RE: Re[4]: [ga] cenam fortunae

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
|> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 1:25 AM
|> 
|> Tuesday, Tuesday, October 09, 2001, 1:06:57 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> |>> From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
|> |>> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 12:28 AM
|> |>> 
|> |>> Monday, Monday, October 08, 2001, 11:18:08 PM, Roeland 
|> Meyer wrote:
|> |>> > But that doesn't matter because
|> |>> > ICANN set much of the policies via contract, which no one 
|> |>> has a say in, and
|> |>> > consumers don't have many other places to go from there either.
|> |>> 
|> |>> Sure they do, they have those wonderful alt.root systems 
|> you people
|> |>> are always saying are so superior.
|> 
|> > Bzzzt, you failed!
|> > I said "many" not "any" and your sarcasm detector ... she'sa broke.
|> 
|> Hmm, how are you defining many?  Last time I checked there were
|> several hundred top level domains in the various alt.root systems (I
|> would say "Several hundred registries" but my definition of registry
|> is set a bit higher than these would qualify for).

If they all have the same policy-set then, to the consumer, it doesn't
matter how many there are. I think that you know my standards by now
William. I published them in Oct98. None of the current "Registries" meet
them and with the sole exception of Verisign/NSI, none of them have proven
to have the capability to meet those standards. That goes for the inclusive
roots as well. None of them are willing/able to deliver the service level
required. ICANN is unwilling to raise the bar as well.


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html