physics do not bend to allow an Edsel to sail
> through the air with the greatest of ease, regardless of how fervently Joe
> Sixpack may wish it. My point is that, although I could drive the
> aforementioned Edsel off a cliff and market it as a way to make a
> backwards-compatible flying car upgrade, it still ain't. The only
> difference here is new.nets stupidity is a bit more subtle.
I doubt that you'll find that new.net's efforts or those of the other
alternate root sever efforts has in any way has attempted to defy or
cirvumvent any law of physics.
> Please do not duck the next time the clue-by-four swings your way.
Back atcha. :-)
> >Without consumer demand, it is highly unlikely that you'd have a network
> >to speak of.
> Without us, it's highly unlikely consumers would have a network to demand.
You(theriver.com) exist because the commerical Internet exists. The
commercial Internet exists because people found value that extended beyond
the uses the DoD/ARPA and acedemics had for the early Internet.
The Internet was created by a need/desire, it did not spring forth from
> >I agree with you, 100%. I don't believe one company should either, rather
> >it be NSI, ICANN, New.net, or any other player. But that is exactly what
> >the majority of individuals appear to be rather voiceferously
> >advocating, saying anything outside the "sanctioned root"(whatever that
> >means) should be blackholed, the people offfering such TLDS are "frauds",
> "The Board of ICANN is composed of nineteen Directors: nine At-Large
> Directors, nine selected by ICANN's three supporting organizations, and the
> President/CEO (ex officio). Five of the current At-Large Directors were
> selected according to a vote of Internet users worldwide."
> As opposed to "New.net was started in May 2000 by idealab!, a leading
> Internet incubator. We have developed proprietary technology that allows
> our domain-naming system to exist alongside the traditional naming systems
> currently in use on the Internet. New.net has applied for patent protection
> for this technology."
> At least ICANN has some pretense of democracy.
And that is all you will find it is, a pretense.
The elections of 9 "at-large" directors was reduced to 5.
The decisions on new TLDs were made by an unelected board.
A study is currently underway to determine if "At large directors" are
appropriate at all.
A contract that was sprung on the rest of the ICANN supporting
organizations at the last minute as a fait accompli is currently being
considered that was would remove the requirement that NSI seperate their
registry and registrar operation, in effect give them the right to operate
the .com registry in perpetuity including changes in pricing, and force
.org registrants to be non-profit organizations.
Now, tell me about democracy.
> And before you climb on to the trusty soapbox, please don't. I think we are
> all familiar with your "Damn the [ICANN|NSI] man!" tirade.
Perhaps it would help if you were educated on the subject before so
quickly dismissing it. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just that you
actually have some knowledge on the subjects you are speaking about.