Dave Hooper [Webarama] wrote:
>> Do you think a CEO should respond to you just because you 
>> email him/her?
>>     
>
> Preferably, yes.
>   


OK I agree. You're all right and I was wrong. There were two things that 
crashed on Friday night: the first was the PC that runs all of my 
accounts receivable, and the second was my brain. Hence the delayed 
response. Not to mention that uncomfortable gut feeling.

I have an unlimited tendency to rant. Sometimes people agree with me and 
take up my argument, sometimes I just miss the mark. On Friday I missed 
the mark - a bit like some of those shots at goal we saw over the 
weekend. I guess that's what happens when you try to deal with work at 
3am on a Saturday morning after 6 beers since 9, and start to get upset 
about how over-complicated and unlucrative your life has become recently.

I can't retract any comments that I've made. So I apologise, firstly, 
for being off-topic. I apologise, secondly, for my irrational behaviour. 
And thirdly I apologise to Paul Twomey - even though I wish he'd front 
up with some useful answers occasionally without having to delegate them 
to a press release. Finally, I apologise for my poor use of the English 
language, which is already so poorly treated these days.

To bring things back on topic:

- Paul Twomey ran the NOIE for yonks and it was recently disbanded. It 
doesn't seem to have achieved anything, but if it were still around 
maybe it would be able to represent our interests. We don't have a 
proper advocacy body, and maybe that's because the government decided to 
set up a body to promote industry ahead of policy. So now it gets folded 
into - some sort of federal department. I've read several NOIE reports 
recently from the late 90s and they were all quite off the mark and 
contradictory to my own beliefs (which also haven't necessarily been 
proven).

- During the time that Paul Twomey (who just hit the news again today on 
account of relocating ICANN to... well, France looks good) has been in 
charge of ICANN we've seen a situation whereby the secondary market for 
TLDs has become more significant in terms of value, and more of a 
sh!t-fight in terms of having the right skills, than the original 
intellectual property debate and the primary market for new 
registrations. Domain name transfers, locking, auctioning etc., as 
management issues, have taken over the primary objective of allowing 
people to register domains with useful outcomes. Is this a symptom of 
poor management or free market reforms? If free market reforms entail 
tens of thousands of click-through sites getting set up every month at 
virtually no cost then maybe we need to regulate. The thing is - the 
NOIE was not exactly established under a regime that had a regulatory focus.

- In the same time as this we've seen a successful evolution of the .AU 
domain to a well-managed and efficient namespace where the rules are 
clear and the results are intended - apart from the odd scammer (or the 
same scammer over, and over again)... but who's going to advocate on our 
behalf to have legislation amended so that these scammers go away? So, 
on the other hand we have an Australian who was put forward as our 
representative in terms of managing policy on behalf of IP in the 
namespace and numberspace, but seems to have presided over the evolution 
a completely ineffective mess. A c0ck-up (does l33t-speak allow me to 
get away with swearing on this list?)

The .AU namespace is actually now competitive with the TLDs in terms of 
price, rankings and desirability/marketability (in this country), 
whereas the TLDs have just become a tax on our time and resources. All 
presided over by an Australian who has the time to say:

"We're going to do a review to see how we can get the most favourable 
structure to ensure that we can operate fully internationally" 
(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20513765%5E15318%5E%5Enbv%5E15306,00.html)

...but never has anything to say about the real issues that affect the 
market that he controls. How about pursuing the most favourable policy 
for the regulation of the space that they create policies for?

So Paul Twomey is effectively asking to bet loose of regulation, of 
policy, of structure... but has presided over a period where ICANN has 
failed to impose any form of effective structure, policy or regulation 
of its own initiative.

And I guess that's what I was trying to say. Where are the policies? 
Where are the measurable outcomes? And "how, Mr Twomey, would you 
describe the four years or so that you've been at the helm as successful 
for the purposes of policy-making and outcomes in the TLD namespace?" I 
just honestly don't think that anyone cares anymore. It's simply 
depressing that things could be allowed to come to this point.

For the record, I cooked, entertained, viewed football and even got hit 
on. But I carried the regret for what I said (and moreso my inability to 
express) it for the whole weekend - at least until I managed to get my 
data running off some sort of Intel processor again. I guess I just 
don't have the nerve to say what I really think until I get to the point 
where I can't express it properly. So once again I apologise 
unreservedly for being a d!ckhead.

It happens.

So does Paul Twomey.

cb
--