Jeff, I could create and have operational registries for hundreds if not
thousands of TLDs within days (the software is ready, would just need minor
mods).
But I am not so arrogant to believe that I should run hundreds or thousands of
TLDs.
Of course, lack of arrogance is not a trait you are that familiar with, so it
should be of no surprise.
Of course, it is also of no surprise your siding with PGMedia.......and leading
to more and more clues about who you might really be.............
On 18-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> William and all,
>
> William, you logic escapes me in this response actually. What
> difference does it make whether a company decides to have
> 1 or 1000 new TLD's added to the root? How does a number,
> effect in any way anyone's creditability. To follow further
> on this question consider:
>
> Bill Gates net worth is approximated at $100b. That is a number
> of $$ associated to and individual. Does the fact that he is worth
> or obtained $100b in net worth make him not creditable?
>
> Answer, Hell no. But many would believe that it does. Why?
> Well the answer to that is fairly obvious. It is because those that do
> believe that a number of a thing associated to an individual makes
> him/her not creditable, is because they have not what that person has,
> and likely will not ever, or no not why they should have that number of
> those
> particular things, be they $$ or TLD's...
>
> William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > Well I think that is your problem to be honest.
> >
> > Your hundreds of TLDs.
> >
> > You would have a lot more credibility and probably support if you had one
> > or no
> > more than say 3.
> >
> > Even my own support.
> >
> > It is PGMedia's insistance on this hundreds of TLDs it "services" that
> > leads to
> > the lack of support even in the prospective registry camp.
> >
> > It has been generally held amongst most of the prospective registries that
> > 1 is
> > sufficient, and 3 is more than enough, but no registry should go beyond
> > that.
> >
> > That is the major sticking point with me, and I do not think I am alone.
> >
> > Further, your case realistically belongs against the USG, not IANA or NSI.
> > You know as well as everyone here that NSF instructed NSI NOT to add any
> > new
> > gTLDs to the root without their consent. NSI's hands were tied. IANA was
> > trying to get new gTLDs added with the flawed IAHC/gTLDMoU plan, and could
> > not
> > get them inserted as a result of NSF directive.
> >
> > These are all historical facts. Your insistance on pursuing otherwise, and
> > on
> > claiming hundreds of TLDs, leads to a lack of support and credibility.
> >
> > On 19-Mar-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > First of all William, my company filed suit against NSI BEFORE
> > > this "proposal" was drafted. Second, although I first saw this
> > > section of the document when I read the Court's decision
> > > yesterday, I was aware of a "proposal" by NSI as described
> > > to my by my former counsel. It was a definite NO DEAL because
> > > as I recall, NSI wanted to charge $1000.00 per year per TLD
> > > --and for us, that meant about half a million $ annually to sustain
> > > the hundreds of TLDs that we service--a totally unacceptably
> > > high barrier to entry for something that required no maintenance
> > > on the part of NSI once the entries were added.
> > >
> > > As I said, the devil is always in the details. I would wait to draw
> > > any conclusions until the full contents of that document is revealed,
> > > as well as any actions related to it on the part of other parties.
> > >
> > > There is no question that the suit filed by my company has merit,
> > > and we will demonstrate that upon appeal. This letter does not
> > > let NSI off the hook nor does it reduce the severity of my company's
> > > claims against them. Just because this judge was lazy and
> > > rubberstampped
> > > the positions of the defendants does not mean that his decision will
> > > stand.
> > >
> > > There is certainly more here than meets the eye. Something that a
> > > healthy dose of discovery may rectify.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Paul Garrin
> > >
> > > >I find it interesting that PGMedia would sue NSI when it is clearly NOT
> > > >NSI
> > > >that was forbiding them entry.
> > > >
> > > >What does that say about the merits of PGMedia's case?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On 19-Mar-99 Gordon Cook wrote:
> > > >> Yes indeed paul.... pretty interesting. when the response came on
> > > >> june
> > > >> 25
> > > >> 1997 from I think Don Mitchel it instructed NSI not to put any new
> > > >> names
> > > >> in
> > > >> the root. What this meant was that the US Government Interagency
> > > >> committee
> > > >> on domain names put things on indefinite hold so that the politicos
> > > >> could
> > > >> decide who would be allowed to to control the addition of domain
> > > >> names to
> > > >> the root.
> > > >>
> > > >> While out of one side of their mouths becky and ira said all the
> > > >> government
> > > >> was interested in was competition, the goevrnment reached out and
> > > >> forbade
> > > >> an NSI that was EAGER TO OPEN THE ROOT FOR COMPETITION from
> > > >> doing
> > > >> so.
> > > >> Allowing the NSI to be excoriated for almost two more years as the
> > > >> greedy
> > > >> evil bastards who really wanted to keep the whole thing for
> > > >> themselves.
> > > >>
> > > >> After all who can forget the rabid attack leveled against NSI by EFF
> > > >> last
> > > >> spring. Of course people who made such a big issue out of the
> > > >> **virtues**
> > > >> of choosing an allegedly neutral ICANN board conveniently ignored the
> > > >> fact
> > > >> that as an EFF board member, esther Dyson was a signatory to the EFF
> > > >> attack
> > > >> on NSI.
> > > >>
> > > >> DID BECKY BURR, and Ira Magaziner decide that the holding action of
> > > >> keeping
> > > >> the root closed despite NSI's desire to open it was necessary to give
> > > >> Cochetti, and patrick and the GIP enought time to get together with
> > > >> Chris
> > > >> Wilkinson and Martin bangeman to begin to put together and mount a
> > > >> the
> > > >> counter attack in the form of ICANN as their desired international
> > > >> regulatory body to govern and control the internet?
