Re: Re[2]: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response to response)

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

And again, there is no THE system. ICANN controls one root system of many.
Voice recognition software and other technology and good PR with the
software pointing at the other roots and giving the software away for free
would make the other root more popular than the ICANN root in less than one
year.

ICANN puts a great spin on things to the public, but they are nothing
compared to what a really good pr person can do. There are so many ways that
ICANN can be beat by companies that know how to market that it is ridiculous
for them to think that this slow moving, we're going to run everything our
way, process is going to work. The fact they are moving so slow with all
this is one of their biggest weaknesses.

People follow leadership that is flexible and progressive, not those that
are staunchy, overbearing, and totalitarian. If  ICANN wants to be THE
authority then they had better start making some deals with companies like
New.net, Alternate and Cooperative and Inclusive Root sytems. That is being
progressive. They also have to recognize an individual's constituency and
have a real public consensus on their actions. Accepting an Individual's
Constituency and a Domain Holders Constituency shows flexibility. Without
those two things there will be no ICANN for me to ridicule and I would miss
that.


Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
To: "NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>; <ga-roots@dnso.org>;
"Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:18 AM
Subject: Re[2]: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response to
response)


> Hello NameCritic,
>
> Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 2:01:41 AM, NameCritic wrote:
>
> > Continuing on the same thing here. You wrote "ICANN has proposed one
way:
> > strict regulation of entries into a single
> >> root, no conflicts allowed" Again that reflects the thinking that ICANN
> > hasn't allowed conflicts when they have introduced existing TLDs. Maybe
you
> > mean that to say, no conflicts unless ICANN creates them.
>
> Under the current system there are no conflicts.
>
> It really is that simple.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html