Hello:

In our opinion, robin tldns represents more competition for icann.  It
already has competition but no one is taking the issues seriously.  People
want tld's today - not tommorrow.  And if someone can give icann some
viable competition today - we'll be happy to work with them.

Santiago 1999 is nothing more then a legal fiasco which is going to become
very political.  I loved Twomey discussing people who sent press releases 
and stateing they don't know enough to make a difference - or something
to that effect.  Well Mr. Twomey, they must of done enough to make you
mention it ;-)

The difference between nixon and "this place" is that nixon, much like
.web is doing - not just talking - DOING.

To business - DOING is a radically better bet then TALKING.

Regards
Jeff Mason

--
Planet Communication & Computing Facility           [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Access Internet Research Publisher           1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033

On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Robin and all,
> 
>   Robin, yes I am with you I think.  But please understand, that I am not
> against what you purport to be about in general terms.  I do see
> a huge potential problem to which william eluded to.  Politically
> speaking I believe at this juncture that a huge number of gTLD's
> is not likely and is going to meet with allot of opposition from any
> number of groups at some juncture.  When?  I don't really know.
> 
>   On the financial front from a business development and marketing
> point of view, what you are proposing or working towards is a grass
> roots approach, that has a very small chance of long term survival
> without a substantial amount of funding per gTLD....  Do you have that
> funding, a funding model, a business plan for each gTLD?  Do you have a
> method technically of making any of all of the Domains registered within
> those gTLD name spaces, easily visible to everyone on the internet
> without any modifications to their dialer, or otherwise?
> 
> Robin Nixon wrote:
> 
> > >  I am afraid I must for the most part agree with WIlliam here.  As to
> > >the characterization of PGmedia, I don't agree with that.  But by in
> > >large, trying to claim ownership of a large number of gTLD's
> > >without the benefit of a TM on them or even with a TM, unless you
> > >can legitimately financially support those gTLD's, you are spitting
> > >in the wind, so to speak...
> >
> > TLDNS.COM chooses not to make claims. Neither in areas where others have
> > made claims nor in areas whhere they haven't (although our prior use
> > reserves us that right in this latter case). Instead our vision is for an
> > open naming system of unlimited 'TLD's - where different groups may look
> > after different areas for easy management - but where the names belong to
> > the Internet in general and not any single individual or organization.
> >
> > What we see is the need for (for example) Mr Fred Smith to get a name in
> > cybercspace that matches his own name. Now, fredsmith.com, org and .net are
> > probably gone, and there's not much else left. But with Infinite 'TLD's all
> > the Fre Smiths in the world get the chance at a good name:
> > fredsmith.flowers, fredsmith.baker, fred.smith .fredsmith
> > newsagnent.fredsmith, fredsmith.carpenter, fredsmith.3rd and so on. Finally
> > this person will be able to get a name that loks good instead of
> > members.aol.com/fredsmith/ or whatever.
> >
> > Or how about flower.arranging - would arranging be a popular TLD? No? So if
> > there isn;t unlimited 'TLD' space that great domain couled not exist. Then
> > what about films? summer.of.sam would be possible - south.park or
> > south.park.the.movie - how about eyes.wide.shut and so on?
> >
> > Or more personal 'home' pages robin.and.julie - fredsmiths.uncle -
> > marys.pricess.diana.page - are you with me yet?
> >
> > - Robin.
> 
> Kindest Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> 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
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to