Re: My Take/Dec 19 draft

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave,

  Please read below your comments.

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> Jeff,
> 
>         One can only applaud your willingness to pay for professionals to
> assist you.

  You are very welcome.
> 
> At 10:17 AM -0800 12/28/96, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >tommarow afternoon form him.  I am also forwarding all
> >correspondance I have posted in response to those
> >attournys for immediate review and response back with
> 
>         glad to see it, when it arrives.

  I will be glad to share it with everybody.
> 
> >and others on this list.  Namely (Again sorry to say):
> >
> >1.) 60 day waiting period.
> >2.) $20k fee for application
> >3.)Linkage of #1 and 2
> 
>         Again sorry to say, 1 & 2 are not linked.  This has been stated
> enough times to make one wonder at your continuing to characterize it
> otherwise.  At the least, you need to define what you mean by linkage.

  I fails to see how if after aplying and paying the $20k fee and than
waiting for processing See, From the draft! 

Notification period within ISO 3166 name spaces(modification)

In further considering the existing operation of the ISO 3166 second
level domain spaces, IAHC recommends that the administrators of these
spaces add a fixed 60 day notification period between application and
delegation as a means of reducing the subsequent levels of litigation
within these name spaces, as per the related
recommendations in section 4 of this document relating to gTLDs.

  I would say it is not direct but inplied. 
> 
> >5.) Sharing of GTLD's and the tech. capability of doing so.
> 
>         I'd be delighted to hear your technical evaluation of the problems
> which cause the sharing to be a concern.

  Can you show me a working shared gTLD?  According to IETF group, which
I 
am a member in good standing this is considered problamatic at best
currently.
To my knowledge thre is no shared gTLD's.  I believe that it CAN be done
as I have stated several times on this list, but it may indeed not be a
wise thing technecly to do.  Possition papers were filed just after the 
last IETF meeting In San Jose along these lines.


  Lastly, there are several other provisions in this draft which I find
weakly
stated.  Which leaves too much for interpratation.  If you wish I will
cover
those point by point in another posting.

Regards,
> 

> 
> Also:  IAHC member, expressing strictly (or loosely) personal opinions

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com