> > > >>
> > > >> ICANN we were conned into believing was put in place to protect us
> > > >> against
> > > >> against the predatory lust of NSI. this memo calls that explanation
> > > >> into
> > > >> question. no wonder the feds had to sit on the memo....
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >The following was just recently made
> > > >> >public. For what it's worth, it's an interesting read:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >(the entire text of the letter was previously restricted confidential
> > > >> > this excerpt appeared th the Court papers of 3-17-1999)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >At some point, the entire text of NSI's proposal may be available
> > > >> >online, as soon as it is released publicly in its entirety.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >The full text of the Court's decision will be posted soon.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>----
> > > >>>--_>
> > > >>> >--
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Excerpt from the opinion and order of Judge Robert Patterson,
> > > >> >pgMedia/Name.Space v. NSI/NSF:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On June 10, 1997, NSI's Internet Business Manager, David Graves
> > > >> > wrote
> > > >> >to Don Mitchell, Cognizant Program Official for the NSF's Network and
> > > >> >Communication Division, expressing concern over PGM's suit and other
> > > >> >potential litigation over the TLD registration issue.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Network Solutions finds itself in the difficult position of
> > > >> > defending
> > > >> > itself against anti-trust claims that its server is an
> > > >> > "essential
> > > >> > facility" for Internet commerce, while at the same time
> > > >> > privately
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > publicly supporting the addition of more TLDs to enhance
> > > >> > competition.
> > > >> > Further, Network Solutions must defend itself without any
> > > >> > certainty
> > > >> > as to whether it has the authority to accept or reject demands,
> > > >> > such
> > > >> > as PGMedia's, for the inclusion of additional TLDs. There are
> > > >> > no
> > > >> > technological restrictions or impediments to the inclusion of
> > > >> > additional TLDs to our root.zone file. Network Solutions has
> > > >> > no
> > > >> > interest in being the target of such actions, and, I am
> > > >> > certain,
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > NSF does not want to become one either. In the absence of
> > > >> > action,
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > number of lawsuits will likely increase as more demands for the
> > > >> > inclusion of additional TLDs are received.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Network Solutions has in the past reviewed and forwarded
> > > >> > requests
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > new TLDs to the IANA. With few exceptions, the TLDs, however,
> > > >>were for
> > > >> > new country code designations. Network Solutions consulted
> > > >> > with
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > IANA before including those TLDs on our root.zone file.
> > > >> > However, in
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > face of the IANA's unwillingness or inability to accept any
> > > >> > responsibility, and the impending legal threats, it appears
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > decision process will be limited at least initially to Network
> > > >> > Solutions operating in a responsible manner with NSF
> > > >> > concurrence.
> > > >> > We
> > > >> > envision that the administration of INternet top level domains
> > > >> > will
> > > >> > need to be conducted in this manner during the Cooperative
> > > >> > Agreement,
> > > >> > while the future governance issues of the Internet evolve and
> > > >> > mature.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Under the above circumstances, we believe that additional TLDs
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > be included on our root.zone file. We also believe that the
> > > >> > addition
> > > >> > of new TLDs will be beneficial to a more competitive
> > > >> > environment
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > desirable for a further commercialization of Internet
> > > >> > registration
> > > >> > services at this time. Accordingly, it is our intention to
> > > >> > announce
> > > >> > publicly that on July 15, 1997 Network Solutions will begin
> > > >> > accepting
> > > >> > applications to include new TLDs on the root.zone file from
> > > >> > PGMedia,
> > > >> > Iperdome, and other interested parties.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > By this letter, we seek NSF's concurrence in this action, and
> > > >> > respecfully request your response no later than June 25, 1997,
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > allow us sufficient time to finalize our plan and to report to
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > Federal Court in the PGMedia suit. Network Solutions believes
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > is imperitive to proceed with the public announcement of this
> > > >> > plan,
> > > >> > and urges NSF's prompt consideration of an concurrence on the
> > > >> > implementation process.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >[end of excerpt]
> > > >> >
> > > >> > NSF's response letter:
> > > >> >
> > > >>http://name.space-beats-internic.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI06251997
> > > >>.jpg
> > > >>>
> > > >> > index of other exhibits:
> > > >> > http://name.space-beats-internic.net/law/answers/letters/
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Transcript of Oral Arguments, July 20, 1998:
> > > >> >http://name.space-beats-internic.net/law/july20transcript.html
> > > >>
> > > >> **********************************************************************
> > > >> ****
> > > >> *
> > > >> The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP
> > > >>Insur-
> > > >> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of
> > > >> Telecomm.See
> > > >> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) |
> > > >>http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html
> > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK
> > > >> Report,
> > > >> how
> > > >> to
> > > >> subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at
> > > >> http://www.cookreport.com
> > > >>
> > > >>************************************************************************
> > > >>****
> > > >>*_>>
> > > >>*
> > > >
> > > >----------------------------------
> > > >E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Date: 18-Mar-99
> > > >Time: 21:02:41
> > > >----------------------------------
> > > >"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
> > > >of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
> > > >- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
> >
> > ----------------------------------
> > E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 18-Mar-99
> > Time: 21:39:21
> > ----------------------------------
> > "We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
> > of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
> > - Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Contact Number: 972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18-Mar-99
Time: 22:23:31
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
