Discuss mailing list

[opennic AT ned-ludd.com]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Dmitry S. Nikolaev wrote:

> As example (vivid example) of this (what I`am talking about) is letter
> from opennic AT ned-ludd.com.
> He took my text, quoted it but cut off the text with URL that he could
> open and said that he can`t access charter without changes.

Believe it or not I read this list regularly and have followed 
this discussion from its inception.  The first URL for the 
charter of the .rus TLD was offered on 17th September ONLY 
within the TLD itself (http://www.rus).  When challenged about 
the URL being inaccessible, Dmitry replied:

> ------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 06:21:47 +0300
> From: Dmitry S. Nikolaev <dn AT mega-net.ru>
> To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] New TLD .RUS

> You can if you want to. Because I wrote NS servers list is the first letter.
>
> So a little change in your settings and you can browse it 
> without any problem and than change it back.
>
> With best regards, Dmitry S. Nikolaev

> -----------------------------------------------------
[Note: some header text in the above has been removed for 
clarity and does not change the meaning of the message.  If you 
don't trust my quoting, feel free to read back in the list to 
the actual email.]

So Dmitry was well aware that, at first, to read the charter I 
had to make changes to my DNS.  It was only a few days later 
(19th September) and after some to-and-fro discussion that an 
ICANN-accessible URL was finally offered.  By that time I had 
already gone to the trouble of setting up a resolver to view the 
otherwise inaccessible URL, so the accessible URL was offered 
too late (and somewhat grudgingly, it appeared) to save me the 
effort.

This lack of consideration by the proposer at the outset (and 
now what appears to be intellectual dishonesty in accusing me of 
not knowing about the subsequently accessible URL) has - whilst 
being worrying - little to do with my vote.  My reason for 
voting no is that I do not think that OpenNIC needs to compete 
with ccTLDs.


(And yes, I trim my email replies so that the size and noise is 
reduced while the context is retained.  It's long been 
considered polite to do so.)

--
ChrisG