Nothing but more hot air from Jeff.
On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> 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
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19-Mar-99
Time: 00:58:11
----------------------------------
"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
