Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> 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.
BS.
>
>
> > A chartered TLD that limits membership can not operate
> > under such a mode.
>
> Chartered TLDs are different than gTLDs.
com/net/org were chartered TLD's as well a gTLD's..
>
>
> > 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.
Well watch and learn, you will fine that if you read the USPTO
new classifications for "Those things that are Internet" in the
January 16th new classifications for TM's you will see plainly
or fairly plainly that you are likely to be mistaken here.
>
>
> [...]
>
> > >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...
And this statement is Hogwash as well....
>
>
> > 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.
More BS. But than again I guess that is why you got the
infamous nick name of "Crispy" (As in Brain), Crispin...
>
>
> [...]
>
> > >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.)
More BS. There never was and still isn't a "OPen" membership body
in the POC/PAB/CORE, well you all know the rest....
>
>
> > 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
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
