On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 11:03:36AM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> 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.
Nope. Managed as a public trust.
> A chartered TLD that limits membership can not operate
> under such a mode.
Chartered TLDs are different than gTLDs.
> 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.
There would be no trademarked gTLDs. I don't expect there will ever
be a "trademarked gTLD", given that there is no unified international
trademark law.
[...]
> >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,
An ad hominem argument (note: "argument", not "attack") is an
attempt to discredit a proposition based on the character of the
person proposing the proposition. Calling a statement "hogwash" is
not an ad hominem...
> 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*
No. It didn't. Even Jay agrees that it explicitly limited itself
to the gTLDs. That's why it was called the "gTLD-MoU", didn't you
know?
> and ass-u-me-ed that it was all gTLD space. This sure sounds like
> generic take-over to me.
You aren't listening very carefully, then.
[...]
> >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.
Nope. No dictating involved -- just community control through a
representative organization (Note that POC *representatives* come
from many different organizations, and were to be elected by an open
membership body -- actually a whole lot simpler than ICANN.)
> Tell me when you
> stop chasing your logical tail. Although, you've been doing it so long that
> you may too dizzy to notice.
Please don't try to be verbally clever, Roeland. You just don't do
a very good job.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
