On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:44:49 -0700, Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 01:25 PM 7/13/99 , Christopher Ambler wrote:
>>and want to regulate the heck out of it, deven dictating business models,
>>such as non-profit and cost-recovery mandates.
>
>
>For those missing the basis for the attempt at irony, the reference
>pertains to the decision to require a top-level registry (e.g., the
>organization holding and controlling .com or the like) to be non-profit,
>versus permiting it to be for-profit.
>
Rather than letting multiple gTLDs exist, with different models, and
letting consumers decide which they prefer.
The difference is that Dave's view doesn't permit anything BUT his
view, whereas Chris's permits both of them (and others) to coexist.
You decide who is more reasonable.
--
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)
