> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > To: Roger B.A. Klorese > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [TLDA-Members] Fwd: BulkRegister partners with New.Net > > Wait, wait, wait. I have a personal (family) domain in .ORG > and I want to keep it. I do not want to be in .NAME. Why? > > 1. I would have to tell everybody I have a new email address. > This would cost me time, money and fuss. 2. A .NAME domain is > way more expensive! 3. I want to run my own mailservers. > .NAME _forces_ you to use theirs.
1. OK, fine. Grandfathering is fine. 2. Well, that's a problem we need to fix, isn't it? Since I'm already on record as believing names should be free except for pure administrative cost, that's no surprise. 3. Whatever. We were stupid to let that happen in the first place; inconsistent policies in non-country TLDs should never have been permitted. > Things might be different if there were several personal TLDs > to pick from, say .NAME, .EGO, .PER, .IND, .FAM. I am sure > one of them would come up with a more sensible thing than > forcing people to use the TLDs mailservers. And the price > would go down too. Choice is a bugaboo. Like "school choice," it is a facile approach to what we should be working for -- quality. And an unregulated free market never raises quality. > Another matter is who is going to police all this, and who is > going to pay for the policemen and women. The registrants > obviously. It is simply impossible to maintain standards of > elegibility for domains. NetSol tried that, but had to give > it up, remember? So we're going to have to do our jobs?! Awww. > What went wrong with laissez-faire capitalism? When did it ever go right? It failed us in the days of the robber barons, and we've learned from that that regulation is necessary. > Why can't we pick our own monikers? Why must some people force us into a > taxonomy, which is always too rigid to do justice to life? Because it's not about what the name-purchaser wants. It's about what benefits the whole net, the name-accessers. > I used to work in a library in my earlier life, classifying > books by subject. Most did fit in more than category. Books > cannot chose, people can. Why not let them? Why do you think LoC categories are printed in the books? > Or is that those who want to control the internet > subconsciously feel that the only solid point where they > might get some grip on all of us, is the only hierarchical > structure of the internet, to wit the DNS? I'm for totally free content -- in fact, that's what our organization exists for, free in the liberty sense as well as free in the no-charge sense. But that freedom has to occur within a framework of order.
