>From: John Charles Broomfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Power Politics and the New Internet Order
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Lovell)
>Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:10:43 -0400 (AST)
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
>
>
>Hi Bill, I think you replied privately to me. In any case, I agree with you
>completely.
>
>John.
>
>> At 04:34 PM 3/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> >Hi Jay,
>> >
>> >> Maybe I'm being simplistic, but I see
>> >> two choices moving forward: Regulation
>> >> or competition. I support the latter,
>> >> and based on my personal observations,
>> >> so does NSI.
>>
>> > That obviously puts your
>> >".per" gamble in a bad situation (as it does for all others who have
>> >unilaterally declared themselves "owners" of a particular gTLD that
they may
>> >think they have coined).
>> >
>> The idea that a particular registrar "owns" a particular gTLD is rather
>> bothersome. One should be able to register a XXX.yyy name with
>> a registrar of one's choice. It is of course the NSI claim to own
>> .com, etc., which started this whole silliness. Does AT&T own "800?"
>> I don't think so -- I think 800 numbers (or 888, etc.) can come from
>> Sprint and others as well. Someone please correct me if I am
>> making some wrong assumptions here.
>>
>> Bill Lovell
>>
