Re: [atlarge-discuss] DNSO-GA arguments belong elsewhere!

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Todd and all stakeholders of interested parties,

todd glassey wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> Cc: <eric@hi-tek.com>; "Bruce Young" <Bruce@barelyadequate.info>; "At-Large
> Discussion List" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 9:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] DNSO-GA arguments belong elsewhere!
>
> > Todd and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> >
> > todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > To: <eric@hi-tek.com>
> > > Cc: "Bruce Young" <Bruce@barelyadequate.info>; "At-Large Discussion
> List"
> > > <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 4:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] DNSO-GA arguments belong elsewhere!
> > >
> > > > Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> > > >
> > > > eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > May we hold a few truths to be self evident?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Internet must be not restricted yet governed.  Not by fiat or
> > > > > proclamation.  But by the will of the users.
> > > >
> > > >   I would add:  "and only by the stakeholders/users"...
> > >
> > > there are no organizations that actually represent the users of the
> Internet
> > > that I know of, only those doing business on the Internet and those
> > > expending money for Internet Resources.
> >
> >   Well we do.  So that is at least one.
>
> No we dont. We represent the interests of Domain Owners and Operations and
> ICANN represents itself at this time. So who were you referring to?

  I was referring ot INEGroup, obviously...

>
>
> > Hence I am puzzled that
> > you would make this statement as you can imagine given your
> > private posts to me earlier, Todd...
>
> My apologies. It was not my intent to confuse or mislead you.

  I was not confused.  Perhaps purposefully mislead?

>
>
> > As I understand it, you are
> > also awaiting membership information for yourself in the IDNO
> > as well.
>
> Sort of. But I am not holding my breath. Its a week later... And you know I
> have not gotten anything from the IDNO list server in a week and since the
> webserver at http://www.idno.org/ (or  63.175.98.35 ) is kaput, my feeling
> is tha it is likely that IDNO has been shot down in flames.

  I couldn't say what IDNO is doing these recent two weeks.  WXW
is in charge over there so perhaps a direct inquiry to him would
bare some fruit as to the goings on with the IDNO???

>
>
> > Aren't they supposed to represent users to an extent?
>
> No they were supposed to represent the Individual Domain Name Owners, not
> the Internet Users.

  Not originally Todd.  Both were suppose to be represented...

> The Internet Users is everone that uses the Internet in
> its totality which makes its potential number somewhere upwards of 6B.

 6B would be the total number perhaps.  But not the number that
are interested parties or potential active participants...

>
>
> > Aren't some if not many users also domain name holders/owners
> > as well Todd?
>
> Yes of course they are, Likewise there are hundreds of millions of others
> that are not domain-centric or ICANN related, but that are touched on a
> daily basis by what ICANN does and does not do.

  Yes like stock holders of .COM companies for instance.  They too
are Stakeholders/users.  But than as you are a relative newcomer
to these forums, you are possibly not aware that these discussions
along these lines took place over two years ago now...  But I was
an active participant as were about 30% of our [INEGroup] members
on various different forums at that time...

>
>
> > And aren't some of those stakeholders/usres
> > members of various other well publicized organizations
> > such as CDT?  I believe that some are.
>
> Yes one would hope.

  No hope to it Todd.  It is a simple FACT.

> But how is that equated to ICANN taking an input from
> the "Internet Users of the World" as a General Atlarge group?

  Forums are available and currently being utilized as well as
a number of ICANN ML's that input is being sent to, although
many of those ML's are considered "Black Holes" as they are
not interactive forums in most instances...

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Any matter that interferes with Access, Reliability and Stability is
> to
> > > be
> > > > > avoided.
> > > >
> > > >   I would add: "or as otherwise specified for specific penelities can
> be
> > > > inforced and/or otherwise imposed"   than list those specific
> instances...
> > > > Bla bla bla, ect. ect, Example, example... and so forth
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Innovation and alternative solutions are to be supported and
> > > incorporated into
> > > > > the community of the Internet.
> > > >
> > > >   Good sugestion here..
> > >
> > > As to what deliverable though?
> >
> >   The deliverable(s) could be many and varied or only a few as well as
> > yet to be determined and in the future.
> >
> > > Is this forum to be qualified as competent
> > > for designing and if so for what?
> >
> >   As competent as any, yes.  Others opinion of course may vary.  Does
> > yours Todd?
>
> be careful with accepting a negative connotation with my use of the term
> competent herein Jeff.  Competency is a technical measure of ones ability or
> preparedness to do a job. Nothing more. Its not a nasty term until you
> attach a value judgement to it.

  Value judgments are made everyday with respect to technical competence.
Just look at Afilias, IETF, IESG, Ect., Ect....

>
>
> As to my opinion, it varies depending on what I am talking about. But I very
> consistant with issuing the same opinions no matter where I am, i.e. in a
> close room with one or two others, or in a public forum like this. That
> makes my opinion stable.

  Agreed.  As do I.  Your point is???

> Not competent but stable. Competency in others is
> something that we all have to judge for ourselves .

  Exactly why value judgments as I responded just above come into
play or relevance, which you previously negated just above and I
disagreed with that comment/statement of yours...

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de