William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> 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).
Than do it.
>
>
> But I am not so arrogant to believe that I should run hundreds or thousands of
> TLDs.
Who is to say what you should or should not do William? Is there some
LAW that prevents you or anyone from doing so? No, there is not. Is it
a good or bad idea? That depends who you ask. Is it financially viable?
Maybe, maybe not. Some might be. Would, in your proposed scenario
here, all of these TLD's bee seen? by anybody on the net using your
system? Probably not. Which takes us back to whether they are financialy
viable or useful, doesn't it? And if the answer here is no, then why do it?
>
>
> Of course, lack of arrogance is not a trait you are that familiar with, so it
> should be of no surprise.
Well as you have no basis for making this slur of a comment, I will just
chalk it up to ignorance.
>
>
> 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.............
The question is not whether or not I, or anyone sides with anyone else.
The question(s) are really whether or not there is to be new TLD's.
Whether or not there is to be a structured approach as to how those
TLD's are to be added. Not whom should add them and their level of
arrogance is relevant. My point is that if Paul was FIRST in suggesting
some TLD's be added he should get them added to the current root
structure, or possibly the legacy root structure needs expanding??
In any case, we have a situation where either you add new TLD's to the
current Root structure ( WIth possibly new Root servers ) or you
change the current root structure to allow for a more dynamic DNS
system, or there is going to be gross fragmentation of the DNS.
Your choice. Or should I say, OUR choice. No, not ours, says the
ICANN. It is going to be ICANN's choice, take it or leave it! Ahhhh,
so, we now have a situation where there is a great potential for
either a fragmented DNS, and as such a potential for a broader
market place, which creates healthy competition by it very nature.
Now, as of January 16th the DOC has created new classes of
Trademark's for "Things that are internet related". How does this fit
into the mix one might ask oneself? Well, that depends on the enterprising
nature of any individual or organization, doesn't it William? DO you have the
BIG picture yet William?
>
>
> 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.
> > >
> ----------------------------------
> 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
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
