On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Wednesday, March 07, 2001, 8:31:37 PM, Elliot Noss wrote:
>
> > This will, IMHO, be at best a bit of blackmail towards ICANN.
>
> Hmm, I consider this a good thing. ICANN needs to be more aggressive
> about opening up the namespace, and perhaps realizing that they can
> easily be routed around by people with a little money to burn may make
> them step away from their IP/Trademark/Government puppetmasters.
Notwithstanding your legitimate gripes about the way ICANN is run, why,
why in *hell* do we need do be "more aggressive" about openning up new
TLDs (me says with a .am TLD :-/)? All it's going to do is make paraniod
large businesses feel like they need to have their names in every TLD,
just like many of them (inappropriately, I would argue) have it in .com,
.net, .org, .insert-your-vanity-tld-here.
We have more than enough TLDs, IMHO. If the spririt of the original RFCs
regarding use of .net and .org had been followed/enforced by netsol, we'd
have even more. BTW, re: the .org RFC: The fact that the "catch all"
clause specifically rules out organizations that should use .com and .net
(or .gov, .mil, etc), it pretty much is limited to not-for-profit
organizations. That's the way it should be, IMHO...
James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://3.am
=========================================================================
