Thursday, March 08, 2001, 5:57:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
There is consumer demand, and there is no reason not to.
Let me turn that around, why should there NOT be more 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.
The more TLDs you have, the more of a task this would be, and it would
make it nearly impossible to do.
Lastly, I saw a study done last year that showed that the number of
actual registrants who did this was very very small.
> 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...
I'm glad we disagree.
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
