Hi everyone,
While i don't perhaps share the same level of emotion as Robert, I
completely agree with his comments about his concern about the "public"
namespace.
If new.net fails, then people who've invested time and money in developing
their sites will lose.
*** If new.net succeeds, then a small group of shareholders (how many? i am
unsure. Was told that this info is confidential) will effectively control
very important words in the English language and likely other languages.
Words like kids, xxx, sport, etc. I will guess that if new.net is
successful they will continue to add words to this group.
In my opinion, the namespace must be controlled by a public body that is
truly accountable to internet/world citizens, not by a private corporation.
Also, for the record,... i think Icann sucks.
Swerve
> From: Robert L Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:42:54 -0700
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Re[5]: New TLDs working already?
>
> At 5/16/01 12:16 AM, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> New.net added Prodigy to their latest list of big ISP partners who are
>> making new.net names resolvable in their dns.
>>
>> This is a big coup, and effects more ISPs than just prodigy, since
>> Prodigy is also wholesaling to other ISPs.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> (BTW, the current new.net visibility number is over 40,000,000.
>> Congrats to Mr Hernand and Patrick Greenwell and all the others at
>> New.net)
>
> <sarcasm>
>
> Sorry for drawing out this thread, but I didn't realize this had become a
> "kiss the competition's ass" list. Why am I always the last to know?
>
> Well, here goes: Yes, big congratulations to new.net for attempting to
> steal the domain space with no public input or oversight, and for
> destabilizing the DNS system and reducing consumer trust in the
> reliability of domains! Why, their domains now work -- if you believe
> their somewhat elaborate accounting numbers, which involve things like
> multiplying by 2.1 for every new ISP account they sign up so they can add
> a 10 million account ISP and increase their displayed resolvability
> number by 21 million -- for almost 10% of the Internet! Gasp! Their
> wonderful product now has only a 90% failure rate!
>
> Oh, and it's even better in the US, of course. In fact, Hernand's future
> prediction, expressed on this very list two days ago, is that they're
> improving it so that in five months' time, they'll only fail for 57% of
> US consumers! What an accomplishment.
>
> </sarcasm>
>
> In most other industries, someone selling something that works 10% of the
> time, with stated hopes to improve it to work 43% of the time in the US,
> would be the subject of a class-action lawsuit for selling defective
> goods. Maybe new.net's domains should have a legal disclaimer like the
> Psychic Hotline, saying they're "for entertainment purposes only".
>
> I originally composed a long reply to Hernand's disingenuous,
> self-serving and insulting-to-the-community spin piece posted here, but
> decided to let it drop as I had no wish to draw any more attention to
> what will inevitably and deservedly be a failed venture. But since others
> are continuing it, I do have to ask why anyone else would encourage this.
>
> For all you people who complain that ICANN doesn't offer enough public
> input, why on EARTH would you support new.net's attempt to take over part
> of the domain space without any public input whatsoever?
>
> Anyway, if new.net is trying to (1) be a contributing member of the
> community, (2) be honest with consumers, and (3) prove they believe in
> their product, I have some challenges for them:
>
> 1. Justify why you should have rights to exclusively profit from the
> English word "kids", for example, instead of anyone else, when you know
> there has been no community consensus about how a .kids TLD should be
> administered or by who;
>
> 2. Put your resolvability number on your site as a percentage, rather
> than an absolute number. Let's see how many people sign up when consumers
> actually have a fair idea of how often they work and how often they don't;
>
> 3. Since you're asking consumers to rely on your domain names, I'm sure
> you'll be doing the same. You can switch your primary company name to
> "www.new.shop" and discontinue www.new.net. Heck, if people can't resolve
> it, they can just type "www.new.shop.new.net", right? Catchy. Or are you
> going to be sticking to plain old www.new.net because you need a real
> domain name -- you know, one that works properly?
>
>
>> A couple more big wholesalers would give them the momentum that would
>> make it hard for other ISPs to justify not loading the configs.
>
> I doubt it. What would actually cause most ISPs to switch without new.net
> payola would be new.net end-users demanding that their domains resolve.
> We'll have to see if new.net can sucker enough naive consumers to make
> that happen.
>
> --
> Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
>
>
