If someone was going to one conference or the other, then they might be criticized for being biased for going to one and not the other. Folks shouldn't be censored for stating facts, just because they might be unable to attend.
The organizers of TRAFFIC said that Domain Roundtable was a copycat event (see prior posts in this thread). I pointed out there was a domain conference in 2002, and thus the concept was not novel. DNJournal's article shows that Domain Roundtable is based on ICANN-style meetings, with multiple-tracks, etc. (that's how a lot of finance conferences are organized, too). Others raised various concerns, too.
Folks criticize other domain policies that are decided at ICANN meetings (e.g. WLS, SiteFinder, etc.), but don't attend the meetings (nor are they formally represented in ICANN constituencies). By the above logic, I should never have made the anti-SiteFinder petition (which was mentioned in one of the ICANN reports, even), as I'm a "nothing" in the process.
As long as they're contributing facts to the discussion, I can't see why a reasonable person would want to stifle them or "shut them up".
The organizers of TRAFFIC still haven't retracted their allegations that Domain Roundtable is a copycat, even though they've had a couple of days to 1) see that there was a conference in 2002, 2) read DNJournal's article showing it was modeled on entirely other events.
Educated observers can clearly decide for themselves, once they know ALL the facts, and aren't shouted down by those who want them to "shut up". They can differentiate between those that are "pounding on the facts", versus "pounding on the table".
