--On Tuesday, 30 July, 2002 02:01 -0700 Einar Stefferud
<Steflist@thor.nma.com> wrote:
> Hi John, Sorry to say, you also ware quoting ORSC folk as
> saying things that they have not and will not say.
I was not quoting ORSC folk, or anyone else specific. I think I
made that fairly clear, and certainly intended to do so. I was
quoting and referring to various remarks I have heard from time
to time from various individuals and groups who have advocated
alternate or independent roots.
Please do not assume I am saying anything I did not say.
> You opinions are very welcome, but inaccurate quote reporting
> is beyond the pale.
>
> So, I here clearly state that your implied quotes are not
> correct.
If they don't apply to the ORSC, then they don't apply to the
ORSC. If you believe that all of the folks who have advocated
alternate roots are part of the ORSC,... But such a belief
would be objectively false, given your other statements: I
believe you have also claimed, several times, that the only
conflict --with ICANN or anyone else-- in the ORSC root space is
over one domain. Unless things have changed dramatically in the
months since I last studied the situation, there were a number
of alternative claims on the name "sex", more on the name "xxx",
and so on. I have no knowledge or opinion as to whether ORSC is
involved in any of those alternate claims, or whether it has
made a choice. But there are certainly multiple claims for TLD
ownership in those, and I believe, other, areas.
And that is another piece of the problem with consolidated or
superroots: They depend on a level of cooperation about the
choice of TLD names that you, I think, assume but that has not
been demonstrated in practice. As soon as there is more than
one claimant to a particular TLD name, some process is needed to
determine who gets it. Is ICANN the only possible process for
doing that? Certainly not. But the proof that some other one,
even ORSC, is socially or morally better eludes me.
Lest I be accused of more misquotation, I want to examine one
statement you did make. You said, in part, "...just happen to
include all of the ICANNic TLDs, plus our ORSC TLDs, (except for
one small TLD which was created deliberately by ICANN to create
a conflict..." and then, in the same paragraph, "They simply act
as though we do not exist". I do not speak for ICANN, and have
not been involved in their internal decision-making on this
subject, but I believe that one of these statements is true and
that both, strictly speaking, cannot be. I suspect ICANN has
acted as if ORSC does not exist, at least partially because they
have no way to recognize your efforts in favor of any other
"alternate root" claimant (see above). But, if they are acting
as if you don't exist, then the notion that they would somehow
create a conflictly TLD "deliberately", presumably to make your
existence more difficult, would seem inconsistent at best. And,
independent of that logical argument, what I think I did see at
ICANN was a (logically-necessary) decision to ignore any
individual claims for prior rights to particular names. To have
done otherwise, given their theory of operation, would have led
to madness.
regards,
john