This is sound more and more like socialism, Roger.
On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 15:27, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > > 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. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
