Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

"The trouble is that ICANN is artificially restricting the supply of
TLDs thus preventing competition between monopoly gTLD registries.  If
ICANN opened up the gTLD space further than what you say would have
more validity.

AT present if you want a global website in an unmoderated gTLD your
only choice is Verisign or .info (which is hardly commercial). "

And who buys domain names because they are part of an unmoderated namespace?
You are fabricating purchasing behaviors that simply don't exist in the real
world. People buy domain in TLDs that they can identify with. They are happy
to play by the rules that the TLD operates under because they want to be
identified with that TLD. If anything, there are probably more "rules" in
the "unmoderated" TLDs than there are in the "moderated" ones. Check out the
dotCOM standard registration agreement that is outlined in the registrar
agreements - they are anything but brief and totally represent a level of
"moderation" similar  to those found in the country namespaces like dotCA
etc.

I completely agree that the namespace needs to be opened up, but you aren't
moving the discussion forward with the fallacies that you present. Rather,
lets start with one really good reason why we should open the namespace up -
because we can and there is *no* good reason not to. For a dozen or so
equally good reasons, check out Brett Faussets treatise on the subject (
http://www.lextext.com/newTLDdiscussionpaper.html ). But please, don't mire
the discussion with the bizarre logic that have been floating around this
weekend. If I didn't know any better, I'd chalk all of this up to full-moon
fever.

Thanks,


                     -rwr




Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard



----- Original Message -----
From: "DPF" <david@farrar.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later


On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:32:42 -0400, "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
wrote:

>> You may understand that I fully share Elisabeth's feelings. But I am
>> interested in your justification of that $ 70.000 out of my family
pocket.
>> What is it, if not an US tax? Loot?
>
>It is the cost of the domain name. Sheesh. Have they thrown out capitalism
>over in Europe? If you don't want to pay, then use the IP address. If you
>don't want to use an IP address, find a TLD that better suits your needs.
It
>has never been a dotcom world and its certainly not a gTLD world.

The trouble is that ICANN is artificially restricting the supply of
TLDs thus preventing competition between monopoly gTLD registries.  If
ICANN opened up the gTLD space further than what you say would have
more validity.

AT present if you want a global website in an unmoderated gTLD your
only choice is Verisign or .info (which is hardly commercial).

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527

--
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