Re: domain

Hi, Ric–

On 7/19/14 2:13 AM, Ric Johnson wrote:
> Doug,
> I seem to have taken great offense to your remarks.  I am writing this
> email in a very heated mood, and I probably should edit it, but I think
> the topics I raise should be discussed, so I will keep the majority of
> it.  I do hope to be able to work together, but you have questioned my
> integrity several times, so I feel I must respond.

I was trying to be careful to state that I wasn't questioning your 
integrity or intentions; I apologize if it came off the wrong way.

> I never received any response to my request.  I checked all my emails
> and can not find any previous discussion even on the email list
> archives.  Please forward it to me if I am mistaken.

I sent the response offlist. I don't seem to have a copy of it, but it 
explained what I've already told you, that I've had bad experience with 
"borrowed" domains in the past with, and no longer wish to rely 
on domains that we don't control. This is nothing against you or your 
service; it's simply not a situation we want to get into.

In addition, from what I've read on the Web about, you 
require a link back to your site on every page; we cannot offer this, 
because it's too similar to advertising; even our stewards do not have 
direct links back to their sites from our page footers.

> I am sorry to hear what happened with, but please do not put
> OpenDomain in the same category.  Early on in the project, we were
> offered millions of dollars for one domain, but we gave it away for
> Free, only to be later sued by that person.  That almost killed the
> project, but I fought to keep it going for years. More recently, we were
> contacted by a broker who offered $20k for another domain, but we told
> her that we do not sell domains, they should be used to support Open
> Source.  We were ecstatic to learn that that she was working in behalf
> of one of the top promoters of open source: Google wanted to participate
> in OpenDomain!  So we gave the domain to them for Free - all
> we asked was to to be mentioned in the press release and a link.
>   Unfortunately, they still have yet to fulfill their promises. Sorry to
> go off on a rant, but I have personally spent hundreds of thousands of
> dollars to acquire domains from squatters and gave them all away for
> Free to support open source and non-profits and it riles me for someone
> to question my "good intentions".

I'm sorry that you had that experience with, but we're not 
affiliated with that project. We can only speak for, and 
we are not interested in using other domain names that we don't control. 
Thank you for the offer, however.

(Just a side note... isn't about open source, though we 
do use open source software; it's about open standards, which I 
personally think is just as important as open source, because it allows 
interoperability between software regardless of whether it's open source 
or proprietary; for example, HTML and CSS work the same way in Firefox 
and Internet Explorer, in Brackets and DreamWeaver. I think this is what 
makes open standards, and the Web, so powerful, and why I believe so 
passionately in this project that is meant to empower everyone to use 
open standards... and that's why our site is free, and is under a CC-BY 
license. Sorry for the digression, when I see people conflate open 
source and open standards, I feel the need to draw the distinction.)

> I am also not sure what your intention for the paragraph "If your
> project is about open domains.." is intended to convey. OpenDomain is
> about "open source for domains". should be about
> commercial application of the Web Platform.  I do no see any conflict
> that I support multiple projects - I also founded CharityCoin.Org . We
> mint celebrity coins to support charities - check it out and let me know
> what you think!
> Also, we do not see if someone offers a service on .COM that is not
> available on the .ORG  that is can be considered competing. We do not
> want redirects for our domains - we ask that the domains be used with
> content that benefits the web.

Perhaps "compete" is the wrong word; let me try to be more clear. If you 
were to use a variation on our logo, and were to offer similar services 
(teaching people about the Web Platform), that would confuse users as to 
which site was which. They might hear about WebPlatform Docs, but 
accidentally go to, thinking it was the same site. 
Surely you see how that harms our project? If you truly want to help 
this project, there are many other ways you can do so without risking 
this harm, and I'm happy to work with you to find some safe, productive 
ways to help.

> Several years ago, I gave in care of the W3 to help
> standardize Ajax.

The OpenAjax Alliance was not affiliated with W3C, though we did have 
some overlap in membership, so I can see why you might have had the 
wrong impression:

> The problem is that developers did not know what
> "OpenAjax" was.  To this day, I think only Dojo ever implemented it for
> a short time.  I see this same problem again with WebPlatform - I have
> gone to dozens of web developer meetups and only one person even heard
> of the Web Platform project.  I think that everyone has done some great
> work contributing content, but the marketing needs much more exposure.

Yes, we do need more exposure, and we will shift to that mode when we 
feel our content is ready. Hopefully that will be soon!

But as far as the Web Platform itself (HTML, CSS, SVG, MathML, 
JavaScript, DOM), there has never been a more successful, more widely 
used, more broadly understood language or platform. It's wildly popular, 
and just getting more popular and more powerful. As this project,, matures, we feel it will be an essential part of the 
developer experience. Rome wasn't built in a day!

> Ok - again I am sorry for my tone of this email - I will try to be more
> constructive:
> That is our hope for - to help gain exposure for the Web
> Platform. We would like it to be used to as a separate site that has
> COMmercial value. That does not mean that I would profit - I just
> believe that would encourage more participation or at least help with
> some costs.

I don't see how creating another site that might confuse developers 
would encourage more participation in our project. I think it would have 
just the opposite effect.

> We would be happy to contribute the domain - to the Web Platform as a
> separate organization.  Has there been any discussion of a foundation?

There was some discussion early on about forming a foundation, but we 
didn't feel it was necessary, because W3C is a responsible organization 
that manages the site. If you wish to contribute the domain, W3C is the 
organization to which you can assign the registration. We would be 
grateful for your donation.

If by "contribute" you mean to redirect the domain while retaining the 
registration, then we'll have to politely decline, and thank you again 
for the offer.


Received on Saturday, 19 July 2014 09:12:29 UTC