On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 13:41:08 -0700, Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 01:24 PM 7/10/99 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>I have no idea what you are talking about, since you've cut out ALL of
>>the pertinent original text.
>>You also don't contribute anymore content in this message.
>>
>>Would you kindly re-state your issue? I am unclear as to what it is.
>>Just what is your point with all of this? I presume that you have one,
>>of course.
>
>This was then opening of your note to which I originally responded:
>
>At 07:52 AM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:52:46 -0700
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder
>>what
>> to write?
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>According to ICANN, you would have to charge $1US per domain, as a floor
>>price. I don't see provisions for "free" registries. You would have to
>>operate outside of the ICANN scope.
>
>You make an assertion about ICANN that is false, namely their view that a
>registrar would have to charge at least a specific amount. And you make an
>"economic" assertion that is false, namely that ICANN should treat "free"
>registries specially.
>
>These are simple and direct assertions you made and my response to them has
>been in kind.
Its simple, ICANN should not be charging a $1/domain fee at all.
ICANN needs to charge for services it actually renders. No service
that ICANN provides is tied to the quantity of second level domains.
>That makes it curious that you don't see the point, instead choosing to
>invoke ad hominem dismissal.
Dave, you are the most guilty on these lists of ad hominem attacks,
but your method of doing them is rather subtle, and that maybe goes
unnoticed by some.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
