Patrick,
I hope you will not misunderstand me here. I just voice an opinion and do
not want to annoy you :-)
So...
IMO the problem with this service is that it deceives internet users. One
who enters new.net might (or might not...) see and understand what your *
marked statement means. People are used to see warnings like this: "this
page might not work under xxxxx browser" for example. Here they think this
is just a regular warning, similar to those gazillion remarks that do not
mean anything just protect merchants of too frequent lawsuits, and their
pages will _mostly_ work.
When someone registers a domain for $25 (!) at new.net, he/she assumes it
will work in at least most of the cases. To be fair, the very first page at
new.net should say "HEY, THE DOMAINS WE ARE OFFERING NOT WORK IN MOST OF THE
CASES" with red flashing letters. I wonder if all of your clients were told
the whole story, how many of them would pay the fees.
You say you are offering an opportunity, an alternative? Yes. But what you
mostly do is that you earn money. And basically, you do this by misleading
people.
I do not want to be a hypocrite, so I admit: I do not deprecate this. What
more - I would do the same as you do, if there weren't a law against this
kind of hocus-pocus in my country. But unfortunately(?) there is a law, and
to be honest I am happy about that. People like me, who do not feel quilty
when selling cheap, useless things to the masses, should somehow be
controlled.
Just my two fillers*.
- Csongor
*: 1 filler is worth approx. 0.00004 USD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Greenwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matt Prigge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Guennadi Moukine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: New TLDs working already?
> On Thu, 10 May 2001, Matt Prigge wrote:
>
> > Far be it from me to defend ICANN, however, the government issued the
> > responsibility for delegating TLDs to one entity for a reason (granted
they
> > chose the wrong entity, but thats beside my point). I dont think theres
a
> > person on this list who thinks that ICANN is perfect, but just
attempting to
> > de-facto replace them at the cost of internet integrity isnt much
better.
>
> I don't believe we are risking the integrity of the Internet. Rather I
> believe that we are offering a completely opt-in approach to adding name
> space that people actually want. Heck, even Vint Cerf, Chair of the ICANN
> board stated that what we are doing "won't break the Internet."
>
> There are definitely differing views as to what "Internet integrity"
> entails, and I appreciate the opportunity to agree to disagree with those
> that feel that a label needs to be globally resolvable in order to
> preserve "Internet integrity."
>
> > quote my mother: "Two wrongs do not make a right.". IMHO, if anyone is
> > guilty of destabilizing the internet it would be new.net, not ICANN.
>
> There is an important distinction to be made regarding the destablization:
> We are not introducing names that are in conflict with the names that
ICANN
> has chosen. If we were to do so, *that* would be destabilizing as a query
> could result in an answer pointing to differing locations. I do not agree
> however that releasing names that are unused within the ICANN regime
creates a
> destabilization.
>
> > The attitude you seem to have is one I have seen before. "Who cares
> > about the standard?
>
> What standard would you be referring to?(there are lots to choose from.)
> There is one "standard" that I am aware of that we are in conflict
> with which is RFC 2826. This obstensibly technical standard states in part
> that the name space must be administered by a single naming authority. Now
> I don't know about you, and perhaps you'll disagree, but defining an
> administrative structure doesn't seem to fall within the realm of the
> technical. It's a political statement, not a technical standard. Given
> that the IAB/IETF is part of the ICANN structure, it is small wonder that
> there exists such a document.
>
> > We'll make up our own standard and then use business agreements and the
> > resulting user base to force it to become the accepted standard."
>
> We aren't forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do. If people
> want to add support for our names, they will. If we can't convince them
> to do so they won't. If we do a good job, then we will succeed. If we do a
> poor job, then we'll go away.
>
> The beauty of this is the degree of self-determination we enjoy, and the
fact
> that we can offer consumers what they want *now* rather than later(or
> never.)
>
> > I guess what Im trying to say is that I dislike new.net's tactics more
> > than I dislike ICANN.
>
> Are you certain you know enough about either to make that determination?
> The reason I ask is that I've been involved in this space for several
> years, and the only reason New.net exists at all is because of ICANN, both
> the way in which it was formed, as well as how it has behaved.
>
>
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\
> Patrick Greenwell
> Earth is a single point of failure.
>
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/
>
>
