[wg-c] A question about .INT

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Hi Mike,

There is a person on a mailing list who seems to have a propriatary interest
in .INT, or is equivalently free associating. Here's the blurp in question:

>From the standpoint of economic policy, one new
>TLD, devoted to some relatively minor market segment such as
>.mus, will tell us absolutely nothing about any trademark or
>competition policy considerations that might be posed by the
>addition of new TLDs. A .mus TLD might be lucky to get 500 new
>registrations in its first year. What would we know at the end
>of that period? Nothing new. We had similar experiences with the
>addition of .int a few years ago.

The author of this oddly pronouned prose appears to think that .INT was
conceived in joy and welcomed without reserve -- not quite the way you
recounted in Minneapolis. A $.25 tour of the history of .INT would be in
order. If you are too busy (or wouldn't touch this with a 10' pole), not
to worry. This is just a side issue. It just bothers me when people fake
what they need to make a point, when the truth is out there.

Cheers,
Eric
P.S. "The truth is out there" is "Walillak daligen" in Abenaki.
---
The mystery guest is Milton Meuller, one of the many voluable ones the DNS
Wars have brought to the surface of our little puddle, and the mailing list
is WG-C, a no-exit sort of thing two layers down in the ICANN mud bath.