Re: [dnsext] a plea for restraint

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

It would make sense if the dialogue was of the form 'we want to do this' 'We
can't do all of that, here is what we can do' 'OK we will do that then'.

Instead the dialogue seems to be, 'they want to do this' 'We can't do all of
that, here is what we can do' 'OK, they want to do this'.



On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams <[e-mail]
> wrote:

>  Phillip and all,
>
>
>
>   Agreed in part.  The requirements IMHO have not been articulated from
> ICANN well
>
> enough, ergo there remains an ambigious and inconsistant number of
> approaches
>
> being discussed accordingly.   So I for o ne am left with thought that
> ICANN is waiting
>
> on us to decide and than if they agree with whatever approache(s) than they
> will define
>
> the requirements accordingly.  To me however this seems an entirely
> backwards or at
>
> least odd way to determine requirements.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
> Sent: Sep 14, 2010 3:48 PM
> To: Olafur Gudmundsson
> Cc: namedroppers
> Subject: Re: [dnsext] a plea for restraint
>
> I think the real problem here is that the requirements being asserted are
> both ambiguous and inconsistent.
>
> One way to possibly demonstrate this would be to draw up a matrix with the
> list of proposals raised and objections raised on the two axes.
>
> I think it will be found that several of the objections raised of the form
> 'that will not work because' will be found to exclude absolutely every one
> of the proposals raised.
>
> If those objections are excluded from the matrix the problem is solvable,
> albeit not in a timescale that will be acceptable to some.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> While the tone of the message below might be slightly offensive, the
>> sentiment is exactly right, fewer but more thoughtful messages work better.
>>
>> Remember that this is a world wide list, thus a certain percentage of
>> valued members of the list is sleeping at any given moment,
>> they should be granted the courtesy of being able to chime in before any
>> one person sends multiple messages on a topic.
>>
>>        Olafur
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13/09/2010 6:25 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>
>>> if you see your name below more than twice, please go to a web browser
>>> and
>>> read<http://www.thementalmilitia.com/wiki/Yammerhead>  and consider more
>>> carefully the effect you're having on us bystanders.  i CANNOT keep up
>>> and
>>> so i'm just refiling it all.  one carefully considered essay-style
>>> message
>>> per person per day would be difficult enough, but i would at least try.
>>> when it's back and forth back and forth i just don't care and won't try.
>>> i am probably not alone.  when we later try to declare consensus then a
>>> lot
>>> of folks will suddenly start reading again and we'll discover that we
>>> only
>>> had a consensus among the top talkers.  PLEASE put a lid on it,
>>> gentlemen!
>>>
>>>  10299  09/13 "W.C.A. Wijngaard  Re: [dnsext] DNAME with exceptions -
>>> work-arou
>>>  10300  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another
>>> no prot
>>>  10301  09/13 Florian Weimer     Re: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and
>>> "organization's top
>>>  10302  09/13 [e-mail].  Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: No
>>> protocol cha
>>>  10303  09/13 [e-mail].  Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: No
>>> protocol cha
>>>  10304  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another
>>> no prot
>>>  10305  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another
>>> no prot
>>>  10306  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another
>>> no prot
>>>  10307  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] DNAME with exceptions -
>>> work-arou
>>>  10308  09/13 Brian Dickson      [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts on
>>> the Gr
>>>  10309  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another
>>> no prot
>>>  10310  09/13 Brian Dickson      Re: [dnsext] DNAME with exceptions -
>>> work-arou
>>>  10311  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another
>>> no prot
>>>  10312  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts
>>> on th
>>>  10313  09/13 Paul Hoffman       Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts
>>> on th
>>>  10314  09/13 Tony Finch         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts
>>> on th
>>>  10315  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another
>>> no prot
>>>  10316  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another
>>> no prot
>>>  10317  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another
>>> no prot
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>
> Regards,
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 300k members/stakeholders and growing,
> 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
> [e-mail]
> Phone: [phone]
>
>


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/