Re: Warehousing

[Hank Nussbacher <hank@ibm.net.il>]

At 05:08 PM 6/21/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Hank and all,
>
>Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>> 
>> At 02:11 PM 6/21/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
>> >Hank,
>> >
>> >Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>> >>
>> >> At 06:03 PM 6/20/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
>> >> >Richard and all,
>> >> >
>> >> >Richard Hovey wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Difficult to police.  Suppose Digital wanted a different domain in
>> >> >> every
>> >> >> > country it operated.  You gonna penalize them?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What do you mean "suppose"?  see
>> >> >> http://www.itu.int/net-itu/gtld-mou/signat-d.htm
>> >> >
>> >> >  Yes, this does point out that DIgital has several diffrent
>> >> >signatories.
>> >> >One curious thing on the list is that the United States has not yet
>> >> >singed the gTLD-MoU yet....
>> >>
>> >> Considering that IAHC/iPOC is *not* looking for government signatures but
>> >> rather for industry signatures, I don't see the problem.  -Hank
>> >
>> >  Nice try to sidetrack the problem, but won't work.  If the FCC is not
>> >in approval and IAHC/iPOC does not comply with the 1995
>> >telecommunications
>> >act, you don't have a implimentable plan.  In addition without the
>> >US governments approval of the perposal and the gTLD-MoU, you again have
>> >very little basis for continueing.
>> >
>> >  I am not saying that all is lost.  Not hardly!  But without some
>> >serious modification and detailing of the Perposal and the gTLD-MoU
>> >in the very near future, I can't see any future in it.
>> 
>> Just for the edification of those on pab-discuss, can you fill us in on your
>> background and your current position so we all understand with what
>> authority you are making these conclusions?
>
>  If you are speeking to me, Jeff Williams, that I don't have any
>authority what so ever other than a voting tax payer.  As to who I
>am and what I do, that is in my sig file below.  Not to mention
>CO-Founder of IEG. INC.  if that helps any?  We will review and
>continue to review the gTLD-MoU as it progresses or not.  Upon
>it reaching a point where we feel comfortable with sighning it,
>we (with my signature and two others, my other co-founders) shall
>sign it.  But not until that time.  Whenever that is.
>
>  We here at IEG. do not make a habit of signing any document
>that is not in bothe the intrests of our customers, the public,
>and our company.  At present and in it's present form, the gTLD-MoU
>is not seen by our board, as being such a document at this time.
>
>  It neither meets the needs or desires of our customers, from our
>polling, nor in our humble opinion the publics best intrest.  There
>are parts of it that do meet our companys intrests, but only in 
>a curserary way.
>
>  But as Scott said earlier, without being a PAB member or some 
>reasonable access to POC members, we find it unecessarly dificult
>to reasonably participate in assisting in improving the verbage
>of the gTLD-MoU, hence we feel that this is an unecessary impedance
>to making reasonable progress towards our company and all it's
>subsidearies, of signing this document.

Sorry for the confusion.  Can you point me to the homepage of your
conglomerate (I assume it has links to your subsidiaries).

>
>> 
>> Hank
>> 
>> >>
>> >> >>
>
>regards,
>-- 
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
>Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
>Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
>E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
>
>
Hank Nussbacher
iPOC member
[The views expressed above are the authors alone and may not reflect
the view of other iPOC members]