Bradley and all,
First let me say I commend you on this very excellent response.
(More comments below yours here Bradley)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, matt hooker wrote:
>
> > November 19, 1999
> >
> >
> > I have found that there is a tremendous push, to approve new gTLD,s
> > as quickly as possible, and as many as possible. This push is due
> > to ideological, political or financial interests that have nothing
> > to do with the real interests of the Internet as a whole. I am
> > calling for an immediate moratorium of the approval of new
> > gTLDs.
>
> Matt,
>
> You seem to not understand that this only concerns the approval of new or
> existing gTLDs into the legacy root server system. The fact is that many
> of these gTLDs have been in operation for many succesful years
> commercially, and although they are not part of the legacy root serer
> system, they nevertheless continue to exist and thrive.
The fact that there are other gTLD's in existence and operation, I don't
really believe that they are "Thriving". Although their exceptance may be
growing somewhat, they are prevented form entry into the once publicly
held legacy Roots illegitimately as has been discussed and debated on other
venues, some of which are now defunct (CORE, gTLD-MoU, ect...).
And this is and has always been the crux of this problem. It will remain
so unless or until the legacy roots are opened up to REAL competition,
with the addition of new gTLD's, additional REGISTRIES, and a
shared root system or there is sufficient financial and marketing backing
for these existing and additional gTLD's and Registries.
>
>
> Prolonging what has already been an exhuastive process will only serve to
> make the legacy root server system even more obsolete, as many of the Root
> Server Confederations already envision little need in the not too distant
> future for it's continuted use.
Let's hope this is so, but it remains to be seen just yet.
>
>
> Acceptance of the existing gTLDs (and some ccTLDs) that you claim to be
> "NEW" into the legacy root server system (Which you claim as some sort of
> approval) is required if the legacy root server system's existance, or at
> least it's significance, is to be preserved.
Preserved. A very interesting word here. Kinda makes me think of
the ancient method of preserving bodies the Egyptians used. Mummification.
It works, yes, but remember those guys are long dead. >;)
>
>
> Those of us managing these commercial TLDs (which you claim are new gTLDs
> and new ccTLDs) actually stand to benifit more in the long run as more and
> more people abandon the legacy system in its obsolescence.
>
> furthermore, anyone who believes that your motivation is other than a
> sound business posturing to permit you precious time to sell namespace at
> a premium - while it is indeed at a premium - is either in that game with
> you or woefully gullible.
I could not agree more with you here Bradley! >;)
>
>
> I do not fault you for this business strategy, but rather applaud your
> keen sense of direction, yet I site this as your premise nonetheless.
How very observant of you and very true. The "Gamesmanship" here
is so obvious in Matt's remarks/comments it is hard to keep a straight
face. I can't believe the he or anyone else with a modicum of intelligence
would buy into his argument.
So in closing here let me postulate that Matt's comments were more
along the lines of "Sauce for the goose". But that Goose has been cooking
for quite awhile now. >;)
>
>
> Bradley D. Thornton
> Manager Network Services
> Northtech Computer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
