Re: People mass-purchasing domains

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

Dan,

Dan Baker wrote:
> 
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > Dan,
> >
> > Dan Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >You will probably note that these discussions lack participation
> > > > >from U.S. citizens and U.S. business owners. In the U.S. it is
> > > > >illegal to engage in the development of franchise schemes without
> >
> > > > >the necessary disclosure documents and various government
> > > > >registrations.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am a US Citizen.  And frankly, these discussions aren't
> > "developing"
> > > anything.  You are all just jockeying for position.
> >
> >   Who is the "YOU"  in you?  Be spicific please.  Somewhat hard to
> > difrentiate what your post here is trying to point out.
> 
> Sorry.  When I meant you.  As in Jeff Williams and You as in Adam Todd
> and you as in all of the participants who think they are accomplishing
> anything in this forum.  But my post is mostly directed at the opponents
> of the gTLD-MoU.
> 
> > >
> > > You aren't cooperating in a development effort here.  You aren't
> > solving
> > >
> > > any problems, technical or otherwise.  Your discussions here don't
> > > amount to a hill of dingo dung. (That was for you Adam.)  So what
> > crime
> > > am I breaking by making this post?  The title of this list is
> > > DOMAIN-POLICY.  What policies have you produced here?  What
> > authority do
> > >
> > > you have in this "development effort"?
> >
> >   I would say that everyone has the same authority as anyone else
> > on this list.
> 
> I asked what authority you have in a "development effort".  Are you all
> going to vote and then come to a resolution for some new policy?  No.

  Right I agree we or at least some are not.  Percisely.  Yes I am NOT
infavor of the gTLD-MoU in it's current form.  Especially the contract
that requires a $10k entry fee for becoming a registry weather or not
you qualify, THEY (gTLD-Mou) perponents and the ISOC/IANA/iPOC/PAB/CORE
keep the money reguardless.  Oh HELL no I would never sign an ileagle
contract such as that!  But of course the *I's* are going to save us 
all from InterNic doom right?  Please!

> You are just going to keep blowing a lot of a lot of hot air around.  If
> you are in the eTLD camp you are going to try to justify the danger you
> pose to the Internet and blame the evil powers-that-be for the harm you
> cause.  Others, like me, will condemn you for it.  But you aren't
> "developing" anything here except your own egos

  Not hot air, IDEAS.  Can you spell that?  I D E A S.  There you go!
Do you know te diffrence between IDEA and HOT AIR?  From what you
say here I have my doubts, but I shall refrain form concluding on that
just yet.  Maybe you are one of the "Clue-Less" to which Rick Wesson
speeks of?  I don't know myself, but it does apear you are looking at
things in that manner judging form this post to my response.

  Yes, we are building, perposing and interconnecting.  I don't see any
of that yet from the "i's" as of yet.  They will have their opertunity
to be part of whe IS BUILT and BEING BUILT.  As of now of the gTLD-MoU
proponents have is a perposal and some infrustructure procedures.  This
does nothing subsitive.  But can be helpful long term.  I myself am
not compleatly against these endevors at all.  But to do so in an
centerlized and somewhat exclusive manner, I AM against.  I have and
will continue to perpose that a "Working together" approach be taken.
In the mean time the BUILDING of subsitive RSC's will continue.  

  BTW, several ISP do point to these RSC already.  Do your homework
a little better befor making that kind of inaccurate remark.  It is
both inflamatory and more importantly, misleading.
> 
> > >
> > > The gTLD group is doing it's thing just like AURSC is doing it's
> > thing
> > > and ALTER-NIC is doing it's thing.  The difference is that the gTLD
> > > crowd has a lot of clout behind them and the rest of you don't have
> > > squat.  They may not have their Ps and Qs in perfect order yet, but
> > at
> > > least they are not going off half cocked and starting their own Root
> >
> > > Servers System without council and careful planning.
> >
> >   I would say that the opposite is true.  At least Alter-Nic, AURSC at
> >
> > least have working Domain servers up.  The gTLD-MoU crowd as you put
> > it here, does not.  Proof is in the putting I would say.  The InterNIc
> >
> > on the other hand controls .COM, .ORG, .NET, and hence have several
> > Domain Root servers up an running.  So I would say that your statment
> > lacks ANY facts.  Just conjecture.  Which is fine.  But has no barring
> >
> > on anything but your opinion.
> 
> You seem to think that putting an root server on the net gives you
> clout.  It doesn't.  It makes you an obnoxious menace.  Clout is having
> 100% of the ISPs looking at your name servers.  And that spells
> Inter-Nic.  Clout is IANA, ISOC, and the ITU.  Clout is something that
> the RSCs don't have.  They are children with loaded guns.  And they are
> just as likely to shoot themselves as they are anyone else.  Take for
> example Eugene Kashpureff.  Is he still in hiding?

  I don't think that putting any root server gives ME anything, other
than an opertunity to allow the user community a CHOICE.  So again you
seem to favor speculation, and tell me what I THINK!  Not so.  And I
hereby
publicly state so.
> 
> > >
> > > The "RSCs" as you call them are potentially going to fragment the
> > > Internet.  Most people are not technical enough (nor do they want to
> >
> > > be), to change their name server settings.  Most people don't even
> > know
> > > what a name server setting is.  So depending on your ISP you may or
> > may
> > > not be able to get to a given site.  You aren't making the Internet
> > > better.  You are ruining it for everyone.
> >
> >   Potentialy, is not the same as doing so.
> 
> Oh, I see.  So it's OK to point the gun as long as we don't pull the
> trigger.

  No gun involved at all.  Your refrence here is inaccurate and
not relevent to the facts.
> 
> > Yes there is that potential.
> > But this can easly be avoided if the gTLD-MoU and the InterNic folks
> > wish
> > to cooperate and carry those TLD's in their roots for the benifit of
> > all
> > concerned.
> 
> > Otherwise THEY will be the caus of any fragmentation that
> > MAY occur.
> 
> It's interesting how you assign blame.  It will be their fault for
> taking careful steps to ensure stability and not bowing to extortion.
> But of course the RSCs who introduce the instability anyway won't be to
> blame at all.  No.  They just want the Internet to be a better place.

  What extortion do you refer to.  What is your evidance of such a
charge?
Where and whom is attempting to extract any monies from the gTLD-MoU
group?  Where is your HARD evidance?  If you have it please feel free to
send to me privatly or share it with the list.  If you dare?  Otherwise
do everyone a favor and quit spouting "HOT AIR" and "False Accusations"!
> 
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > --
> > > DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to
> > <listserv@lists.internic.net>
> > > To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF
> > DOMAIN-POLICY"
> > > For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
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