At 08:10 AM 3/29/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 11:48:19PM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> In short, the letter code that defines some subset
>> of the nearly infinite domain name space, whether
>> that letter code be "per" or anything else, should be
>> set by international agreement and freely available
>> to every prospective domain name holder to use,
>> through whatever registrar that prospective registrant
>> may choose.
>
>That was *precisely* what the gTLD-MoU proposed.
... and is precisely what was wrong with it. It left NO room for privately
controlled TLDs. In fact this presumes to have ownership control in
gTLD-MoU hands. A chartered TLD that limits membership can not operate
under such a mode. Registrars *must* be qualified to register within such a
TLD and denial of registrar capability/privileges are a requirement for the
enforcement of this. Otherwise, gTLDs are useless. This removes a primary
control mechanism from a trademarked gTLD and may, in fact, be an illegal
restriction.
>[...]
>
>> >P.S. ICANN appears to agree with you. They
>> >claim ownership over *all* names in the legacy
>> >name space.
>>
>> ICANN and I could not be more in DISagreement.
>> That they may have administrative responsibility
>> over all names does not mean that they own them.
>> ICANN does not own diddly squat.
>
>You should not just blindly take Jay's word for anything about ICANN.
>ICANN DOESN'T CLAIM TO OWN ANYTHING.
>
>> And thank you for this thoughtful response.
>>
>> May the beating commence.
>
>Bill, you should know by now that Jay continuously and knowingly
>spreads disinformation about the MoU and about ICANN.
>
>For example, in his message "Power Politics and the New
>Internet Order" he wrote about the MoU as follows: "It would have
>established an authority control model of governance, and it claimed
>ownership over the entire name space."
>
>This is complete hogwash.
And your assertion here, aside from being a pure ad hominem attack against
Jay, is also false. You even provide the proof yourself, in the first
paragraph, *that you wrote*, in this very message. This of course,
eliminates the possibility that you are being disingenuous and only leaves
the option of massive stupidity, on your part. Are you starting to heal
from your lobotomy yet?
The gTLD-MoU claimed ownership control over *everything outside of IANA
control* and ass-u-me-ed that it was all gTLD space. This sure sounds like
generic take-over to me.
>David Maher, chair of the POC, wrote to Jay as follows:
>
> "For the record, the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC), formed
> by IANA and ISOC, was charged with developing a plan for the
> generic TLD space. The gTLD-MoU was developed for that purpose
> only. It explicitly did not deal with the restructuring of IANA or
> the ccTLD space, which the Green and White Papers covered in
> addition to the gTLD space.... I'd appreciate it if you'd
> distribute the correction to your comment about the gTLD-MoU to the
> recipients of the original."
>
>To which Jay replied, after agreeing that David was correct:
>
>>I'd prefer not to correct the original,
>>since your comment addresses a very small
>>component of a much larger message.
>
>(David sent this exchange to the POC list).
>
>But in fact, of course, the "much larger message" is just as
>inaccurate...
>
>Neither the gTLD-MoU (note, by the way the "gTLD" part of the name),
>nor ICANN, claim "ownership" of the name space, and the very notion
>is almost totally meaningless.
Yet, you want to dictate terms from an owners perspective. Tell me when you
stop chasing your logical tail. Although, you've been doing it so long that
you may too dizzy to notice.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
