Dr. Dierker and all,
First of all I don't believe as the author indicates, that the Senate
Commerce Committee on September 20, or at any other time read fully
this 95 page contract, nor did the House Energy and Commerce Committee
on September 21, or at any other time read fully this 95 page contract.
Further I also have serious doubt that the DOJ anti trust division or
DOC NTIA senior council, read fully this 95 page contract. Of course
without looking over their shoulders, we will never know. Remember
the immortal words of P. T. Barnum: "all lawyers lie, they just do so
with remarkable dexterity".
Secondly, although I have great respect for Chuck Gomes, his
reasoning in respect to Internet stability and security were not met
or even fully and knowingly addressed in this contract especially
in regards to tasting/kiting, and DNSSEC. So as one of my fellow
Texan's once said, "don't piss down my leg and tell me it's rain'in".
Sam Houston.
So Chuck, et al., if you don't mind, and even if you do, I am not
fond of someone either rhetorically or literally pissing down my leg.
Didn't we recently have an election that was in part, about this sort
of nonsense?
Therefore what these contracts are really all about is $$. To a
degree Internet stability and security can be reached in these contracts
by insuring the registries are financially viable. However this is only
two legs of a four legged stool. Without very enforceable provisions
which are simple and direct addressing stability and security from an
operational standpoint, all the $$ in the world will never provide
alone,
for same. Such provisions must have oversight and viable accountability
with strong penalties if violated or otherwise abridged in every
instance
or occurrence of same.
Hugh Dierker wrote:
Sometimes I put an action in a subconscious space in my brain. When
I know that an event will happen with complete certainty, I just log
it as done.
This was such an event that I just knew would occur. So now that it
has come to pass I have to ask why did I just log it as a fait compli.
http://webhosting.devshed.com/c/a/Web-Hosting-News/ICANN-VeriSign-com-Agreement-Wins-DoC-Approval/
Well I know the answer. So now I have to ask; is the reason good or
bad? Well I think that the reason is good. And the process seems to be
good. However I do not like the result. Not the resulting agreement
but that the running of dotCOM is the result of the settling of a
lawsuit that has nothing to do with the benefit to the internet and
its users.
If that seems circuitous it is because it is.
e
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827