The original note, that I was responding to, was attached to the END of
that message. Did you read it? I have included it for you here. This was
a discussion between Zittrain, Sexton, Walsh, and myself. Prime Facae,
you seem to be taking the same view that I am. Now you come to me
demanding that I prove my view to you. Can you wonder that this causes
me to question a bit of your sanity? It seems that we are in "violent
agreement" on some of these points. The opening statement, that you are
having such heart-burn over, was merely A statement of opinion in the
discussion of what is to me a "corner case". I don't understand
non-profit, having been a capitalist all of my career. I have always
said so. I think that we are both arguing the capitalist view, which is
why I think we are in fundimental agreement. That your view of
capitalism may be different from mine, is probably very likely. However,
it doesn't seem to be pertinent to this thread.
I ask you, once again, to explicate your position in this regard. I am
quite willing to drop it, as you seem to be simply argumentative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:38:08 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
<richard@tangled.web> wrote:
>At 12:04 AM 7/9/99 -0400, Jon Zittrain wrote:
>><shrug> I just meant to list the sorts of pressures that have moved
DNS
>>issues squarely out of the realm of the technical. I understand that
some
>>entrepreneurs want *un*shared registries--they could make lots of
money as
>>the sole holders of them--while others want a piece of a registry:
witness
>>the number of companies seeking to join the shared registration system
for
>>.com, .net, and .org. And, the White Paper--which I think I've seen
you
>>call a consensus document at times--does reference the idea. I
>>dunno. Doesn't seem like bias to me to simply include it on the list,
but
>>I suppose he who has the blinders on doesn't readily know what he's
>>missing. ...JZ
>
>Uh, I don't think the guy doing .FREE was planning
>on being "an entrapeneur wanting to make a lot
>of money". Some people probably do, while others
>hum the cost recovery mantra.
>
>Shared/non-shared, registry/registrar vs. peered registry,
>non-profit/for-profit/low-profit...
>it's a big mix and there's a lot of permutations
>and combinations. Again, all the world's not
>.com and there are too many applications of the
>DNS to be covered under a single homogensous model,
>no matter how well it may or may not work for .com.
Our .BOX would be setup as a $5/2 year service.
Oh yeah, we would get real rich on that. NOT.
We are going ahead with it anyway, we have setup a third level
registry to mirror registrations under, and will operate it for free
at the moment.
When I was with ML.org we talked quite frequently about how it would
be great to operate a totally free user supported registry for second
level domains under a free TLD.
This constant idea of there being a single workable model for TLDs is
absolutely wrong. ML.org operated a 3rd level registry with WELL over
150,000 domains when it was shut down (I never got the final number
before it was closed, but estimates from a member of the board put the
number just short of 200,000). DHS.org, formed by some former ml.org
staff, currently is just short of 30,000 domains in their free 3rd
level registry. People who need personal domains WILL support
non-profit and low profit models. Some people who need commercial
domains but are willing to live with a much lower level of service
guarantee in exchange for the low entry cost would also support these
models.
-- William X. Walsh General Manager, DSo Internet Services Email: william@dso.net Fax:(209) 671-7934"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear." --Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999) - This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/
--------------------------------------------------
> Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 1999 1:41 PM > > At 01:24 PM 7/10/99 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > >I have no idea what you are talking about, since you've cut > out ALL of > >the pertinent original text. > >You also don't contribute anymore content in this message. > > > >Would you kindly re-state your issue? I am unclear as to what it is. > >Just what is your point with all of this? I presume that you > have one, > >of course. > > This was then opening of your note to which I originally responded: > > At 07:52 AM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote: > >Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:52:46 -0700 > >Reply-To: rmeyer@mhsc.com > >Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <owner-domain-policy@internic.net> > >From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> > >Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells > the quill holder > >what > > to write? > >To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET > > > >According to ICANN, you would have to charge $1US per > domain, as a floor > >price. I don't see provisions for "free" registries. You > would have to > >operate outside of the ICANN scope. > > You make an assertion about ICANN that is false, namely their > view that a > registrar would have to charge at least a specific amount. > And you make an > "economic" assertion that is false, namely that ICANN should > treat "free" > registries specially. > > These are simple and direct assertions you made and my > response to them has > been in kind. > > That makes it curious that you don't see the point, instead > choosing to > invoke ad hominem dismissal. > > d/ > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-=-=-=-=-= > Dave Crocker Tel: +1 > 408 246 8253 > Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 > 408 273 6464 > 675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>