Ok let me start by stating that there is a difference in ccTLD's and G-TLD's which obviously is a general thing, not limited to us or non us citizens and companies.
Dot us works fine, as do about 242 other cc-tld's. Your protagonist ideas are American, the same ones chosen by ICANN to rule the TLD's without any right whatsoever, and what is currently opening up their can of worms with among others, the EU. Your approach however which states that even current TLD'sno matter how few should be restricted and stricter control is the better way of dealing with problems is Americanist. Rfc's have a meaning, not the one you would like it to have, being they are stated as law, but they are references, nothing more nothing less. They outdate themselves after 6 months, no more. The idea of having postmaster, webmaster and hostmaster (yes you forgot one) restricted is carried by a lot of isp's, who in total accordance with their status, are the only ones who CAN restrict this access. Yes, as an ISP I can decide whether I am willing to let my customer use any of those or none, I choose none. Besides the point that I can defer property tax while my property is being rebuild or done up, at least in my part of the world, the difference of a domain being up or not is quite significant, I can proof this by taking queernet.org down for a few days (dDoS f.i.)nad see what you have to say then about the insignificance of it being down. Whether a extension in the TLD stands to reason within your reasoning, which has yet to be founded by real "reason" is totally unimportant, don't overestimate yourself here, a lot of substantially smarter (then you) people were in total agreement of not restricting so your reasoning pales in comparison and that is besides the point you fail to substantiate that reasoning, which would be a minimal requirement. Kind regards Abel Wisman =========================== Information in this electronic mail message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any attachment has been checked for viruses, but please rely on your own virus checker and procedures. If you contact us by email we will store your name and address to facilitate communications. ========================= Able Towers and Able Consultancy are tradenames of Moordata Ltd. 2 Brickett Close Ruislip Middlesex HA4 7YE UK +44 1895 635413 +44 77 55255598 www.able-towers.com www.url.org best co-lo rates in the UK -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger B.A. Klorese Sent: 16 February 2003 19:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Discuss List' Subject: Re: OpenSRS Live Reseller Update [.com/.net & .name] - 13/02/03 Abel Wisman wrote: >Your "Americanist" approach is close to ignorance and your examples >hold little more then proving your own wrongs. > "Americanist"? What is Americanist about the notion that: -companies anywhere in the world who concentrate on worldwide business try to register in .com - companies outside the US who want to focus their business in their home countries register in their ccTLD - companies in the US who want to focus on US business register in .com because there's no real alternative hostorically ... what's "Americanist" about that? It's obvious. >Quoting non-existent rfc's, trying to prove a wrong point without then >pinpointing on what rfc's you DO base your extremely biased opinion >seems to be to difficult and therefore eludes you completely. > > I made one RFC error (webmaster) and explained it, and corrected one RFC error made by someone else (postmaster). >YES once you have gone past OUR 40 days, of which at least 30 days your >website was down, you have to pay these ridiculous fees, PREVENT them. > And you SHOULD have to pay exorbitant fees for that. What difference does it make if a website is up or down? You can't defer your property taxes because your home is being repaired. >NO dot org and dot net are less restricted then you make it, even as >planned to be or you have in formation from Postel direct of which I >would love to see some proof. > .org was never restricted, and I didn't say it was restricted. It just stands to reason that if .com is for commercial activities, they shouldn't skunk their way into other TLDs just because they feel like it. I said I *wish* it was reserved for non-profits, because a separate TLD would be useful for them. >Disregarding the fact that in my opinion you entered "the net" in the >past 3 years, you are talking a lot of baloney. > Try a search engine. I have posts from IP-connected sites going back to 1985.
