[NA-Discuss] Fwd: "Domain Protection Racket" Promotion on Network Solutions Home Page
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Tue Aug 30 12:49:55 UTC 2011
On 29/08/2011 22:09, Joly MacFie wrote :
> Lauren is a regular contributor to to Dave Farber's 'Interesting
> list. Farber is another new gTLD sceptic. Together with Esther Dyson ( see
> video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj1olVmZseE> |
> there appears to be a growing reactionary rearguard amongst older
> internet cognoscenti. Included in that number is presumably also George
A steady group of old-timers still remember the Jon Postel days, have
been through so many past battles, seen the birth of InterNIC & an
industry created from nothing. I've corresponded with Lauren on many an
occasion and we just agree to disagree. Same for Dave Farber - we spoke
at length in Moscow earlier this year, where I tried to convince him
that everyone at ICANN should not be put in the same bag. I think many
people are still very upset from what happened in 2003.
Make no mistake, as seen from "outside" you are all accomplices of
ICANN's alleged evil ways.
> But aren't they trying to shut the barn door after the horse has bolted?
That was my point exactly when I spoke with Farber; and yet, there is
total ignorance of the bottom-up model outside of ICANN, there is a
general accusation that At-Large just pays lip service to ICANN and that
ICANN is just controlled entirely by contracted parties wishing to make
a quick buck through a "domain protection racket", a term I personally
find offensive. Real life "protection rackets" are a completely
different ballgame involving physical threats.
Last but not least, I find the provoking statements made by the "new
gTLD" sceptics offensive to our community. They disregard the millions
of unpaid hours which we volunteers have spent toiling away, coming up
with a middle of the road solution which would allay the pressure on the
restricted domain space whilst taking into account concerns from IP
rights owners, governments, etc. They disregard the consensus that was
painfully reached by all of us. They criticise a process from the
outside, when they had the chance to join the process and bring their
input to the table whilst it was being designed. They could have joined
At-Large, they could have joined the GNSO Non Contracted Parties House.
Yet, they would rather criticise the organisation from outside by making
bold statements to the Press.
The door is always open and I still hope that they will join At-Large
someday. But they will have to play by the rules of consensus, like all
of us. Sometimes we want something but the majority does not. It's
frustrating sometimes, but that's the name of the game.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
More information about the NA-Discuss